DCRs as an evidence-based intervention

The EMCDDA (now EUDA since July 2024 ) report on DCRs provides substantial evidence demonstrating the effectiveness of these interventions in various areas:

  1. Reduced overdose incidents: Studies consistently show that DCRs effectively reduce overdose (OD) events. Data from these facilities suggest probable effectiveness in preventing fatal overdoses and decreasing the number of emergency department calls related to opioid overdoses [^1] [^3] [^5].
  2. Improved injecting practices and hygiene: DCRs promote safer injection conditions, significantly reducing injecting-related harms. The facilities provide a clean environment and adequate drug equipment. This leads to healthier behaviours, bettter injecting practices and reduced transmission of infections such as HIV and Hepatitis C (HCV) [^1] [^2] [^4] [^5].
  3. Public health benefits: DCRs contribute to public health by reducing the transmission of infectious diseases through sterile equipment and safer use guidance. They also offer emergency interventions and take-home naloxone programmes, aiming to lower overdose-related morbidity and mortality, thereby easing strain on on ambulance services and hospital emergency rooms [^1] [^3] [^4].
  4. Access to healthcare and social services: DCRs facilitate access to primary healthcare, mental health treatment, and evidence-based drug treatment programmes. They also improve social integration by connecting individuals with health and social services, including housing and economic support services [^1] [^2] [^4].
  5. Reduced public drug use and nuisance: The presence of DCRs is associated with lower levels of public drug injections and discarded syringes. Local residents and business owners report less public drug use and improved public amenities following the opening of a DCR [^1] [^2] [^4].

In conclusion, the evidence supports DCRs as a beneficial intervention. They demonstrably improve individual health outcomes, enhance public health, and address concerns related to public order and safety. While research methodologies may present some challenges, the consistent findings across various studies underscore significant impact of DCRs [^1] [^2] [^3] [^4] [^5].

References:

  1. Hedrich, D., Kerr, T. and Dubois-Arber, F. (2010), ‘Drug consumption facilities in Europe and beyond’, in Rhodes, T. and Hedrich, D. (eds), Harm reduction: evidence, impacts and challenges, EMCDDA Scientific Monograph Series No. 10, Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, pp. 305–31

  2. Kimber, J., MacDonald, M., van Beek, I., et al. (2003), ‘The Sydney Medically Supervised Injecting Centre: client characteristics and predictors of frequent attendance during the first 12 months of operation’, Journal of Drug Issues 33, pp. 639–48.

  3. Milloy, M. J. and Wood, E. (2009), ‘Emerging role of supervised injecting facilities in human immunodeficiency virus prevention’, Addiction 104(4), pp. 620–1.

  4. Potier, C., Laprévote, V., Dubois-Arber, F., Cottencin, O. and Rolland, B. (2014), ‘Supervised injection services: what has been demonstrated? A systematic literature review’, Drug and Alcohol Dependence 145, pp. 48–68.

  5. Salmon, A. M., Van Beek, I., Amin, J., Kaldor, J. and Maher, L. (2010), ‘The impact of a supervised injecting facility on ambulance call-outs in Sydney, Australia’, Addiction 105, pp. 676–83.

Updated: 2024
Return to Course Index
;