public attitudes towards safer drug use practices in british columbia (bc) despina tzemis, margot...
TRANSCRIPT
Public Attitudes Towards Safer Drug Use Practices in British Columbia (BC)Despina Tzemis, Margot Kuo, Jane BuxtonBC Centre for Disease Control Harm Reduction ProgramEmail: [email protected]: towardtheheart.com
Outline
•Who we are•Background•Objective•Methods•Results•Discussion•Conclusion
BC Harm Reduction Program
• BC CDC coordinates the BC HRSS and DOAP Committee.
• Committee: ministry of health , health authorities, first nations input, & people who use drugs, among other stakeholders.
• Develop evidence-based policies, training resources, & distribute supplies to reduce drug related harms.
• Continually evaluate program and identify areas of concern & research - public attitudes toward harm reduction.
www.towardtheheart.com
Background
• The media and vocal opponents often negatively
represent safer drug use initiatives based on
ideology, not evidence
Background• Media can influence policy, and so can public
opinion. (Boyd & Carter, 2010; MacNeil & Pauly, 2010)
• Policies:▫ Represent the public’s views ▫Should be evidence based▫Need to reduce harms
Objectives• To better understand the British Columbian’s
attitudes toward harm reduction strategies and services
• Areas of interest: ▫ harm reduction (general)▫ needle distribution ▫ needle distribution in your community ▫ safer inhalation equipment
Methods• August 2011 conducted survey by random digit
dialing.
• Socio-demographic information collected: sex, age, education level, & residing geographic location.
• Questions: general harm reduction, needle distribution, & safer inhalation equipment distribution.
• 2000 completed surveys.
• Statistical methods: weighted variable, multivariate logistic regression
Results• Our sample (n=2000):
▫ 50% female▫ 3 age groups:
(28%) 19-34 years (37%) 35-54 years (35%) 55+ years
▫ Education: (7%) >high school (30%) completed university
▫ Region: 20% of respondents from each HA
Harm Reduction bivariate (n=1749)Variables Support
n=1372OpposeN=377
p-value
Age 19 – 34 35 – 54 55+
396 (83.0%)524 (80.1%)452 (73.1%)
81(17.0%)130 (19.9%)166 (26.9%)
<0.001
Gender n (%) Female Male
712 (80.6%)659 (76.2%)
171 (19.4%)206 (23.8%) 0.024
Education n (%) < high school = high school = some post secondary = cert/diploma = University
79 (68.1%)251 (76.3%)243 (79.4%)356 (76.9%)443 (82.8%)
37 (31.9%)78 (23.7%)63 (20.6%)
107 (23.1%)92 (17.2%)
0.005
Health Authority n (%) VCH IH FH VIHA NH
378 (82.2%)229 (83.3%)431 (71.5%)249 (81.4%)85 (81.7%)
82 (17.8%)46 (16.7%)
172 (28.5%)57 (18.6%)19 (18.3%)
<0.001
Harm Reduction multivariate (n=1749) Variable OR 95%CI AOR 95%CI p-value
Age 19-34 (referent) 35-54 55+
0.83 0.61, 1.120.56, 0.41, 0.75
0.80 0.59, 1.100.54 0.40, 0.73
0.165<0.001
Sex F (referent) vs M 0.77 0.61, 0.97 0.74 0.58, 0.93 0.011
Education =University (referent) <high school =high school =some post secondary =cert/ diploma
0.45 0.28, 0.700.67 0.48, 0.940.80 0.56, 1.140.69 0.59, 0.94
0.46 0.29, 0.730.77 0.54, 1.080.86 0.60, 1.230.69 0.50, 0.95
0.0010.1320.4000.022
Health Authority VCH (referent) IH FH VIHA NH
1.07 0.72, 1.590.54 0.41, 0.730.95 0.62, 1.380.99 0.57, 1.72
1.19 0.79, 1.770.56 0.41, 0.751.06 0.73, 1.551.10 0.63, 1.94
0.407<0.0010.7550.741
Discussion
•High support for safer drug use practices
•Trends predictive of previous findings
•Targeted knowledge exchange
•Limitation: negative media re glass stem distribution
Conclusion
BC supports Harm Reduction!
Harm Reduction works!
Policies should reflect this!
Reference• Boyd, S. & Carter, C. (2010). Methamphetamine
Discourse: Media, Law, and Policy. Canadian Journal of Communication, 35: 219-237.
• MacNeil, J. & Pauly, B. (2010). Impact: a case study examining the closure of a large urban fixed site needle exchange in Canada. Harm Reduction Journal, 7:11.
Acknowledgment
•HR service providers and health care providers across BC for the work they do
•People who use drugs and community members for advocating for safer drug use policies
