Abstract
Objectives
Heroin-assisted treatment clinics are currently the focus of a social debate. In spite of the clinics’ effectiveness in reducing illicit opiate use, some decision-makers refuse to set them up because of their possible negative impact. These clinics could attract new drug users into the neighbourhood which could lead to an accumulation of injection debris and to a decrease in the sense of security in the community. This study assesses the impact on some elements observed in the surrounding community following the opening of the Montreal heroin-assisted treatment clinic.
Methods
Ethnographical walks were taken in order to collect data on the amount of injection debris, street debris and deviant activities. Data were then aggregated on a daily basis and our interrupted time series were analyzed using the segmented regression methodology.
Results
Results show that the opening of the clinic was followed by a significant drop in the amount of injection and street debris. This reduction appears proportional to the number of clinic participants.
Conclusion
The Montreal heroin-assisted treatment clinic did not produce any negative impact on the surrounding community. In fact, implementation of this kind of clinic was followed by a positive effect on the neighbourhood. In addition to the ethnographical walks, further studies should include surveys in order to estimate the impact of heroinassisted treatment clinics on residents’ sense of security. Even if there appears to be a positive impact, it is possible that the mere presence of these clinics negatively affects community members’ sense of security.
Key words: Heroin-assisted treatment, impact, community, Montreal
Résumé
Objectifs
Les cliniques de prescription médicale d’héroïne sont actuellement au cœur d’un débat. Bien qu’elles soient efficaces pour réduire la consommation d’opiacés illicites, certains gouvernements refusent leur mise sur pied. On croit parfois que l’ouverture de telles cliniques risque d’avoir des répercussions négatives. Elles pourraient attirer de nouveaux consommateurs dans le quartier, ce qui contribuerait notamment à l’accumulation de débris d’injection et à la détérioration du sentiment de sécurité de la population. Cette étude évalue l’effet de l’ouverture de la clinique de prescription médicale d’héroïne de Montréal sur certains éléments de l’environnement de la communauté environnante.
Méthodes
Des marches ethnographiques furent réalisées afin de colliger des données sur le nombre de débris d’injection, débris de rue et activités déviantes. Les données furent par la suite agrégées sur une base journalière et nos séries chronologiques interrompues furent analysées à l’aide de la méthodologie de la régression segmentée.
Résultats
Les résultats démontrent que l’ouverture de la clinique fut suivie d’une baisse significative des débris d’injection et des débris de rue. La réduction des débris semble proportionnelle au nombre de participants.
Conclusion
La clinique montréalaise de prescription médicale d’héroïne n’a pas produit de conséquences négatives sur l’environnement communautaire. Au contraire, l’implantation d’une telle clinique s’est accompagnée d’un effet positif sur la communauté avoisinante. En plus des marches ethnographiques, les futures études devraient inclurent des sondages afin d’évaluer l’impact de ces cliniques sur le sentiment de sécurité des résidents. Même s’il y a apparition d’un impact environnemental positif, il demeure probable que la seule présence de ces cliniques dans un secteur affecte négativement le sentiment de sécurité des citoyens.
Mots clés: prescription d’héroïne, impact, communauté, Montréal
Footnotes
Conflit d’intérêts: Aucun à déclarer.
Références
- 1.Fischer B, Rehm J, Kirst M, Casas M, Hall W, Krausz M e coll. Heroinassisted treatment as a response to the public health problem of opiate dependence. Eur J Public Health. 2002;12(3):228–34. doi: 10.1093/eurpub/12.3.228. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Fischer B, Cruz F M, Rehm J. Illicit opioid use and its key characteristics: A select overview and evidence from a Canadian multisite cohort of illicit opioid users (OPICAN) Can J Psychiatry. 2006;51(10):624–34. doi: 10.1177/070674370605101002. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.National Institute on Drug Abuse. Res Report Series. 2005. Heroin abuse and addiction; pp. 1–8. [Google Scholar]
- 4.Schneeberger P, Guèvrement PA. NAOMI–North American Opiate Medication Initiative, présenté dans le cadre de la Tournée des Partenaires du RISQ. 2007. [Google Scholar]
- 5.Dony EC, Brasser SM, Bigelow GE, Stitzer ML, Walsh SL. Methadone doses of 100 mg or greater are more effective than lower doses at suppressing heroin self-administration in opioid-dependent volunteers. Addiction. 2005;100:1496–509. doi: 10.1111/j.1360-0443.2005.01232.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Murray JB. Effectiveness of methadone maintenance for heroin addiction. Psychol Rep. 1998;83:295–302. doi: 10.2466/pr0.1998.83.1.295. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Harris AH, Gospodarevskaya E, Ritter AJ. A randomized trial of the cost effectiveness of buprenorphine as an alternative to methadone maintenance treatment for heroin dependence in a primary care setting. Pharmacoeconomics. 2005;23(1):77–91. doi: 10.2165/00019053-200523010-00007. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Léonard L, Ben Amar M. Les psychotropes: pharmacologie et toxicomanie. Montréal, QC: Les presses de l’Université de Montréal; 2002. [Google Scholar]
- 9.Soyka M, Zingg C, Koller G, Kuefner H. Retention rate and substance use in methadone and buprenorphine maintenance therapy and predictors of outcome: Results from a randomized study. Int J Neuropsychopharmacology. 2008;11(5):641–53. doi: 10.1017/S146114570700836X. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Mattick RP, Kimber J. Buprenorphine maintenance versus placebo or metha-done maintenance for opioid dependence. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2003;2:CD002207. [DOI] [PubMed]
- 11.Strain EC, Stitzer ML, Liebson IA, Bigelow GE. Buprenorphine versus metha-done in the treatment of opioid-dependent cocaine users. Psychopharmaco-logy. 1994;116(4):401–6. doi: 10.1007/BF02247469. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Dijkgraaf MGW, van der Zanden BP, de Borgie CA, Blanken P, van Ree JM, van den Brink W. Cost utility analysis of co-prescribed heroin compared with methadone maintenance treatment in heroin addicts in two randomised trials. Br Med J. 2005;330(7503):1297–303. doi: 10.1136/bmj.330.7503.1297. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Satel SL, Aeschbach E. The Swiss heroin trials. J Subst Abuse Treatment. 1999;17(4):331–35. doi: 10.1016/S0740-5472(99)00046-X. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Verthein U, Bonorden-Kleij K, Degkwitz P, Dilg C, Köhler WK, Passie T e coll. Long-term effects of heroin-assisted treatment in Germany. Addiction. 2008;103(6):960–66. doi: 10.1111/j.1360-0443.2008.02185.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.Symonds A, Staunton PJ, Cohen I, Jobling J, Kerr M, Meagher R e coll. Parliament of New South Wales, NSW, Australia. 1998. Report on the Establishment or Trial of Safe Injecting Rooms 1998; pp. 1–294. [Google Scholar]
- 16.Dehue T. A Dutch treat: Randomized controlled experimentation and the case of heroin-maintenance in the Netherlands. History Human Sci. 2002;15(2):75–98. doi: 10.1177/0952695102015002127. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 17.Bennett RR, Flavin JM. Determinants of fear of crime: The effect of cultural setting. Justice Q. 1994;11(3):357–81. doi: 10.1080/07418829400092311. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 18.Skogan WG. Disorder and Decline: Crime and the Spiral of Decay in American Cities. New York, NY: University of California Press; 1990. [Google Scholar]
- 19.Pikora T, Giles-Corti B, Bull F, Jamrozik K, Donovan R. Developing a framework for assessment of the environmental determinants of walking and cycling. Soc Sci Med. 2003;56(8):1693–703. doi: 10.1016/S0277-9536(02)00163-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20.Goldstein PJ. The drugs/violence nexus. A tripartite conceptual framework. J Drug Issues. 1985;14:493–506. doi: 10.1177/002204268501500406. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 21.Goldstein JP. Drugs and violent crime. In: Weiner NA, Wolfgang ME, editors. Pathways to Criminal Violence. Newbury Park, CA: Sage; 1989. [Google Scholar]
- 22.Manzoni P, Brochu S, Fischer B, Rehm J. Determinants of property crime among illicit opiate users outside of treatment across Canada. Deviant Behavior. 2006;27:351–76. doi: 10.1080/01639620600605705. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 23.Oviedo-Joekes E, Brissette S, Marsh DC, Lauzon P, Guh D, Anis A, Schechter M. Diacetylmorphine versus methadone for the treatment of opioid addiction. N Engl J Med. 2009;361:777–86. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa0810635. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24.Bear MF, Connors BW, Paradiso MA. Neurosciences: À la découverte du cerveau. 2e. Baltimore, MD: Lippincott Williams et Wilkins; 2002. [Google Scholar]
- 25.Lamoureux A. Recherche et méthodologie en sciences humaines. 3e. Laval, QC: Éditions Études Vivantes; 2000. [Google Scholar]
- 26.Shadish WR, Cook TD, Campbell DT. Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Designs for Generalized Causal Inference. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin; 2002. [Google Scholar]
- 27.Wagner AK, Soumerai SB, Zhang F, Ross-Degnan D. Segmented regression analysis of interrupted time series studies in medication use research. J Clin Pharm Ther. 2002;27:299–309. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2710.2002.00430.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28.Ouimet M, Fortin F. Les voies de fait au fil des jours. In: Cusson M, Ouimet M, Proulx J, editors. Les violences criminelles. Ste-Foy, QC: Les Presses de l’Université Laval; 1999. [Google Scholar]
- 29.Brisson P. Comité permanent de lutte à la toxicomanie. Montréal, QC: Gouvernement du Québec; 1997. L’approche de réduction des méfaits: sources, situation, pratiques; pp. 1–127. [Google Scholar]
- 30.Lasnier B, Brochu S, Boyd N, Fischer B. A heroin prescription trial: Case studies from Montreal and Vancouver on crime and disorder in the surrounding neighbourhoods. Int J Drug Pol. 2010;21(1):28–35. doi: 10.1016/j.drugpo.2009.04.003. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]