TY - JOUR
T1 - Perspectives on supervised injection facilities among service industry employees in New York City
T2 - A qualitative exploration
AU - Wolfson-Stofko, Brett
AU - Elliott, Luther
AU - Bennett, Alex S.
AU - Curtis, Ric
AU - Gwadz, Marya
N1 - Funding Information:
The authors wish to thank Efram Thompson for his assistance with recruitment. The authors would also like to thank the Center for Drug Use and HIV Research (CDUHR) for support and guidance. This research was supported by a CDUHR pilot project grant ( 5P30DA011041-20 ) and Ruth L. Kirschstein National Service Award ( 5T32DA007233 ) awarded to the first author, as well as R01DA036754 awarded to study co-author Alex S. Bennet from the National Institute on Drug Abuse.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2018 Elsevier B.V.
PY - 2018/12
Y1 - 2018/12
N2 - Background: Approximately 100 supervised injection facilities (SIFs) operate in 66 cities around the world to reduce overdose deaths, the spread of disease and public disorder, though none legally exist in the United States. Public bathrooms are among the most common public places for injection reported by people who inject drugs in New York City (NYC) and service industry employees (SIEs) inadvertently become first-responders when overdoses occur in business bathrooms. The goal of this study was to assess SIE acceptability of SIFs and the perceived effects that SIFs would have on them, their colleagues, their businesses and communities. Methods: Semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted with 15 SIEs recruited through convenience sampling throughout NYC. Participants were provided with peer-reviewed scientific evidence prior to discussing SIFs. Data were analysed using a hybrid deductive and inductive approach. Results: Most SIEs had encountered drug use (93%, n = 14/15) and syringes (73%, n = 11/15) in their business bathrooms and three had encountered unresponsive individuals. Nearly all workers (93%, n = 14/15) were supportive of SIFs and believed SIFs would reduce injection drug use in their business bathrooms. Participants also believed that ‘not in my backyard’ arguments from community boards may impede SIF operation. Conclusions: Service industry employees are critical stakeholders due to their exposure to occupational health hazards related to public injection. Those interviewed were amenable to SIF operation as a form of occupational harm reduction and their experiences provide an important dimension to the political debate surrounding SIFs.
AB - Background: Approximately 100 supervised injection facilities (SIFs) operate in 66 cities around the world to reduce overdose deaths, the spread of disease and public disorder, though none legally exist in the United States. Public bathrooms are among the most common public places for injection reported by people who inject drugs in New York City (NYC) and service industry employees (SIEs) inadvertently become first-responders when overdoses occur in business bathrooms. The goal of this study was to assess SIE acceptability of SIFs and the perceived effects that SIFs would have on them, their colleagues, their businesses and communities. Methods: Semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted with 15 SIEs recruited through convenience sampling throughout NYC. Participants were provided with peer-reviewed scientific evidence prior to discussing SIFs. Data were analysed using a hybrid deductive and inductive approach. Results: Most SIEs had encountered drug use (93%, n = 14/15) and syringes (73%, n = 11/15) in their business bathrooms and three had encountered unresponsive individuals. Nearly all workers (93%, n = 14/15) were supportive of SIFs and believed SIFs would reduce injection drug use in their business bathrooms. Participants also believed that ‘not in my backyard’ arguments from community boards may impede SIF operation. Conclusions: Service industry employees are critical stakeholders due to their exposure to occupational health hazards related to public injection. Those interviewed were amenable to SIF operation as a form of occupational harm reduction and their experiences provide an important dimension to the political debate surrounding SIFs.
KW - Harm reduction
KW - Overdose
KW - People who inject drugs
KW - Public injection
KW - Risk environment
KW - Supervised injection facilities
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85055158197&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85055158197&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.drugpo.2018.08.016
DO - 10.1016/j.drugpo.2018.08.016
M3 - Article
C2 - 30359875
AN - SCOPUS:85055158197
SN - 0955-3959
VL - 62
SP - 67
EP - 73
JO - International Journal of Drug Policy
JF - International Journal of Drug Policy
ER -