Skip to main content


We're creating a new version of this page. See preview

  • Research
  • Open Access

Acceptability and design preferences of supervised injection services among people who inject drugs in a mid-sized Canadian City

  • 1,
  • 1, 2,
  • 3,
  • 4,
  • 1, 5 and
  • 4, 6, 7Email author
Harm Reduction Journal201714:46

  • Received: 13 April 2017
  • Accepted: 5 July 2017
  • Published:



Supervised injection services (SIS) have been shown to reduce the public- and individual-level harms associated with injection drug use. While SIS feasibility research has been conducted in large urban centres, little is known about the acceptability of these services among people who inject drugs (PWID) in mid-sized cities. We assessed the prevalence and correlates of willingness to use SIS as well as design and operational preferences among PWID in London, Canada.


Between March and April 2016, peer research associates administered a cross-sectional survey to PWID in London. Socio-demographic characteristics, drug-use patterns, and behaviours associated with willingness to use SIS were estimated using bivariable and multivariable logistic regression models. Chi-square tests were used to compare characteristics with expected frequency of SIS use among those willing to use SIS. Design and operational preferences are also described.


Of 197 PWID included in this analysis (median age, 39; interquartile range (IQR), 33–50; 38% female), 170 (86%) reported willingness to use SIS. In multivariable analyses, being female (adjusted odds ratio (AOR) 0.29; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.11–0.75) was negatively associated with willingness to use, while public injecting in the last 6 months (AOR 2.76; 95% CI 1.00–7.62) was positively associated with willingness to use. Participants living in unstable housing, those injecting in public, and those injecting opioids and crystal methamphetamine daily reported higher expected frequency of SIS use (p < 0.05). A majority preferred private cubicles for injecting spaces and daytime operational hours, while just under half preferred PWID involved in service operations.


High levels of willingness to use SIS were found among PWID in this setting, suggesting that these services may play a role in addressing the harms associated with injection drug use. To maximize the uptake of SIS, programme planners and policy makers should consider the effects of gender and views of PWID regarding SIS design and operational preferences.


  • Supervised injection services
  • Supervised consumption facilities
  • Feasibility research
  • People who inject drugs


Injection drug use is associated with a wide range of health and social harms, including endocarditis [1], soft tissue infections [2], human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) [3, 4], hepatitis C (HCV) [5], and overdose [6]. Aside from the individual-level harms experienced among people who use injection drugs (PWID), at the community level, injection drug use in public spaces contributes to the improper disposal of injection-related litter and is perceived as a public nuisance [7]. Likewise, costs due to injection drug use-related infections take a financial toll on the health care system [810].

To address the harms associated with injection drug use, supervised injection services (SIS), also called safer injecting facilities or supervised injection sites, have been implemented in many settings globally, with more than 90 established services in Western Europe, Australia, and Canada [11, 12]. SIS are health services that offer a safe and hygienic environment where people can inject previously obtained illicit substances under the supervision of nurses or other trained health care staff [13, 14]. In addition to allowing people to inject drugs in a low-risk environment, SIS provide clients with access to sterile injecting equipment, connect people to basic medical care, and provide referrals to other health and social services, including treatment for addiction [14, 15].

Previous research has established that SIS have positive impacts on the communities in which they are located, reducing the health and social harms associated with injection drug use. Rigorous evaluation of Insite, North America’s first legally sanctioned supervised injection site located in Vancouver, Canada, demonstrates that SIS reduce the risk of HIV transmission [16, 17] and fatal overdose [18] and increase the uptake of medical care and addiction treatment [19, 20]. The service has been shown to reduce the extent of public injecting and the number of discarded syringes and other injection-related litter in public spaces [7, 21]. Evaluations of the services from Australia have also demonstrated a reduced number of overdose-related ambulance callouts in the neighbourhoods surrounding the services [22].

SIS feasibility research has been conducted in various settings to inform the implementation of SIS and establish the acceptability and willingness to use such services among PWID [2326]. Importantly, consistent with other literature suggesting that intention is a reasonable predictor of health-related behaviour, intention to use SIS has been shown to predict actual use once SIS are established. DeBeck et al. [27] demonstrated that initial willingness to use a safe injection facility (SIF) among PWID was independently associated with subsequent attendance at a Vancouver-based SIF, even after adjusting for other determinants of willingness to use [27]. While SIS feasibility research has been conducted in large urban centres in North America including San Francisco [23], Vancouver [25, 26], Toronto, and Ottawa [24], little is known about the acceptability and design preferences of SIS among people who inject drugs in mid-sized cities.

Despite often receiving fewer resources, at present many mid-size cities are contending with the same issues related to injection drug use as large urban centres. This is no more evident as in the present opioid and overdose crises spanning across small- to mid-sized North American cities [28]. However, there are some differences between mid- and large-sized cities with respect to barriers of SIS implementation. Existing literature on harm reduction and injection drug use indicates that PWID living in smaller and remote communities often experience limited access to formalized networks of harm reduction and social services, lack anonymity when accessing services [29], and experience inconsistent access to transportation [30]. Social and cultural norms of smaller communities can also make it challenging for PWID to access services. In contrast to large-size cities, smaller communities often face more rigid norms of individualism, self-sufficiency, and conservatism and can lack liberal attitudes toward harm reduction and injection drug use [30, 31]. Subsequent experiences of stigma can lead to the desire of keeping one’s substance use hidden or lead to social isolation, making it difficult for PWID to seek help [30]. Similar challenges may also constrain efforts to implement and promote uptake of SIS and other harm reduction services in mid-sized cities.

London, Canada, is a mid-sized city located in southwestern Ontario, with a population of approximately 370,000 [32]. When compared to other cities similar in size, London bears a disproportionately high burden of injection drug use [33]. The Public Health Agency of Canada estimates that PWID from London experience considerably higher rates of non-prescription opioid injection (69–76%), borrowing and loaning of needles (20 and 27%, respectively), and HCV (79%) compared to national averages [34]. In 2015, London experienced an outbreak of new HIV diagnoses with PWID accounting for two thirds of diagnoses, compared to 12% reported provincially [35]. The harms associated with injection drug use also burden local health services with Emergency Medical Services responding to 603 overdoses in 2013, and rates of opioid-related emergency department visits are 1.5 times higher than the provincial average [34].

Despite a wide range of programming and services available to PWID in London, including naloxone and needle distribution programmes, addictions treatment, street outreach, and supportive housing, problems due to injection drug use persist [3436]. The potential role and acceptability of SIS in London, however, remains unknown. Therefore, we assessed the prevalence and correlates of willingness to use SIS among PWID in London, Canada, and describe the design and operational preferences among PWID who expressed willingness to use SIS.


Survey data were collected from the Ontario Integrated Supervised Injection Services Feasibility Study conducted in London, Canada [37]. Between March and April 2016, the research team worked with three peer research associates (PRAs) who administered a cross-sectional quantitative survey to PWID. PWID who were 18 or older and injected drugs in the last 6 months were eligible for participation. Participants were recruited through city-wide peer outreach efforts, word of mouth, and recruitment flyers posted at local health and social service agencies. Potential participants were then invited for appointment or drop-in interview sessions at three sites. The survey, which was programmed on electronic tablets and took approximately 45 min to complete, collected data on socio-demographic characteristics, drug-using behaviours and related harms, access to health services, willingness to use SIS, and SIS design preferences. The questionnaire was adapted from previous supervised injection services feasibility studies [25]. All participants were provided a $25 honorarium and provided written informed consent.

The study was supported by the Ontario HIV Treatment Network in partnership with the Regional HIV/AIDS Connection, a local AIDS Service Organization, and was guided by an Advisory Committee, composed of local health care and social service providers, and other stakeholders. Ethics approval was obtained from the University of Toronto and the University of British Columbia’s research ethics boards.

Measures and outcomes

Our primary outcome was willingness to use SIS. Responses were categorized into yes (i.e. those willing to use SIS) and maybe/no (i.e. those who may be willing or not willing to use SIS). Participants were also asked “If a SIS was established in a location convenient to you, how often would you use it?” with response options that included: always (100% of the time), usually (over 75% of the time), sometimes (between 25 and 75% of the time), occasionally (less than 25% of the time), and never. Responses were categorized into always or usually and sometime or occasionally (i.e. high and low expected frequency of SIS use, respectively, defined as always/usually and sometimes/occasionally).

Socio-demographic variables considered for analysis included age (in years), gender (female versus male), ethnicity (White versus Indigenous/Persons of colour), housing status (homeless or unstably housed versus living alone, with a partner, or with family) and involvement in sex work in the past 6 months (yes versus no). Drug-using behaviours were assessed for the past 6 months and included: any public injecting (yes versus no), any injecting alone (yes versus no), any help needed during injecting (yes versus no), any syringe sharing (categorized as borrowing or loaning; yes versus no), and daily opioid injecting and daily crystal methamphetamine injecting (both defined as daily versus less than daily or never). Lifetime history of drug overdose (yes versus no) and history of drug treatment (including past use of one or a combination of the following: detox programmes, opioid substitution therapy, addictions case management, drug court, residential drug treatment and outpatient counselling; yes versus no) were also explored.

Data were also collected on SIS design preferences, willingness to use an integrated service, willingness to walk or bus to SIS, preferred set-up for injecting space, hours of operation, involvement of PWID in service operation, and important amenities for SIS.

Data analysis

We used descriptive statistics including proportions for categorical variables and report the median (and interquartile range) for age as a continuous variable. Logistic regression was used to model socio-demographic and drug-using behaviours associated with willingness to use SIS. To adjust for potential confounding, all variables were entered into a multivariable logistic model. Using backwards selection, the least significant variable was dropped from the multivariable model, unless dropping it changed the statistical significance of other variables. Reduced models were continually refit until the all variables were either significant (p < 0.05) or were considered potential confounders. We explored the expected frequency of SIS use (high versus low frequency) by socio-demographic and drug-using behaviour using chi-square tests or Fishers exact tests (when appropriate). The frequency of design preferences and important amenities for SIS are reported. All analyses were conducted in SAS 9.4 [38].


In total, of 199 participants who were interviewed, 197 (99%) provided complete data on willingness to use SIS (Table 1). Seventy-five (38%) were female, the median age was 39 years (interquartile range (IQR) 33–50), 73% identified as White, and 139 (72%) reported public injecting in the past 6 months.
Table 1

Demographic, drug use characteristics, and treatment history characteristics associated with willingness to use SIS among PWID


Total sample (n = 197)

Willingness to use SIS

Unadjusted OR

(95% CI)

Adjusted OR

(95% CI)


(n = 170)

n (%)

No or maybe

(n = 27)

n (%)


Age, year

 Median (IQR)

39 (33–50)

39 (32–50)

40 (35–48)

0.99 (0.95–1.03)

1.00 (0.96–1.05)



75 (38.1)

57 (76.0)

18 (24.0)

0.25* (0.11–0.60)

0.29* (0.11–0.75)


122 (61.9)

113 (92.6)

9 (7.4)




139 (72.8)

120 (86.3)

19 (13.7)

0.98 (0.39–2.50)

0.63 (0.22–1.77)


52 (27.2)

45 (86.5)

7 (13.5)




114 (57.9)

103 (90.3)

11 (9.7)

2.24 (0.97–5.11)

1.42 (0.53–3.80)


83 (42.1)

67 (80.7)

16 (19.3)


Sex work


38 (19.3)

33 (86.8)

5 (13.2)

1.06 (0.37–3.01)


159 (80.7)

137 (86.2)

22 (13.8)


Any public injectinga


139 (71.9)

127 (91.4)

12 (8.6)

3.61* (1.55–8.44)

2.76* (1.00–7.62)


55 (28.4)

41 (74.5)

14 (25.5)


Any injecting alonea


172 (87.3)

151 (87.8)

21 (12.2)

2.27 (0.82–6.33)

1.68 (0.56–5.10)


25 (12.7)

19 (76.0)

6 (24)


Any help injectinga


63 (32.0)

56 (88.9)

7 (11.0)

1.40 (0.56–3.52)



134 (68.0)

114 (85.1)

20 (14.9)


Syringe sharinga


44 (22.4)

39 (88.6)

5 (11.4)

1.32 (0.47–3.72)



152 (77.6)

130 (88.5)

22 (14.5)


Daily opioidb injectinga


106 (53.8)

95 (89.6)

11 (10.4)

1.84 (0.81–4.20)



91 (46.2)

75 (82.4)

16 (17.6)


Daily crystal meth injectinga


70 (35.5)

64 (91.4)

6 (8.6)

2.11 (0.81–5.51)


127 (64.5)

106 (83.5)

21 (16.5)


Ever OD?


48 (24.7)

42 (87.5)

6 (12.5)

1.18 (0.45–3.11)



146 (75.3)

125 (85.6)

21 (14.4)


Drug treatment history


83 (42.8)

73 (88.0)

10 (12.0)

1.32 (0.57–3.05)



111 (57.2)

94 (84.7)

17 (15.3)


*p < 0.05

aIn the past 6 months

bOpioids include heroin, methadone (prescribed and non-prescribed), Hydros (Dilaudid and Hydromorph Contin), generic oxycodone, Oxy Neo, percocet, and fentanyl

A total of 170 (86%) reported willingness to use SIS. In bivariable analyses (Table 1), those who expressed willingness to use SIS were less likely to be female (odds ratio (OR) 0.25; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.11–0.60) and more likely to report any public injecting in the past 6 months (OR 3.61; 95% CI 1.55–8.44). In multivariable analyses, being female remained negatively associated with willingness to use SIS (adjusted odds ratio (AOR) 0.29; 95% CI 0.11–0.75), while public injecting in the past 6 months remained positively associated (AOR: 2.76; 95% CI: 1.00–7.62). Given our finding regarding gender, we tested all potential two-way interactions (where sufficient counts were available). No two-way interaction effects were found.

Among those who reported willingness to use, 106 (63%) said they would always/usually use SIS, while 62 (37%) said they would sometimes/occasionally use SIS (Table 2). Higher proportions of participants living in unstable housing (69 vs. 55%), and reporting any public injecting (68 vs. 50%), daily opioid injecting (71 vs. 50%) and daily crystal methamphetamine injecting (77 vs. 55%) in the past 6 months, reported higher expected frequency of SIS use if services were available (all p < 0.05).
Table 2

Demographic, drug use characteristics, and treatment history characteristics associated with expected frequency of use among PWID willing to use SIS


Expected frequency of SIS use

p valueb

Always or usually

(n = 106)

n (%)

Sometimes or occasionally

(n = 62)

n (%)



35 (62.5)

21 (37.5)



71 (63.4)

41 (36.6)



78 (61.4)

49 (38.5)



28 (68.3)

13 (31.7)



70 (68.6)

32 (31.4)



36 (54.6)

30 (45.4)

Sex work


17 (53.1)

15 (46.9)



89 (65.4)

47 (34.6)

Any public injectinga


85 (67.5)

41 (32.5)



20 (50.0)

20 (50.0)

Any injecting alonea


94 (63.1)

55 (36.9)



12 (63.2)

7 (36.8)

Any help injectinga


35 (64.8)

19 (35.2)



71 (62.3)

43 (37.7)

Syringe sharinga


27 (69.2)

12 (30.8)



78 (60.9)

50 (39.1)

Daily opioidc injectinga


74 (71.2)

30 (28.9)



32 (50.0)

32 (50.0)

Daily crystal meth injectinga


49 (76.6)

15 (23.4)



57 (54.8)

47 (45.2)

Ever OD?


30 (71.4)

12 (28.6)



74 (60.2)

49 (39.9)

Drug treatment history


44 (62.0)

27 (38.0)



60 (63.8)

34 (36.2)

*p < 0.05

aIn the past 6 months

bDetermined through chi-square tests or Fishers exact, where appropriate

cOpioids include heroin, methadone (prescribed and non-prescribed), Hydros (Dilaudid and Hydromorph Contin), generic oxycodone, Oxy Neo, percocet, and fentanyl

Design preferences and the top ten amenities deemed important are described in Table 3. Approximately 84% of those who reported willingness to use SIS preferred private cubicles as set-up for injecting spaces, 82% would be willing to use an integrated service, located in a community health centre, hospital, doctor’s clinic, or social service agency, and 73% preferred daytime hours (8 am to 4 pm) for operation of services. Forty-nine percent reported that PWID should be involved in operating the service. No differences in design preferences were found by expected frequency of use (data not shown). The most important amenities identified for SIS include distribution of sterile injecting equipment, preventing and responding to overdoses, needle distribution, HIV/HCV testing, and washrooms (see Table 3 for top 10).
Table 3

Design preferences and important amenities identified for SIS among PWID willing to use SIS

Design feature


 Willing to walk to SIS


 Time willing to walk in the summer months

  ≤20 min


  >20 min


 Time willing to walk in the winter months

  ≤20 min


  >20 min


 Willing to take a bus to SIS


 Time willing to take a bus in the summer months

  ≤20 min


  >20 min


 Time willing to take a bus in the winter months

  ≤20 min


  >20 min


 Willingness to use an integrated SIS


 Preferred set-up for injecting space

  Private cubicle


  An open plan with benches at one large table or counter


  An open plan with tables and chairs


  A combinatory of above


 Preferred operating hours







 Involvement of PWID in SIS operation


Important amenities identified for SIS


 Distribution of sterile injection equipment


 Preventing and responding to overdoses


 Needle distribution


 HIV/HCV testing




 Referrals to drug treatment, rehab and other services, when ready


 Nursing staff for medical care and supervised injecting teaching


 Access to health services


 Harm reduction education


 Withdrawal management



This study found high levels of willingness to use SIS among PWID in the mid-size city of London, Canada. Willingness to use SIS was positively associated with public injecting in the past 6 months and negatively associated with being female. Among those who were willing to use SIS, we found that participants living in unstable housing, those injecting in public, and those injecting opioids and crystal methamphetamine daily reported higher expected frequency of SIS use. We also characterized important considerations for implementing SIS locally. These findings have implications for maximizing the uptake and full potential of SIS in London, particularly among vulnerable groups of PWID.

While there are currently only two legally sanctioned supervised injection facilities established in North America [39, 40], both in Vancouver, numerous cities have conducted feasibility studies to determine the acceptability of these services among PWID, and to inform design and operational preferences. High levels of willingness to use SIS have generally been found across various large urban centres. A study conducted among an established cohort of PWID who were followed for 1 year between 2001 and 2002 in Vancouver found that 37% of PWID expressed willingness to use SIS [26]. However, a later study conducted in 2003 by the same authors among a different group of injection drug users in Vancouver found 92% willingness to use such a service [25]. Authors attributed the higher proportion of willingness in the latter study to the study’s participants who were active street-based injectors originating the centre of Vancouver’s open drug scene, the Downtown Eastside [25]. In more recent studies, willingness to use a safer injecting facility in San Francisco was 85% among PWID [23], while in Toronto and Ottawa, up to 75% of people who use drugs said they would use such a facility, if it were available [24]. Findings from the present study reveal that high levels of willingness to use SIS (86%), comparable to large urban centres, may also be found among PWID living in mid-sized cities.

High proportions (72%) of PWID in London reported injecting in public or semi-public spaces. Consistent with previous feasibility studies conducted [23, 24], we also found that public injecting was associated willingness to use SIS. Public injecting poses risks to individual health through rushed injection practices and reduced ability to ensure privacy, safety and hygiene [4143]. It is also associated with elevated risk of syringe sharing, blood-borne infections, and overdose [43, 44]. Interestingly, among those who expressed willingness to use SIS, those who reported higher expected frequency of SIS use represent more vulnerable groups of PWID, such as those who live in unstable housing, and those reporting public injecting and daily opioid or crystal methamphetamine injection. This finding has significant implications, suggesting that those who are especially vulnerable to adverse health outcomes would more frequently use the service, if available. Similar findings have been reported in Vancouver, where SIFs were found to attract those who injected in public, those who were homeless or unstably housed, and those who injected heroin daily [45]. Accordingly, SIS may be effective in attracting and connecting vulnerable groups of PWID to medical care, access to clean injecting equipment, emergency response to drug overdose, and referrals to addiction treatment and other support services. Likewise, given the association between public injecting and homelessness, SIS present the opportunity to link PWID to housing programmes, including “Housing First” initiatives that offer a recovery-oriented approach centred on providing independent and permanent housing to individuals experiencing homelessness [46]. Therefore, SIS in London can potentially reduce the harms associated with injection drug use, and more specifically, public injecting. At the same time, given that public injecting contributes to the improper disposal of injection-related litter, SIS can also improve public order through reduced numbers of publicly discarded syringes and injection-related litter [7]. In this way, our findings highlight not only the potential for SIS to impact PWID but also broader communities where PWID live and inject.

In the context of injection drug use, sex and gender act as determinants of health, shaping risk profiles between men and women and contributing to unique barriers to treatment and access to services [4749]. We found that women were less likely to express willingness to use SIS. One possible explanation of this finding could be that compared to men, women who use illicit drugs experience greater stigmatization, which acts as a barrier to seeking care, including access to addiction treatment and harm reduction services [5052]. Feelings of guilt and shame and lower levels of self-esteem and self-efficacy resulting from stigma, in addition to experiences of violence related to drug use can prevent women from seeking help or feeling like they deserved to be helped [50, 51, 53]. Some women may also be hesitant to publicly access services which may result in the disclosure of their drug use and exacerbate experiences of stigma.

Given our findings, gender considerations should inform the design and implementation of SIS to ensure equitable access and uptake, especially in light of past work indicating that SIS can provide refuge from gendered violence in local drug scenes [53, 54]. Tailored harm reduction approaches for women may include a women’s-only SIS, women’s specific drop-in times, and women-centred health and social service programming, and case management teams [49, 55, 56].

Lower rates of willingness to use SIS among women in this setting stands out in contrast to other SIS feasibility work undertaken in large urban centres [23, 24] and past research showing similar rates of actual SIS uptake across genders [57]. Future research should seek to explore these differences. However, it should be noted that while in our multivariable model women appear less likely to express willingness to use SIS, the raw values still express a high willingness (76% for women, 93% for men).

This research also provided important information on the design and operational preferences of PWID in London that can inform the implementation of SIS. Among those who were willing to use SIS, most were willing to walk or take the bus to access the service. Interestingly, we found that fewer PWID were willing to walk longer (i.e. greater than 20 min) in winter months compared to summer months (16% compared to 40%). However, when it came to taking a bus, there was less difference in willingness to take bus in terms of time between winter and summer months (46% compared to 53%). This is somewhat in contrast to work undertaken elsewhere, which found that PWID were not generally willing to travel distances to use a SIS [58]. Further, most PWID preferred private cubicles for injecting and daytime service hours, while just under half believed PWID should be involved in the operation of services. With regard to private cubicles, this may reflect PWIDs’ awareness of Insite, Canada’s first sanctioned SIS, which uses private cubicles, or may reflect the needs of some, in particular women, to ensure privacy and control over their drugs and drug use [53]. Important amenities identified for SIS in this setting include distribution of sterile needles and other injection equipment, preventing and responding to overdoses, access to HIV and HCV testing, availability of washrooms, access to health services, referrals to drug treatment and other support services, harm reduction education and withdrawal management. Similar important services to provide alongside SIS were found in feasibility work done in Ottawa, but not in Toronto, where access to nursing and medical staff, food, drug counsellors and urgent detox beds were identified, highlighting the distinct preferences of PWID in each setting [24].

Given the current opioid and overdose epidemics experienced across North America, the findings from the present study are timely and have implications for other small or mid-sized cities that are dealing with a disproportionately high burden of injection drug use. The present study suggests that PWID of mid-sized cities are overwhelmingly willing to use SIS, taking into consideration distinct design and operational preferences.

Further, the findings of the present study, in line with the outcomes of a recent study from London that found overall community stakeholder support of SIS implementation [59], challenge past research suggesting that in contrast to large urban centres, all smaller cities lack liberal perspectives toward harm reduction and injection drug use [31].

There were limitations in this study. Participants recruited were not randomly sampled, and therefore may not be representative of all PWID in London. Although efforts were made to recruit participants from a diverse range of settings, this may have resulted in some group or social networks being over-represented in our sample. We also relied on self-reported data collected by peer research associates, which may be subject to response bias, including social desirability and recall bias. However, it is worth noting that self-reported responses from PWID can be valid and reliable [60].


In conclusion, a high proportion of PWID in London were willing to use SIS if services were available, with willingness to use being positively associated with public injecting and negatively associated with being female. Likewise, among those expressing willingness to use SIS, those who reported higher expected frequency of SIS use represented more vulnerable groups of PWID. These findings suggest that SIS may play a role in addressing the harms associated with injection drug use, particularly among vulnerable groups of PWID. With high levels of SIS acceptability among PWID and London’s Board of Health recently approving to move forward with exploring the implementation of SIS [61], next steps for London include the consultation of a diverse range of stakeholders and the broader community, including the City of London, the Middlesex-London Health Unit, London Police Service, local businesses, and residents. Nonetheless if implemented, to maximize the uptake and potential benefits of SIS, policy makers and programme planners should take into the consideration the attributes and preferences of local PWID.



Adjusted odds ratio


Confidence interval


Hepatitis C virus


Human immunodeficiency virus


Odds ratio


Peer research associate


People who inject drugs


Safe injection facility


Supervised injection services



We would like to thank the study participants, research staff (including Andy MacLean, Elaine Hamm, and Samantha Scott), and the Advisory Committee members for their contributions. This study was conducted by the Ontario HIV Treatment Network in collaboration with Regional HIV/AIDS Connection.


This study was funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) Centre for REACH in HIV/AIDS and Thomas Kerr’s CIHR Foundation Grant (FDN-148476). Ayden Scheim was supported by the Pierre Elliott Trudeau Foundation and Vanier Canada Graduate Scholarships.

Availability of data and materials

The datasets used and/or analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Authors’ contributions

TK designed the Ontario Integrated Supervised Injection Services Feasibility Study. GB, SM and AS were responsible for the day-to-day running of the research study and acquired the data. BR conducted the analysis. SM wrote the manuscript. All authors contributed to the interpretation of findings and revision of the manuscript for intellectual content, and approved the final version to be published.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Ethical approval was obtained from the University of Toronto and University of British Columbia’s research ethics boards.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Authors’ Affiliations

The Ontario HIV Treatment Network, 1300 Yonge Street, Suite 600, Toronto, ON, M4T 1X3, Canada
Division of Clinical Public Health, Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, 155 College Street, 6th floor, Toronto, ON, M5T 3M7, Canada
Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, The University of Western Ontario, K201 Kresge Building, London, ON, N6A 5C1, Canada
BC Centre on Substance Use, St. Paul’s Hospital, 608-1081 Burrard Street, Vancouver, BC, V6Z 1Y6, Canada
Centre for Urban Health Solutions, Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute of St. Michael’s Hospital, 209 Victoria Street, Toronto, ON, M5B 1T8, Canada
BC Centre for Excellence in HIV/AIDS, St. Paul’s Hospital, 608-1081 Burrard Street, Vancouver, V6Z 1Y6, BC, Canada
Department of Medicine, University of British Columbia, St. Paul’s Hospital, 608-1081 Burrard Street, Vancouver, BC, V6Z 1Y6, Canada


  1. DeWitt DE, Paauw DS. Endocarditis in injection drug users. Am Fam Physician. 1996;53(6):2045–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Lloyd-Smith E, Wood E, Zhang R, Tyndall MW, Montaner JS, Kerr T. Risk factors for developing a cutaneous injection-related infection among injection drug users: a cohort study. BMC Public Health. 2008;8:405.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  3. Strathdee SA, Hallett TB, Bobrova N, Rhodes T, Booth R, Abdool R, et al. HIV and risk environment for injecting drug users: the past, present, and future. Lancet. 2010;376(9737):268–84.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Vlahov D, Fuller C, Ompad D, Galea S, Des JD. Updating the infection risk reduction hierarchy: preventing transition into injection. J Urban Health. 2004;81(1):14–9.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  5. Lorvick J, Kral AH, Seal K, Gee L, Edlin BR. Prevalence and duration of hepatitis C among injection drug users in San Francisco, Calif. Am J Public Health. 2001;91(1):46–7.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  6. Kerr T, Fairbairn N, Tyndall M, Marsh D, Li K, Montaner J, et al. Predictors of non-fatal overdose among a cohort of polysubstance-using injection drug users. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2007;87(1):39–45.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Wood E, Kerr T, Small W, Li K, Marsh DC, Montaner JS, et al. Changes in public order after the opening of a medically supervised safer injecting facility for illicit injection drug users. Can Med Assoc J. 2004;171(7):731–4.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  8. Palepu A, Tyndall MW, Leon H, Muller J, O’Shaughnessy MV, Schechter MT, et al. Hospital utilization and costs in a cohort of injection drug users. Can Med Assoc J. 2001;165(4):415–20.Google Scholar
  9. Wood E, Kerr T, Spittal PM, Tyndall MW, O’Shaughnessy MV, Schechter MT. The healthcare and fiscal costs of the illicit drug use epidemic: the impact of conventional drug control strategies and the impact of a comprehensive approach. BC Med J. 2003;45(3):130–6.Google Scholar
  10. Bayoumi AM, Zaric GS. The cost-effectiveness of Vancouver’s supervised injection facility. Can Med Assoc J. 2008;179(11):1143–51.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  11. Hedrich D, Kerr T, Dubois-Arber F. Drug consumption facilities in Europe and beyond. In: Rhodes T, Hedrich D, editors. Harm reduction: evidence, impacts, and challenges. Luxembourg: European Monitoring Centre for Drug and Drug Addiction; 2010.Google Scholar
  12. Kerr T, Small W, Moore D, Wood E. A micro-environmental intervention to reduce the harms associated with drug-related overdose: evidence from the evaluation of Vancouver’s safer injection facility. Int J Drug Policy. 2007;18(1):37–45.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Kimber J, Dolan K, Wodak A. Survey of drug consumption rooms: Service delivery and perceived public health and amenity impact. Drug Alcohol Rev. 2005;24(1):21–4.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Broadhead RS, Kerr TH, Grund JP, Altice FL. Safer injection facilities in North America: their place in public policy and health initiatives. J Drug Issues. 2002;32(1):329–55.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  15. Dolan K, Kimber J, Fry C, Fitzgerald J, McDonald D, Trautmann F. Drug consumption facilities in Europe and the establishment of supervised injecting centres in Australia. Drug Alcohol Rev. 2000;19:337–46.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  16. Stoltz JA, Wood E, Small W, Li K, Tyndall M, Montaner J, et al. Changes in injecting practices associated with the use of a medically supervised safer injection facility. J Public Health. 2007;29(1):35–9.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  17. Kerr T, Tyndall M, Li K, Montaner J, Wood E. Safer injection facility use and syringe sharing in injection drug users. Lancet. 2005;366(9482):316–8.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Marshall BD, Milloy MJ, Wood E, Montaner JS, Kerr T. Reduction in overdose mortality after the opening of North America’s first medically supervised safer injecting facility: a retrospective population-based study. Lancet. 2011;377(9775):1429–37.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Wood E, Tyndall MW, Zhang R, Montaner JS, Kerr T. Rate of detoxification service use and its impact among a cohort of supervised injecting facility users. Addiction. 2007;102(6):916–9.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Wood E, Tyndall MW, Zhang R, Stoltz JA, Lai C, Montaner JS, et al. Attendance at supervised injecting facilities and use of detoxification services. N Engl J Med. 2006;354(23):2512–4.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Salmon AM, Thein R, Kimber J, Kaldor J, Maher L. Five years on: what are the community perceptions of drug-related public amenity following the establishment of the Sydney Medically Supervised Injecting Centre? Int J Drug Policy. 2007;18(1):46–53.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Salmon AM, van Beek I, Amin J, Kaldor J, Maher L. The impact of a supervised injecting facility on ambulance call-outs in Sydney, Australia. Addiction. 2010;105(4):676–83.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Kral AH, Wenger L, Carpenter L, Wood E, Kerr T, Bourgois P. Acceptability of a safer injection facility among injection drug users in San Francisco. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2010;110(1-2):160–3.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  24. Bayoumi, Strike C, Brandeau M, Degani N, Fischer B, Glazier R, et al. Report on the Toronto and Ottawa Supervised Consumption Assessment Study. 2012. Accessed 16 Nov 2016.
  25. Kerr T, Wood E, Small D, Palepu A, Tyndall MW. Potential use of safer injecting facilities among injection drug users in Vancouver’s Downtown Eastside. Can Med Assoc J. 2003;169(8):759–63.Google Scholar
  26. Wood E, Kerr T, Spittal PM, Li K, Small W, Tyndall MW, et al. The potential public health and community impacts of safer injecting facilities: evidence from a cohort of injection drug users. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2003;32(1):2–8.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. DeBeck K, Kerr T, Lai C, Buxton J, Montaner J, Wood E. The validity of reporting willingness to use a supervised injecting facility on subsequent program use among people who use injection drugs. Am J Drug Alcohol Abuse. 2012;38(1):55–62.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Bosman J. Inside a Killer Drug Epidemic: A Look at America’s Opioid Crisis. New York Times. 2017. Retrieved June 28, 2017 from:
  29. Gustafson DL, Goodyear L, Keough F. When the dragon’s awake: a needs assessment of people injecting drugs in a small urban centre. Int J Drug Policy. 2008;19(3):189–94.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Hardill K. Below the radar: An exploration of substance use in rural Ontario. 2011.Google Scholar
  31. Draus P, Carlson RG. Down on main street: drugs and the small-town vortex. Health Place. 2009;15(1):247–54.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Statistics Canada. Focus on geography series, 2011 census. 2011. Retrieved December 2, 2016, from
  33. Scheim A, Rachlis B, Bardwell G, Mitra S, Kerr T. Public drug injecting in London, Ontario: a cross sectional survey. CMAJ Open. 2017;5(2):E290–4.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  34. Middlesex-London Health Unit. A profile of people who inject drugs in London, Ontario: Report on the Public Health Agency of Canada I-Track Survey, Phase 3 - Middlesex-London, 2012. 2013. Retrieved November 16, 2016, from Scholar
  35. Middlesex-London Health Unit. Persons who inject drugs in Middlesex-London: an update. 2016. Retrieved November 16, 2016, from
  36. Middlesex-London Health Unit. The impact of prescription and non-prescription drug use in Middlesex-London. 2014. Retrieved November 16, 2016, from
  37. Kerr T, Scheim A, Bardwell G, Mitra S, Rachlis B, Bacon J, et al. The Ontario Integrated Supervised Feasibility Study Report: London. 2017. London. Retrieved February, 16, 2017 from
  38. SAS. SAS Version 9.4. Cary: SAS Institute Inc; 2013.Google Scholar
  39. Krusi A, Small W, Wood E, Kerr T. An integrated supervised injecting program within a care facility for HIV-positive individuals: a qualitative evaluation. AIDS Care. 2009;21(5):638–44.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Wood E, Kerr T, Lloyd-Smith E, Buchner C, Marsh DC, Montaner JS, et al. Methodology for evaluating Insite: Canada’s first medically supervised safer injection facility for injection drug users. Harm Reduct J. 2004;1(1):9.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  41. DeBeck K, Small W, Wood E, Li K, Montaner J, Kerr T. Public injecting among a cohort of injecting drug users in Vancouver, Canada. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2009;63(1):81–6.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Dovey K, Fitzgerald J, Choi Y. Safety becomes danger: dilemmas of drug-use in public space. Health Place. 2001;7(4):319–31.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. Rhodes T, Kimber J, Small W, Fitzgerald J, Kerr T, Hickman M, et al. Public injecting and the need for ‘safer environment interventions’ in the reduction of drug-related harm. Addiction. 2006;101(10):1384–93.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. Small W, Rhodes T, Wood E, Kerr T. Public injection settings in Vancouver: physical environment, social context and risk. Int J Drug Policy. 2007;18(1):27–36.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. Wood E, Tyndall MW, Li K, Lloyd-Smith E, Small W, Montaner JS, et al. Do supervised injecting facilities attract higher-risk injection drug users? Am J Prev Med. 2005;29(2):126–30.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. Strike C, Watson TM, Gohil H, Miskovic M, Robinson S, Arkell C, et al. The best practice recommendations for Canadian harm reduction programs that provide service to people who use drugs and are at risk for HIV, HCV, and other harms: part 2. Toronto: Working group on Best Practice for Harm Reduction Programs in Canada; 2015.Google Scholar
  47. NIDA. Sex and Gender Differences in Substance Use. 2017. Retrieved February 22, 2017, from:
  48. Lyons T, Shannon K, Richardson L, Simo A, Wood E, Kerr T. Women who use drugs and have sex with women in a Canadian setting; violence, substance use, and treatment enrolment. Arch Sex Behav. 2016;45:1403–10.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. Greenfield S, Grella C. Alcohol & drug abuse: what is “women-focused” treatment for substance use disorders? Psychiatr Serv. 2009;60(7):880–2.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  50. Azim T, Bontell I, Strathdee SA. Women, drugs and HIV. Int J Drug Policy. 2015;26(Suppl 1):S16–21.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. Treatment CfSA. Substance abuse treatment: addressing the specific needs of women. Treatment Improvement Protocol (TIP) Series 51. HHS Publication No. (SMA) 09-4426. Rockville: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration; 2009.Google Scholar
  52. Greenfield S, Back S, Lawson K, Brady K. Substance abuse in women. Psychiatr Clin North Am. 2010;33(2):339–55.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  53. Fairbairn N, Small W, Shannon K, Wood E, Kerr T. Seeking refuge from violence in street-based drug scenes: women’s experiences in North America’s first supervised injection facility. Soc Sci Med. 2008;67(5):817–23.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. Coulter E. Violence from men, as women-only supervised injection site gets busier. News 1130. 2017 June 26, 2017.Google Scholar
  55. Poole N, Urquhart C, Talbot C. Women-centred harm reduction. British Columbia Centre of Excellence for Women’s Health: Vancouver; 2010.Google Scholar
  56. Vancouver Coastal Health. New substance treatment services for women on the Downtown Eastside. Vancouver, BC. 2017. Retrieve February, 22, 2017 from:
  57. Tyndall MW, Kerr T, Zhang R, King E, Montaner JG, Wood E. Attendance, drug use patterns, and referrals made from North America’s first supervised injection facility. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2006;83(3):193–8.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  58. Petrar S, Kerr T, Tyndall MW, Zhang R, Montaner JS, Wood E. Injection drug users’ perceptions regarding use of a medically supervised safer injecting facility. Addict Behav. 2007;32(5):1088–93.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  59. Bardwell G, Scheim A, Mitra S, Kerr T. Assessing support for supervised injection services among community stakeholders in London, Canada. Int J Drug Policy. In press.Google Scholar
  60. Drake S. Self-report among injecting drug users: a review. Drug Alcohol Depend. 1998;51:253–63.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  61. Middlesex-London Health Unit. Board of health report: supervised injection services feasibility in middlesex-London. 2017.Google Scholar


© The Author(s). 2017