Viewpoint

Supervised consumption rooms: The French Paradox

Opioid overdose is the second leading cause of accidental death. Safe Consumption Sites (SCSs) are very effective harm reduction, but skepticism persists in the U.S. In four U.S. states, legislative attempts failed, except for Rhode Island's “Harm Reduction Center,” (HRC), and New York City's “Overdose Prevention Centers” (OPP).

We hypothesized that compassion naming and framing would rate higher than safety/security or just-the-facts framing. Our mixed methods design included focus groups and a randomized experiment with an online panel of representative U.S. adults. All rated the title, description, and two or more images related to the program. Focus groups discussed impressions.

Of four packets seen (SCS, OPP, HRC, and SIF), OPP was the clear favorite in both studies. Unexpectedly, offering facts and statistics improved favorability. Compassionate language was a primary driver of favorability, followed by life-saving medical messaging. Imagery of people helping and smiling was liked best. Focus groups’ primary concern was about “their backyards,” but also, they desired to save lives and reduce suffering.

Stigma drove opposition to SCSs, as did conservative political affiliation. We provide finalized marketing packets which will reduce stigma and generate public support for SCSs.

Supervised consumption services (SCS) have been integrated into community health centres in Toronto. We draw on qualitative interviews and ethnographic observations to examine the implementation contexts of these SCS. Participants’ perspectives on the integration of SCS within CHCs were mixed. Some participants identified the benefits of integrated SCS such as convenience and access to other health and social services. However, others identified negative consequences of integration, including building design, lack of privacy and anonymity, and limited hours of operation. These perspectives highlight the ways in which contextual factors affect the experiences of clients in accessing SCS, and suggest that various factors need to be considered in order to improve service uptake.

Although the health and community benefits of supervised injection facilities are well documented, little is known about long-term patterns of utilization of this form of health service. The present study seeks to longitudinally characterize discontinuation of use of a supervised injection facility in Vancouver, Canada.

Data were drawn from 2 community-recruited prospective cohorts of people who inject drugs between December 2005 and December 2016. In 2018, extended Cox regression for recurrent events was used to examine factors associated with time to cessation of supervised injection facility use during periods of active injection.

Of 1,336 people who inject drugs that were followed for a median of 50 months, 847 (63.4%) participants reported 1,663 6-month periods of supervised injection facility use cessation while actively injecting drugs (incidence density of 26.6 events per 100 person-years). An additional 2,282 (57.8%) of the total 3,945 6-month periods of supervised injection facility use cessation occurred during periods of injection cessation. In multivariable analyses, enrollment in methadone maintenance therapy (adjusted hazard ratio=1.41) and HIV seropositivity (adjusted hazard ratio=1.23) were positively associated with supervised injection facility use cessation during periods of active injection, whereas homelessness (adjusted hazard ratio=0.59), at least daily heroin injection (adjusted hazard ratio=0.70), binge injection (adjusted hazard ratio=0.68), public injection (adjusted hazard ratio=0.67), nonfatal overdose (adjusted hazard ratio=0.73), difficulty accessing addiction treatment (adjusted hazard ratio=0.69), and incarceration (adjusted hazard ratio=0.70) were inversely associated with this outcome (all p<0.05). The most commonly reported reasons for supervised injection facility use cessation were injection drug use cessation (42.3%) and a preference for injecting at home (30.7%).

These findings suggest that this supervised injection facility successfully retains people who inject drugs at elevated risk of drug-related harms and indicate that many supervised injection facility clients neither use this service nor inject drugs perpetually.

In October 2016, the first French drug consumption room (DCR) opened in Paris. We propose to examine the process through which this issue has been framed as a matter of public concern, after being ignored for almost 20 years. Our analysis of the controversy on DCRs investigates how public conversations on harm reduction evolve according to the time period (from the 1990s to the present), scale of discourse (local vs. national), and involved actors (politicians, professionals, local residents, and drug users).

Our methodology includes analyses of media content: we reviewed 1735 articles published between 1990 and 2017. Our theoretical approach is in line with the sociology “des épreuves” derived from pragmatic sociology and controversy analysis. This approach goes beyond interactionism by attempting to place situations back into broader sociological realities. We also pay special attention to governance, a political lens that focuses on local aspects of negotiations and on the implication of a variety of actors.

While the current debate on DCRs in France draws on constraints and resources already present in the harm reduction debate of the 1980s, it also repositions itself by avoiding moral argumentation and featuring less confrontation in the professional sphere. Today, we can see that the center of this tense debate has shifted from the professional sphere to the political and residential spheres. Most often, residents advance concerns that are not directly related to drug users themselves, but that derive from their apprehension of living in a displaced and stranded neighborhood. The public conversation leaves little room for drug users, even though they are the primary stakeholders of harm reduction and play a crucial role in DCR advocacy.

Our work reveals that the controversy about DCR is the product of complex interactions between different kinds of actors harm reduction professionals, political actors at the local and national levels, local residents, and drug users. Comparing different instances of public debate reveals the specific limitations and potentials for change in French drug policy.