Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25683138›Full record

ArticleThe International journal on drug policy2015

"We need somewhere to smoke crack": An ethnographic study of an unsanctioned safer smoking room in Vancouver, Canada.

Ryan McNeil, Thomas Kerr, Hugh Lampkin, Will Small

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The International journal on drug policy, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 52 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
52citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

52 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Ryan McNeilBC Centre for Excellence in HIV/AIDS, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada; Faculty of Health Sciences, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, British Columbia, Canada. Electronic address: rmcneil@cfenet.ubc.ca.
Thomas KerrBC Centre for Excellence in HIV/AIDS, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada; Department of Medicine, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
Hugh LampkinVancouver Area Network of Drug Users, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
Will SmallBC Centre for Excellence in HIV/AIDS, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada; Faculty of Health Sciences, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, British Columbia, Canada.

Funding

HIV Risk Environments among FSW and DU: A Longitudinal Ethno-Spatial ApproachR01DA033147 · NIDA · UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA · PI KERR, THOMAS, SHANNON, KATE · 2012 to 2016
$1.8M
NIDA NIH HHS R01 DA033147NIDA NIH HHS R01DA033147
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionMany cities around the globe have experienced substantial increases in crack cocaine use. Public health programmes have begun to address crack smoking, primarily through the distribution of safer crack use equipment, but their impacts have been limited. More comprehensive safer environmental interventions, specifically safer smoking rooms (SSR), have been implemented only in select European cities. However, none have been subjected to rigorous evaluation. This ethnographic study was undertaken at an 'unsanctioned' SSR operated by a drug user-led organization in Vancouver, Canada, to explore how this intervention shaped crack smoking practices, public crack smoking, and related harms.

methodsEthnographic fieldwork was undertaken at this SSR from September to December 2011, and included approximately 50 hours of ethnographic observation and 23 in-depth interviews with people who smoke crack. Data were analyzed by drawing on the 'Risk Environment' framework and concepts of 'symbolic', 'everyday', and 'structural' violence.

findingsOur findings illustrate how a high demand for SSRs was driven by the need to minimize exposure to policing (structural violence), drug scene violence (everyday violence), and stigma (symbolic violence) that characterized unregulated drug use settings (e.g., public spaces). Although resource scarcity and social norms operating within the local drug scene (e.g., gendered power relations) perpetuated crack pipe-sharing within unregulated drug use settings, the SSR fostered harm reduction practices by reshaping the social-structural context of crack smoking and reduced the potential for health harms.

conclusionGiven the significant potential of SSRs in reducing health and social harms, there is an urgent need to scale up these interventions. Integrating SSRs into public health systems, and supplementing these interventions with health and social supports, has potential to improve the health and safety of crack-smoking populations.

Indexed as

Harm ReductionAdultBritish ColumbiaCocaine-Related DisordersCrack CocaineData CollectionDrug UsersFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedSmokingSocial SupportViolenceCrack CocaineCrack cocaineDrug useHarm reductionQualitativeSafer smoking rooms

Identifiers

PMID25683138
PMCPMC4468019

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.