View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Changes in Australians' attitudes towards supervised injecting facilities.

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Changes in Australians' attitudes towards supervised injecting facilities.
Authors: Lloyd, Zachary (AUTHOR), Colledge‐Frisby, Samantha (AUTHOR), Taylor, Nicholas (AUTHOR), Livingston, Michael (AUTHOR), Jauncey, Marianne (AUTHOR), Roxburgh, Amanda (AUTHOR)
Source: Drug & Alcohol Review. Nov2024, Vol. 43 Issue 7, p1892-1904. 13p.
Subjects: Safe injection sites (Community health services), Public opinion, Drug abuse, Pharmaceutical policy, Drug utilization
Abstract: Introduction: Supervised injecting facilities (SIF) have been shown to reduce negative outcomes experienced by people who inject drugs. They are often subject to intense public and media scrutiny. This article aimed to explore population attitudes to SIFs and how these changed over time in Australia. Methods: Data were drawn from the National Drug Strategy Household Survey, a national sample collecting data on illicit drug use and attitudes towards drug policy among Australians (2001–2019). Ordinal logistic regression assessed sociodemographic characteristics associated with different attitudes to SIFs and binary logistic regression assessed trends over time and by jurisdiction. Results: In 2019, 54% of respondents (95% CI 52.9, 55.1) supported SIFs, 27.5% (95% CI 26.6, 28.4) opposed and 18.4% (95% CI 17.7, 19.2) were ambivalent. Support for SIFs correlated with having a university degree (OR 1.75; 95% CI 1.58, 1.94), non‐heterosexual identity (OR 1.81, 95% CI 1.51, 2.17) and recent illicit drug use (OR = 1.74, 95% CI 1.55, 1.94). Male respondents or those living in socioeconomically disadvantaged areas had lower odds of supporting SIFs (OR 0.92, 95% CI 0.85, 1.00; OR 0.64–0.80, respectively). Between 2001 and 2019, support for SIFs increased modestly by 3.3%, those who 'don't know' by 7.4%, whereas opposition decreased by 11.7%. Between 2001 and 2019, support for SIFs increased in NSW and Queensland, whereas opposition decreased in all jurisdictions. Discussion and Conclusions: Opposition to SIFs declined over the past 20 years, but a substantial proportion of respondents are ambivalent or 'don't know enough to say'. Plain language information about SIFs and their potential benefits, targeted to those who are ambivalent/'don't know' may further increase public support. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
Copyright of Drug & Alcohol Review is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)
Database: Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
Text:
  Availability: 1
Header DbId: pbh
DbLabel: Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection
An: 180703820
AccessLevel: 6
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Changes in Australians' attitudes towards supervised injecting facilities.
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Lloyd%2C+Zachary%22">Lloyd, Zachary</searchLink> (AUTHOR)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Colledge‐Frisby%2C+Samantha%22">Colledge‐Frisby, Samantha</searchLink> (AUTHOR)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Taylor%2C+Nicholas%22">Taylor, Nicholas</searchLink> (AUTHOR)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Livingston%2C+Michael%22">Livingston, Michael</searchLink> (AUTHOR)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Jauncey%2C+Marianne%22">Jauncey, Marianne</searchLink> (AUTHOR)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Roxburgh%2C+Amanda%22">Roxburgh, Amanda</searchLink> (AUTHOR)
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="JN" term="%22Drug+%26+Alcohol+Review%22">Drug & Alcohol Review</searchLink>. Nov2024, Vol. 43 Issue 7, p1892-1904. 13p.
– Name: Subject
  Label: Subjects
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Safe+injection+sites+%28Community+health+services%29%22">Safe injection sites (Community health services)</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Public+opinion%22">Public opinion</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Drug+abuse%22">Drug abuse</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Pharmaceutical+policy%22">Pharmaceutical policy</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Drug+utilization%22">Drug utilization</searchLink>
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: Introduction: Supervised injecting facilities (SIF) have been shown to reduce negative outcomes experienced by people who inject drugs. They are often subject to intense public and media scrutiny. This article aimed to explore population attitudes to SIFs and how these changed over time in Australia. Methods: Data were drawn from the National Drug Strategy Household Survey, a national sample collecting data on illicit drug use and attitudes towards drug policy among Australians (2001–2019). Ordinal logistic regression assessed sociodemographic characteristics associated with different attitudes to SIFs and binary logistic regression assessed trends over time and by jurisdiction. Results: In 2019, 54% of respondents (95% CI 52.9, 55.1) supported SIFs, 27.5% (95% CI 26.6, 28.4) opposed and 18.4% (95% CI 17.7, 19.2) were ambivalent. Support for SIFs correlated with having a university degree (OR 1.75; 95% CI 1.58, 1.94), non‐heterosexual identity (OR 1.81, 95% CI 1.51, 2.17) and recent illicit drug use (OR = 1.74, 95% CI 1.55, 1.94). Male respondents or those living in socioeconomically disadvantaged areas had lower odds of supporting SIFs (OR 0.92, 95% CI 0.85, 1.00; OR 0.64–0.80, respectively). Between 2001 and 2019, support for SIFs increased modestly by 3.3%, those who 'don't know' by 7.4%, whereas opposition decreased by 11.7%. Between 2001 and 2019, support for SIFs increased in NSW and Queensland, whereas opposition decreased in all jurisdictions. Discussion and Conclusions: Opposition to SIFs declined over the past 20 years, but a substantial proportion of respondents are ambivalent or 'don't know enough to say'. Plain language information about SIFs and their potential benefits, targeted to those who are ambivalent/'don't know' may further increase public support. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
– Name: AbstractSuppliedCopyright
  Label:
  Group: Ab
  Data: <i>Copyright of Drug & Alcohol Review is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract.</i> (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=pbh&AN=180703820
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1111/dar.13937
    Languages:
      – Code: eng
        Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 13
        StartPage: 1892
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Safe injection sites (Community health services)
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Public opinion
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Drug abuse
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Pharmaceutical policy
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Drug utilization
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Changes in Australians' attitudes towards supervised injecting facilities.
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Lloyd, Zachary
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Colledge‐Frisby, Samantha
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Taylor, Nicholas
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Livingston, Michael
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Jauncey, Marianne
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Roxburgh, Amanda
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 11
              Text: Nov2024
              Type: published
              Y: 2024
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 09595236
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 43
            – Type: issue
              Value: 7
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Drug & Alcohol Review
              Type: main
ResultId 1