Public Attitudes Towards Safer Drug Use Practices in British Columbia (BC) Despina Tzemis, Margot Kuo, Jane Buxton BC Centre for Disease Control Harm Reduction Program Webpage: 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.

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 completed surveys. Statistical methods: weighted variable, multivariate logistic regression

Results Our sample (n=2000): ▫50% female ▫3 age groups:  (28%) years  (37%) years  (35%) 55+ years ▫Education:  (7%) >high school  (30%) completed university ▫Region:  20% of respondents from each HA

Harm Reduction bivariate (n=1749) VariablesSupport n=1372 Oppose N=377 p-value Age 19 – – (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%) 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%) 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) VariableOR 95%CIAOR 95%CIp-value Age (referent) , , 0.41, , , <0.001 Sex F (referent) vs M , , Education =University (referent) <high school =high school =some post secondary =cert/ diploma , , , , , , , , Health Authority VCH (referent) IH FH VIHA NH , , , , , , , , <

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: 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

Thank you! Questions? Contact information: Webpage: