Abstract
BackgroundHarm reduction programs are often vulnerable to political and vocal opposition despite documented evidence of their effectiveness and economic benefit. It is not well understood if opponents to harm reduction represent the general public’s attitudes.ObjectiveTo understand the attitudes of the people of British Columbia (BC) towards various harm reduction strategies and services, and factors associated with support for harm reduction.MethodsA random-digit dialing telephone survey assessing attitudes towards various harm reduction strategies was administered to British Columbians in August 2011 (n = 2000). We compared the level of support for general harm reduction by sex, age, education level, and area of residence (Health Authority region) (χ2). Multivariate logistic regression was used to assess odds of support for harm reduction.ResultsOverall support for general harm reduction among participants was 76%; needle distribution 72%; needle distribution in one’s local community 65%; and safer inhalation equipment distribution 52%. In the multivariate analysis, those with significantly lower odds of supporting harm reduction were male, older, had equal or less than high school education or completed a certificate/diploma program, and resided in the Fraser Health Authority region. The Health Authority region with a municipality that has introduced a bylaw prohibiting the implementation of harm reduction services was found to have 69% support for harm reduction. Another Health Authority region with a municipality that closed a long-standing needle distribution site was found to have over 78% support.ConclusionIn contrast to some local policies, our results show the British Columbians surveyed in our study support harm reduction. It is unclear whether policy makers are swayed by a vocal minority or block harm reduction activities for other reasons. Tailoring messages towards segments of the public less likely to support harm reduction, as well civic policy-makers and the media, may help to reduce stigma and gain support for harm reduction services designed to protect and improve the health of the individual and the public.
Highlights
Harm reduction programs are often vulnerable to political and vocal opposition despite documented evidence of their effectiveness and economic benefit
In contrast to some local policies, our results show the British Columbians surveyed in our study support harm reduction
We found less support for harm reduction in the Fraser Health Authority region, in which a bylaw prohibiting harm reduction services is in place in several municipalities [10,39]
Summary
Harm reduction programs are often vulnerable to political and vocal opposition despite documented evidence of their effectiveness and economic benefit. Harm reduction aims to minimize death, disease, and injury from high-risk behaviour by promoting safer drug use practices among people who use drugs who have not accepted, or are not currently able to accept, a treatment goal of abstinence [1,2]. It involves a range of strategies and services including needle distribution programs, safer. Despite documented evidence of health benefits and economic benefit, harm reduction programs may be limited because of perceived negative public opinion and policy makers’ fear of sending the ‘wrong message’ [3,6,13,14]
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
