Premium
Rate of detoxification service use and its impact among a cohort of supervised injecting facility users
Author(s) -
Wood Evan,
Tyndall Mark W.,
Zhang Ruth,
Montaner Julio S. G.,
Kerr Thomas
Publication year - 2007
Publication title -
addiction
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 2.424
H-Index - 193
eISSN - 1360-0443
pISSN - 0965-2140
DOI - 10.1111/j.1360-0443.2007.01818.x
Subject(s) - detoxification (alternative medicine) , methadone , medicine , hazard ratio , gee , addiction , proportional hazards model , odds ratio , retrospective cohort study , cohort , methadone maintenance , cohort study , confidence interval , environmental health , generalized estimating equation , demography , psychiatry , pathology , statistics , alternative medicine , mathematics , sociology
Background Vancouver, Canada recently opened a medically supervised injecting facility (SIF) where injection drug users (IDU) can inject pre‐obtained illicit drugs. Critics suggest that the facility does not help IDU to reduce their drug use. Methods We conducted retrospective and prospective database linkages with residential detoxification facilities and used generalized estimating equation (GEE) methods to examine the rate of detoxification service use among SIF participants in the year before versus the year after the SIF opened. In secondary analyses, we used Cox regression to examine if having been enrolled in detoxification was associated with enrolling in methadone or other forms of addiction treatment. We also evaluated the impact of detoxification use on the frequency of SIF use. Results Among 1031 IDU, there was a statistically significant increase in the uptake of detoxification services the year after the SIF opened. [odds ratio: 1.32 (95% CI, 1.11–1.58); P = 0.002]. In turn, detoxification was associated independently with elevated rates of methadone initiation [relative hazard = 1.56 (95% CI, 1.04–2.34); P = 0.031] and elevated initiation of other addiction treatment [relative hazard = 3.73 (95% CI, 2.57–5.39); P < 0.001]. Use of the SIF declined when the rate of SIF use in the month before enrolment into detoxification was compared to the rate of SIF use in the month after discharge (24 visits versus 19 visits; P = 0.002). Conclusions The SIF's opening was associated independently with a 30% increase in detoxification service use, and this behaviour was associated with increased rates of long‐term addiction treatment initiation and reduced injecting at the SIF.