Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26860540›Full record

ArticleSubstance abuse treatment, prevention, and policy2016

Public opinions about supervised smoking facilities for crack cocaine and other stimulants.

Carol Strike, Nooshin Khobzi Rotondi, Tara Marie Watson, Gillian Kolla, Ahmed M Bayoumi

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Substance abuse treatment, prevention, and policy, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
1.4field-weighted citation impact, top 18% of its field
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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 21 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. French People's positions on supervised injection facilities for drug users.Substance abuse treatment, prevention, and policy · 2020
    Article
  8. Supervised inhalation is an important part of supervised consumption services.Canadian journal of public health = Revue canadienne de sante publique · 2019
    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

5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Carol StrikeDalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, 155 College Street, Toronto, Canada. carol.strike@utoronto.ca.
Nooshin Khobzi RotondiMusculoskeletal Health and Outcomes Research, Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute, St. Michael's Hospital, 30 Bond Street, Toronto, Canada. nooshin.rotondi@gmail.com.
Tara Marie WatsonDalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, 155 College Street, Toronto, Canada. tara.watson@utoronto.ca.
Gillian KollaDalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, 155 College Street, Toronto, Canada. gillian.kolla@utoronto.ca.
Ahmed M BayoumiCentre for Research on Innercity Health, Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute, St. Michael's Hospital, 30 Bond Street, Toronto, Canada. ahmed.bayoumi@utoronto.ca.
University of Toronto · CAPublic Health Ontario · CASt. Michael's Hospital · CA

Funding

Canadian Institutes of Health Research
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe purpose of this study was to estimate awareness and opinions about supervised smoking facilities (SSFs) for smoking crack cocaine and other stimulants and make comparisons with awareness and opinions about supervised injection facilities (SIFs) in Ontario, Canada.

methodsWe used data from a 2009 telephone survey of a representative adult sample. The survey asked about awareness of, and level of support for, the implementation of SSFs and SIFs. Data were analysed using statistical models for complex survey data, which account for stratified sampling and incorporate sampling weights.

resultsA total of 1035 participated in the survey. Significantly fewer had knowledge about SSFs (17.9 %) than about SIFs (57.6 %). Fewer strongly agreed with implementation of SSFs (19.6 %) than SIFs (28.3 %). Just over half (51.1 %) of participants somewhat agreed or disagreed, 15.7 % strongly agreed, and 10.6 % strongly disagreed with implementing both SSFs and SIFs.

conclusionsMembers of the public in Ontario had little knowledge of SSFs compared to SIFs. Recent federal government changes in Canada may provide the leadership environment necessary to ensure that innovative, evidence-based harm reduction programs such as SSFs are developed and implemented.

Indexed as

Health Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeNeedle-Exchange ProgramsPublic OpinionSmokingAdministration, InhalationAdolescentAdultCentral Nervous System StimulantsCrack CocaineFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedOntarioYoung AdultCentral Nervous System StimulantsCrack Cocaine

Identifiers

PMID26860540
PMCPMC4748465
OpenAlexW2289592755

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.