ArticleHarm reduction journal2025
Facilitating access to supervised smoking facilities: a qualitative study.
Article in Harm reduction journal, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionThe implementation of supervised smoking facilities (SSFs) as a harm reduction intervention has public health benefits for people who inhale drugs, but there are significant knowledge gaps surrounding the perspectives of SSF visitors and staff on their implementation and accessibility. We conducted this study to learn about their perspectives on barriers and facilitators to accessibility at SSFs.
methodsThe study used a community-based participatory research study design. PWUD and SSF leadership were involved in all phases of the research project as members of the research team. Between June 2021 and April 2022, we conducted 10 qualitative semi-structured interviews with peer workers and stakeholders at an SSF in Vancouver, Canada to examine perspectives on how to facilitate accessibility for visitors. Interviews were analyzed using an abductive analytic approach, themes were defined and organized collaboratively by the research team.
resultsPeer workers and SSF leadership interviewed in the study described aspects of the SSF that contributed to a low-barrier service model and resulted in greater accessibility for visitors, including: (1) non-punitive approaches to interpersonal challenges, (2) anonymity and privacy, (3) peer involvement, and (4) physical environment. Limitations to access were also described and included: (1) age restrictions, (2) geographical location and (3) infrequent, temporary bars for certain behaviors. DISCUSSION: Findings from this study identified many dimensions of the low-barrier SSF service model and site design that may contribute to greater accessibility for SSF visitors. Findings from this study could be used to inform the scale-up and implementation of SSFs as a harm reduction approach to reducing mortality and other negative outcomes related to the current drug toxicity crisis.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.