Acceptability of supervised injection facilities among persons who inject drugs in upstate New York

Eliana Duncan; Sarah Shufelt; Meredith Barranco; Tomoko Udo

doi:10.1186/s12954-022-00665-x

Acceptability of supervised injection facilities among persons who inject drugs in upstate New York

Harm Reduct J. 2022 Jul 30;19(1):87. doi: 10.1186/s12954-022-00665-x.

Authors

Eliana Duncan¹, Sarah Shufelt², Meredith Barranco², Tomoko Udo^{3

4}

Affiliations

¹ Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, School of Public Health, University at Albany, 1 University Place, Rensselaer, NY, 12144, USA. eduncan@albany.edu.
² Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, School of Public Health, University at Albany, 1 University Place, Rensselaer, NY, 12144, USA.
³ Department of Health Policy, Management, and Behavior, School of Public Health, University at Albany, 1 University Place, Rensselaer, NY, 12144, USA.
⁴ Center for Collaborative HIV Research in Practice and Policy, School of Public Health, University at Albany, 1 University Place, Rensselaer, NY, 12144, USA.

Abstract

Background: Supervised injection facilities (SIFs) provide spaces where persons who inject drugs (PWID) can inject under medical supervision and access harm reduction services. Though SIFs are not currently sanctioned in most of the US, such facilities are being considered for approval in several Upstate New York communities. No data exist from PWID in Upstate New York, and little from outside major US urban centers, on willingness to use SIFs and associated factors.

Methods: This analysis included 285 PWID (mean age = 38.7; 57.7% male; 72.3% non-Hispanic white) recruited for a study on hepatitis C prevalence among PWID in Upstate New York, where participants were recruited from syringe exchange programs (n = 80) and able to refer other PWID from their injection networks (n = 223). Participants completed an electronic questionnaire that included a brief description of SIFs and assessed willingness to use SIFs. We compared sociodemographic characteristics, drug use/harm reduction history, healthcare experience, and stigma between participants who were willing vs. unwilling to use such programs.

Results: Overall, 67.4% were willing to use SIFs, 18.3% unwilling, and 14.4% unsure. Among those reporting being willing or unwilling, we found higher willingness among those who were currently homeless (91.8% vs. 74.6%; p = 0.004), who had interacted with police in the past 12 months (85.7% vs. 74.5%; p = 0.04), and who were refused service within a healthcare setting (100% vs. 77.1%; p = 0.03).

Conclusion: Our results support SIF acceptability in several Upstate New York PWID communities, particularly among those reporting feelings of marginalization. A large proportion reported being unsure about usage of SIFs, suggesting room for educating PWID on the potential benefits of this service. Our results support SIF acceptability in Upstate New York and may inform programming for underserved PWID, should SIFs become available.

Keywords: Drug overdose; Harm reduction; New York State; Persons who inject drugs; Supervised injection facilities.

Publication types

Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

MeSH terms

Adult
Drug Users*
Female
HIV Infections* / prevention & control
Harm Reduction
Humans
Male
Needle-Exchange Programs
New York
Substance Abuse, Intravenous*