Facilitating access to supervised smoking facilities: a qualitative study
- PMID: 40251645
- PMCID: PMC12007214
- DOI: 10.1186/s12954-025-01217-9
Facilitating access to supervised smoking facilities: a qualitative study
Abstract
Introduction: The 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.
Methods: The 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.
Results: Peer 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.
Keywords: Equity; Harm reduction; Implementation; Peer worker; Supervised consumption site.
© 2025. The Author(s).
Conflict of interest statement
Declarations. Consent for publication: Not applicable. Competing interests: The authors declare no competing interests.
Similar articles
-
Supervised smoking facility access, harm reduction practices, and substance use changes during the COVID-19 pandemic: a community-engaged cross-sectional study.Harm Reduct J. 2023 Jul 31;20(1):101. doi: 10.1186/s12954-023-00825-7. Harm Reduct J. 2023. PMID: 37525168 Free PMC article.
-
Peer worker involvement in low-threshold supervised consumption facilities in the context of an overdose epidemic in Vancouver, Canada.Soc Sci Med. 2019 Mar;225:60-68. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2019.02.014. Epub 2019 Feb 10. Soc Sci Med. 2019. PMID: 30798157 Free PMC article.
-
Expanding conceptualizations of harm reduction: results from a qualitative community-based participatory research study with people who inject drugs.Harm Reduct J. 2017 May 12;14(1):18. doi: 10.1186/s12954-017-0145-2. Harm Reduct J. 2017. PMID: 28494774 Free PMC article.
-
Implementation and sustainability of safe consumption sites: a qualitative systematic review and thematic synthesis.Harm Reduct J. 2022 Jul 5;19(1):73. doi: 10.1186/s12954-022-00655-z. Harm Reduct J. 2022. PMID: 35790994 Free PMC article.
-
Women and barriers to harm reduction services: a literature review and initial findings from a qualitative study in Barcelona, Spain.Harm Reduct J. 2020 Oct 19;17(1):78. doi: 10.1186/s12954-020-00429-5. Harm Reduct J. 2020. PMID: 33076931 Free PMC article. Review.
References
-
- Clarke V, Braun V. Thematic analysis. J Posit Psychol. 2017;12(3):297–8.
MeSH terms
Grants and funding
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Miscellaneous