Research paper
Community attitudes towards harm reduction services and a newly established needle and syringe automatic dispensing machine in an inner-city area of Sydney, Australia

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drugpo.2015.05.010Get rights and content

Highlights

  • Automatic dispensing machines (ADMs) are a cost effective needle distribution method.

  • Implementation has been limited and met with apparent community concern.

  • A survey of local residents and businesses was conducted in the vicinity of an ADM.

  • In contrast to media reports, 60% of participants supported ADMs locally.

Abstract

Background

Automatic dispensing machines (ADMs) are an inexpensive method of increasing needle and syringe distribution to people who inject drugs but widespread implementation has been limited. The operation of ADMs in Australia has been met with apparent community opposition despite national data indicating support for harm reduction. Key community concerns include perceived increases in crime and drug use. This study aimed to examine community-level support for a newly implemented ADM in an inner-city Sydney area known for high levels of drug use.

Methods

Attitudes to harm reduction and ADMs were assessed via a brief face-to-face survey of local residents (n = 118) and businesses (n = 35) located within the vicinity of needle and syringe program (NSP) services including the ADM. Participation was voluntary and no reimbursement was provided. Univariate analysis assessed statistically significant differences between residents’ and businesses’ knowledge of, and support for, a range of harm reduction initiatives, both generally and in the local area. Univariate logistic regression models were used to determine factors associated with indicating support for an ADM locally.

Results

The response rate was higher among businesses (60%) compared to residents living in street-accessible dwellings (42%). Participants indicated support for fixed-site NSPs in general (83%) and locally (77%). Support for ADMs was slightly lower – 67% indicated support for ADMs generally and 60% locally. Negative opinions regarding ADMs (believing that they encourage drug use, attract drug users to the area and increase drug-related crime) were found to be significantly associated with a lower likelihood of indicating support for ADMs locally.

Conclusion

Despite media reports suggesting widespread community concern, there was general community support for harm reduction, including ADMs. While it is important that harm reduction services are aware of community concerns and respond appropriately, such responses should be considered and interpreted against a broader backdrop of support.

Introduction

Needle and syringe programs (NSPs) were initially introduced to prevent the transmission of HIV among people who inject drugs (PWID) and data from early ecological studies suggest that they were successful in achieving this aim (Des Jarlais et al., 1995, Hurley et al., 1997). NSPs distribute sterile injecting equipment to PWID with the aim of preventing blood-borne virus (BBV) transmission by reducing the reuse/sharing of contaminated needle and syringes. There is considerable evidence that NSPs are effective in reducing injecting-related risk (Palmateer et al., 2010) and they have been found to be cost-effective in the Australian context (Kwon et al., 2012).

Currently in Australia there are more than 3000 NSP sites (Victorian Department of Human Services, 2010). While operational policies vary, the mode of distribution can generally be classified as either fixed-site, mobile or outreach (World Health Organization, 2007). The three main types of fixed-site NSP services include primary (standalone) public NSPs, secondary public NSPs (offered as part of a range of other community services) and pharmacy-based programs (Dolan, MacDonald, Silins, & Topp, 2005). There are also automatic needle and syringe dispensing machines (ADMs) that dispense equipment at no cost or for a small fee (Victorian Department of Human Services, 2010).

Despite the benefits of NSP overall, a sterile needle and syringe is required for every injecting episode to prevent BBV transmission. In most contexts, however, coverage of NSPs is inadequate to achieve this outcome (Mathers et al., 2010, Vickerman et al., 2006). One potentially cost-effective approach to increasing NSP coverage is to provide sterile injecting equipment via ADMs that can operate over extended hours and offer anonymity to clients (Islam and Conigrave, 2007). ADMs have been found to be acceptable to users and complementary to existing services (Islam et al., 2009, McDonald, 2009), effective for providing sterile injecting equipment to younger (Islam et al., 2008a, Moatti et al., 2001) or marginalised (Obadia, Feroni, Perrin, Vlahov, & Moatti, 1999) PWID, and those who may be reluctant to attend staffed NSPs due to stigma and discrimination concerns (Islam, Wodak, & Conigrave, 2008). Yet despite enhanced access and potential cost-benefits, implementation internationally has not been widespread (Islam and Conigrave, 2007). Even in Australia, which is renowned for embracing harm reduction (Mathers et al., 2010) and boasts approximately 150 machines, implementation has been limited in many areas and ADMs are absent in three out of eight states and territories (Victorian Department of Human Services, 2010).

Harm reduction is a key component of the Australian National Drug Strategy and is supported by the general public in this country (Treloar and Fraser, 2007). Despite being a key harm reduction initiative, NSPs remain controversial and vulnerable to localised community opposition, which in some instances has resulted in service closures (Körner and Treloar, 2003, Southgate et al., 2000). Concern regarding NSP services include public amenity and discarded syringes, perceived drug-related and other crime, attracting drug users from outside the area into the neighbourhood and concern that children might access needles from the machine (Davidson and Howe, 2014, Körner and Treloar, 2003). While there is no published evidence to support these concerns, such misconceptions can undermine public confidence in this important public health intervention.

In Australia, the introduction of an ADM in an inner-city area of Sydney led to similar concerns being raised by the local community. Traditionally a working class area, the suburb had a long history of aboriginal settlement and racial tensions (Anderson, 1993, Shaw, 2007) and during the 1980s and 1990s developed a reputation as a major drug market (Gibson et al., 2003). While it has recently undergone intense gentrification given its proximity to the city centre and increased engagement with, support of and autonomy for the local aboriginal population, it has nevertheless remained an area with ongoing social issues and drug problems.

In early 2012, in response to ongoing drug-related issues, the local health district announced that an ADM would be introduced to supplement existing harm reduction services, which had been operating since 1995. The community response to this announcement was reported in the local print and state-wide radio and television media (Channel 10 News, 2013, Day et al., 2014, Fordham, 2013a, Fordham, 2013b, Fordham, 2013c, Fordham, 2013d, White et al., 2014). Media attention was largely focused on perceptions of a “honey-pot” effect, a perceived increased in crime, reduced public amenity and a poor understanding of the aims of harm reduction imbued with a sense of NIMBYism (‘not in my back yard’), remarkably similar to that described in San Francisco by Davidson and Howe (2014). Although there were multiple objections from both residents and business groups, it appeared at least some of the negative community sentiment arose from one particularly well-organised group. How much the opposing sentiments of the more active and vociferous members of this group represented the broader community remained unclear.

This study aimed to examine community-level attitudes to harm reduction services in an inner-Sydney neighbourhood known for high levels of drug use which had received media coverage of the community opposition to the implementation of an ADM. Specific aims were to determine (1) community awareness and support for harm reduction services in general and locally; (2) the proportion of community members who had observed discarded needle and syringes in the local area; and (3) factors associated with indicating support for the newly implemented ADM.

Section snippets

Methods

In April 2013, the ADM commenced operation, located within 50 metres of existing NSP services. In February 2014, 10 months following ADM installation, a face-to-face survey was undertaken, with both local residents and nominated representatives of local businesses (typically the owner or site manager) interviewed. All homes, units and businesses located on the streets directly surrounding the NSP services were approached. If no contact was made at the first attempt, the home or business was

Results

During February 2014, contact attempts were made with 463 street-accessible homes, 406 units and 87 businesses, with 241, 82 and 72 contacts made, respectively. The response rate varied but was highest among businesses (43/72, 60%) followed by residents living in street-accessible dwellings (102/241, 42%), with only 8/82 residing in units contacted via intercom agreeing to participate (10%). Overall, the survey was completed by 153 community members, including 103 residents, 35 businesses and

Discussion

This survey of households and businesses conducted 10 months following the installation of a needle and syringe automatic dispensing machine found high levels of support for harm reduction programs among a community affected by drug use. Support for fixed-site NSPs in general was particularly high, with 83% of participants indicating support for these programs. While support for the local ADM was somewhat lower at 60%, this finding nevertheless suggests that a majority of the local residents

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no financial or personal relationship with people or organisations that could inappropriately influence this work.

Acknowledgments

We are grateful to the Redfern residents and businesses who participated in the survey. The authors also acknowledge Shannon Less, Sian Woodmore and Lucia Evangelista who conducted the interviews. We thank all members of our Advisory Committee for their commitment, time and contribution to the development of the study protocol. This study was funded by Sydney Local Health District.

References (45)

  • R. Bedell

    The art and the science of scaling-up needle and syringe programmes

    Addiction

    (2007)
  • E.A. Bowen

    Clean needles and bad blood: Needle exchange as morality policy

    Journal of Sociology and Social Welfare

    (2012)
  • Channel 10 News

    Needle machine outrage

    (2013)
  • C.A. Day et al.

    The impact of automatic dispensing machine on a local community: Community support and no evidence of a honey-pot effect

  • D. Des Jarlais et al.

    Maintaining low HIV seroprevalence in populations of injecting drug users

    Journal of the American Medical Association

    (1995)
  • M.C. Doherty et al.

    The effect of a needle exchange program on numbers of discarded needles: A 2-year follow-up

    American Journal of Public Health

    (2000)
  • K. Dolan et al.

    Needle and syringe programs: A review of the evidence

    (2005)
  • M. Downing et al.

    What's community got to do with it? Implementation models of syringe exchange programs

    AIDS Education and Prevention

    (2005)
  • E. Duff

    The boy who shamed Sydney: A tragic tale to which there is no end, Sydney Morning Herald, 2 February

    (2014)
  • B. Fordham

    Syringe Vending Machine

    (2013)
  • B. Fordham

    Syringe Vending Machine #2

    (2013)
  • B. Fordham

    Syringe Vending Machine #3

    (2013)
  • Cited by (0)

    View full text