Many Canadian cities are currently experiencing Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) and hepatitis C virus (HCV) epidemics as a result of illicit injection drug use [1
]. Other costly infectious diseases that can be easily acquired from non-hygenic injection practices, such as endocarditis and cellulitis, are also common [3
]. The health of injection drug users (IDUs) is further compromised by avoidance and erratic use of primary care services, costly emergency room visits, and acute care hospitalizations [3
]. Public drug use also occurs in many inner city neighborhoods, and public drug use and the unsafe disposal of syringes is a major community concern [7
In over two dozen European cities and more recently in Sydney, Australia, safer injection facilities (SIFs), where injection drug users can inject pre-obtained illicit drugs, have been implemented in an effort to reduce the community and public health impacts of illicit drug use [9
]. SIF typically have several primary objectives including: the reduction of public drug use, fatal and non-fatal overdose, and infectious disease risk; improving contact between a highly marginalized 'at-risk' population and the healthcare system; and enhancing recruitment into medical care and addiction treatment [9
]. Within SIFs, IDUs are provided with clean injecting equipment, medical attention in the event of overdose, as well as access to or referral to primary healthcare and other services including addiction treatment.
While it must be stressed that limited quantitative data are presently available, various reports have credited SIFs with a number of public health and community benefits including: improving the health and social functioning of their clients [11
], while reducing overdose deaths [12
], risk behaviors known to transmit infectious diseases [13
], improperly discarded syringes [14
], and public drug use [15
]. In addition, improved access to medical care and drug treatment has been attributed to SIF attendance [10
]. A limitation of these earlier analyses is that, in a number of settings, there has not been a commitment on the part of health agencies to fund comprehensive evaluations, and in many instances there have not existed prospective cohorts to inform examinations of SIF's impacts [17
On September 22, 2003 Vancouver, Canada opened North America's first government sanctioned SIF pilot study [18
]. Federal government approval for the three-year pilot study was granted on the condition that the health and social impacts of the SIF be the subject of a rigorous scientific evaluation. More recently, several Canadian cities have begun to consider their own SIF evaluations, including Montreal and Victoria [19
]. Since several years were devoted to the development of the Vancouver SIF evaluation methodology, and since the investigators wished to be as open with methodology as possible [21
], the present article was prepared to describe the framework of the evaluation and to report on preliminary observations. The publication of these observations may also be useful for other Canadian considering initiating SIF trials [19
Prior to the opening of the SIF, a major concern with the evaluation related to willingness of the target community to use the injection facility [18
]. In order to attract the target population without raising fears about confidentiality, and to make the service as low threshold as possible, all clients of the SIF can remain anonymous. Since fears regarding reduced willingness to use SIF, if client registration was required, were observed in feasibility studies conducted prior to Insite's opening [18
], the SIF operated as a completely low threshold service in the first 6 months of operation and maximizing access to the SIF was the top priority. During this time only paper records were maintained. After 6 months of operation, and after trust was developed between the SIF operators and the target community, service use was tracked at an individual level using a database that tracks all client service use and outcomes within Insite. The phasing in of a digital tracking system was successful, although service uptake was so substantial and immediate after the site opened, it is not known if this was necessary. A further challenge was the ethical dilemma posed by providing a health service that must also be rigorously evaluated [22
]. Specifically, it was apparent to the investigators that it would be unethical to limit use of the SIF to those who agreed to participate in research. Instead, equipoise was reached by allowing participation in surveys and other aspects of the research to be optional to SIF users.
Aims of Insite
In brief, the aims of Insite are to reduce public injection drug use and the unsafe disposal of syringes in public spaces, the reduction of overdoses and infectious disease risk, and improve access to healthcare services among IDUs. The methodology for evaluating these aims is described below and involves both a prospective cohort design and additional data sources including evaluation of community impacts.