|Titre :||The evaluation literature on drug consumption rooms. Independent working group on drug consumption rooms. Paper B|
|Auteurs :||N. HUNT ; Independent working group on drug consumption rooms|
|Type de document :||Rapport|
|Editeur :||York : Joseph Rowntree Foundation, 2006|
|Format :||54 p.|
|Note générale :||This report is published as supporting evidence to The Report of the Independent Working Group on Drug Consumption Rooms|
|Discipline :||TRA (Traitement et prise en charge / Treatment and care)|
Thésaurus TOXIBASEEVALUATION ; SALLE DE CONSOMMATION A MOINDRE RISQUE ; STRUCTURE DE PROXIMITE ; EFFICACITE ; REDUCTION DES RISQUES
Increasingly, 'safer injecting rooms' (SIRs) and other 'drug consumption rooms' (DCRs) are being adopted as a component within national responses to the health and community safety problems that can accompany illicit drug use.
Although a range of terms have been used including: 'safer injection rooms' (Nadelmann et al., 1999); 'supervised injecting centres' (Kimber et al., 2002); 'safe injecting rooms' (Home Affairs Select Committee, 2002); and, 'medically supervised injecting centres' (MSIC) (Mattick et al., 2001), the term 'drug consumption rooms' is emerging as the preferred term within the scientific literature for the description of this broad type of facility, within which drugs are either injected or smoked.
One recent, published international review of DCRs defined them as "legally sanctioned low threshold facilities which allow the hygienic consumption of pre-obtained drugs under professional supervision in a non-judgemental environment" (Kimber et al., 2003). Hedrich (2004), in the most comprehensive review to date for the European Monitoring Centre on Drugs and Drug Addiction (EMCDDA) - an EU body - uses the definition from Akzept (2000): ... protected places for the hygienic consumption of preobtained drugs in a non-judgemental environment and under the supervision of trained staff.
The EMCDDA review examined peer-reviewed and 'grey' literature as well as conference proceedings. An expert advisory group comprising members from all countries in which DCRs operated at the time helped identify literature published in English and the language(s) of each country.
Because of the recency and breadth of the review for the EMCDDA, no attempt is made to duplicate it here. Instead, this review takes the form of: a summary of the main findings and Hedrich's conclusions with a commentary on these. These are then updated on the basis of a review of the identified English language literature that has since been published (appended). Because the concern is with effectiveness, the focus is largely restricted to new research that adds to an understanding of whether or how DCRs are effective and with whom: it does not include more general commentaries on their desirability or otherwise, other than where these add to our understanding of the evidence or their effectiveness and how it should be generated or interpreted. Similarly, this review does not attempt to summarise the history of DCRs or the legal questions that surround their implementation. [Extract]
|Note de contenu :||
2 The EMCDDA review: summary with commentary
2.1 The history and distribution of DCRS
2.2 How do DCRS operate?
2.3 Expected benefits and risks
2.4 Reaching the target group:
2.4.1 Characteristics of service users;
2.4.2 Utilisation and coverage.
2.5.1 Hygiene and safety;
2.5.2 Reducing morbidity and mortality;
2.5.3 Stabilizing and promoting the health of service users.
2.6 Public order and crime
3 Additional evidence published since the EMCDDA review
3.1 Health: additional research on effectiveness published since the EMCDDA report
3.2 Public order and crime: additional research on effectiveness published since the EMCDDA report
|Domaine :||Drogues illicites / Illicit drugs|
|Sous-type de document :||Revue de la littérature / Literature review|
|- voir aussi :|