4.4 Article

It's not just injecting drugs: Supervised consumption sites and the social determinants of health

期刊

DRUG AND ALCOHOL DEPENDENCE
卷 213, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2020.108078

关键词

Supervised consumption sites; Harm reduction; Injection drug use; Social determinants of health; Service experiences; Qualitative research

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: People who inject drugs are highly vulnerable to social determinants of health (SDOH) inequities, such as homelessness, food insecurity, lack of social support, and poor access to healthcare. Supervised consumption sites (SCSs) have been developed to reduce harms associated with injection drug use but their social impacts remain largely unknown. This study explored service users' experiences with SCSs and how their service use affected their SDOH. Methods: A qualitative descriptive study design was used. Participants were recruited from an SCS in Ottawa, Canada. Data were collected using in-depth interviews (n=21). Data analysis involved two cycles of coding that were visibly presented in an analytic matrix. Member checking of the findings was then completed using two focus groups (n = 7). Results: Five themes were identified with regard to how SCSs impacted the SDOH: (1) social connectedness and community, (2) emotional support and stress reduction, (3) safety and security, (4) current shelter statuses and search for housing, and (5) health service access and use. The perceived effects of SCSs in these domains were mostly positive, though the importance of being vigilant and cautious when using the services was also expressed by participants. Conclusions: SCSs represent a potential downstream intervention to addressing some of the SDOH inequities experienced by people who inject drugs. In particular, the findings indicate that SCSs can be a bridge to rebuilding service users' connections with the healthcare system and an important service in efforts to prevent unsheltered homelessness.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据