People that smoke cracked cocaine suffer a wide range of health-related issues. However, public wellness programming designed because that this populace is limited, an especially in comparison through programming for human being who inject drugs. Canadian best practice referrals encourage needle and also syringe program (NSPs) to administer education about safer cracked cocaine cigarette smoking practices, distribute more secure smoking equipment, and carry out options for more secure disposal of supplied equipment.

You are watching: What can you smoke crack out of


We conducted an digital survey of NSP managers throughout Canada to calculation the proportions the NSPs that administer education and distribute safer smoking devices to civilization who smoke crack cocaine. We additionally assessed adjust in pipe distribution practices between 2008 and 2015 in the district of Ontario.


Analysis the data from 80 programs confirmed that the majority (0.76) noted education to clients on reducing risks connected with sharing crack cocaine smoking devices and around when to replace smoking tools (0.78). The majority (0.64) also distributed safer crack cocaine cigarette smoking equipment and also over fifty percent of these programs (0.55) had actually done therefore for less than 5 years. Amongst programs that dispersed pipes, 0.92 dispersed the encourage heat-resistant Pyrex and/or borosilicate glass pipes. Just 0.50 of our full sample reported the their program provides clients with containers for much safer disposal of offered smoking equipment. The most usual reasons for not distributing safer smoking tools were no enough funding (0.32) and lack of customer demand (0.25). Ontario-specific sub-analyses confirmed a far-reaching increase in the ratio of program distributing pipe in Ontario from 0.15 (2008) come 0.71 (2015).


Our findings allude to important efforts by Canadian NSPs to minimize harm among people who smoke cracked cocaine v provision the education and also equipment, however there room still borders that might be addressed. Our research can carry out guidance because that future cross-jurisdiction researches to define relationships involving harm reduction programs and also provision of safer crack cocaine smoking education and equipment.

Although the injury reduction approach that has moved forward in Canada, and North America much more broadly, is inclusive of civilization who consume a large spectrum of psychoactive substances, actual programming has actually been an ext focused on human being who inject drugs. This is concerning from a public health perspective due to the fact that in Canada cracked cocaine use is common amongst street-based people who use drugs <1–3>. Civilization who smoke cracked cocaine report experiencing dental sores, cuts, and burns that are connected to the use of improvised crack pipes fashioned out of hazardous glass and metal products <4, 5>, and also such injuries may facilitate infectious an illness transmission once pipes space shared amongst users <6, 7>. Pipe sharing is likewise commonly reported, especially when pipe are difficult to acquire <8–10>. Indeed, evidence shows elevated rates of hepatitis C virus (HCV), and also HIV and also other contagious diseases, among people that smoke crack cocaine <11–15>.

There are most likely various, and some convergent, factors why harm reduction programming for human being who smoke crack cocaine has actually lagged behind programming emerged for people who inject drugs. Injection medicine use has actually long been taken into consideration the riskiest kind of drug usage in terms of potential health-related risks and also as such public health and wellness authorities have actually prioritized services, especially HIV avoidance services, for world who inject medicine (e.g., <16>). Nonetheless, although human being who use illicit drugs in basic are a socially marginalized group, human being who smoke cracked cocaine frequently exhibit pronounce marginalization defined by, because that example, poverty, unstable housing or homelessness, and elevated rates of encounters with the criminal justice system (e.g., <1, 17–19>). The establishment of higher services for this drug-using population has relied on extr advocacy efforts. Injury reduction advocates in Toronto and also Vancouver were amongst the an initial groups in Canada to recommend and begin distribution of more secure smoking tools to engage human being who smoke crack cocaine in programming <20, 21>. However, implementation of policies and interventions designed for crack cocaine users has likewise been hindered and delayed by questions about the legality of the distribution of more secure smoking equipment and related opposition from police (cf. <19, 22–26>). In an initiative to promote programming the addresses high prices of HCV among people who smoke crack cocaine, Canadian ideal practice references encourage needle and syringe programs (NSPs) and other injury reduction program to provide education on safer crack cocaine smoking cigarettes practices and also use of smoking equipment; distribute much safer smoking equipment (i.e., Pyrex and/or borosilicate glass tube or “stems”, mouthpieces, screens, and push sticks); and administer options for more secure disposal of used devices <27>. See Fig. 1 because that a photo of the complete set of these ideal practices in connection with to much safer crack cocaine use. These evidence-based indict for more secure crack cocaine smoking cigarettes education and equipment circulation were emerged by a national, multi-stakeholder team (for a summary of the finest practices team formation, composition, and collaboration, see <28>).


Managers that NSPs throughout Canada were invite to participate in an digital survey evaluating program policies and uptake of best practices. Default programs consisted of those activate by a public wellness organization or other company contracted by your local wellness unit to carry out needle/syringe distribution in any province or territory. We concentrated on these “core” programs linked with public health units and also did no attempt come sample “satellite” NSP solutions (see <25>). To broaden their reach, main point NSPs regularly engage other organizations to it is in satellite sites that can likewise offer NSP services. Trying come sample every NSPs including satellite web page would have been a time-consuming effort and one that can not have included much value as main point NSPs often carry out their regional satellite solutions with the vital training (including policies and procedures come follow), supplies, and support (see again <25>). As there is no central registry of every NSPs in Canada, we produced an email attend to list using three approaches. First, us knew from ideal practices research team members the three districts (Quebec, Ontario, and also British Columbia) kept their own an extensive and up-to-date lists of all NSPs (including routine manager email addresses) for their particular regions. We derived these lists for Quebec and also Ontario. An main from the western district of brothers Columbia opted out of giving their email list stating that the burden of participation to be too an excellent for regional NSP managers who to be at the time implementing brand-new overdose prevention programming. We did not have the time and also resources essential to call all public wellness units in british Columbia and then follow up v all NSPs in that province to attain the requisite email addresses. For the remaining districts where, in some cases, there to be a small variety of programs and local supervisors knew each other, we asked the regional representative on the best practices team to administer email contact information for NSP supervisors in their province. Lastly, for the territories, the very first author contacted local harm reduction representatives and a territorial ministry of health and wellness to determine NSP managers in those regions. The northernmost territory, Nunavut, walk not have an NSP. Using these three approaches, we believe that we caught the email addresses for supervisors of every operational core NSPs in Canada, with the exemption of NSPs in british Columbia.

To encourage survey participation, we modified a an approach by Dillman et al. <29> by questioning team members that were involved in injury reduction policy and/or organization provision in their regions to send come their regional NSP supervisors an initial email “alert” to introduce the study and also advise of upcoming invitations come participate. One to 2 weeks after these advises were sent, the first author sent formal email invitations to potential attendees in each province and territory; this invitations consisted of a study info sheet v consent kind and a connect to the survey. Two weeks after these invitations, potential attendees were sent the an initial email reminder around the survey. Two weeks after this reminders, we emailed potential attendees a final reminder about completing the survey. To carry out incentive to get involved in the online survey, we available to all potential participants an choice to enter a attract to success for your program one of 20 gift cards precious $100CAD for a well-known coffee shop chain. Research recruitment to be staggered and the survey was open up to participants from April 9 to august 4, 2015.

Participants to be asked concerns (in Yes/No, many choice, Likert scale, and open-ended formats) about their program characteristics, circulation of injury reduction materials, consisting of safer cracked cocaine smoking cigarettes equipment, and also other crucial topics identified in the finest practice referrals <27, 30>. The questionnaire was developed for an virtual platform, FluidSurveys, and was available in English and French. Please view Additional document 1 that includes English virtual survey message that is relevant to the findings we report in this article. Prior to launching data collection, us pilot experiment the virtual survey with 5 program supervisors from various provinces and also modified some questions as per your feedback. The university of Toronto Research ethics Board (REB) authorized this study.

Data to be downloaded, managed, and analyzed using SPSS (version 24). Specifically, us report frequency distributions and bivariate statistics to characterize the ratio of programs providing safer cracked cocaine smoking cigarettes education and also equipment distribution by NSPs. In addition, utilizing data indigenous an previously study that used the same online survey approaches for Ontario <25>, we contrasted the proportion of program in that district that spread pipes in 2008 matches 2015. Similar data were not available for the other provinces or territories.

Sample characteristics

We invite 125 NSP managers from throughout Canada to complete the virtual survey. A filter question determined eight supervisors who were no eligible come participate because their regime did not proactively distribute needles at that time (our only study eligibility criterion). Of the staying 117 potential participants, 104 initially responded to the survey; ~ above reviewing the data, we removed 24 surveys because of incomplete data, leaving 80 surveys for these analyses. Table 1 presents routine characteristics. Throughout our results, we report the ratio of programs reporting each characteristic or practice.

Provision of much safer crack cocaine cigarette smoking education

A bulk of entrants (0.76) reported the their regimen provides education to clients on reducing risks linked with sharing cracked cocaine smoking equipment. Further, 0.75 shown that their regimen provides education on identifying risks, such as cuts and also injuries, indigenous the usage of improvised smoking devices (e.g., soda cans together makeshift pipes), and 0.72 reported that they carry out education on how to use more secure smoking equipment.

Over 3 quarters of attendees (0.78) reported that their program staff recommend clients around when to replace smoking equipment. In state of details instances once it is time to replace smoking equipment, 0.75 of supervisors reported the their regimen advises client to change pipes and/or mouthpieces if these items have actually been provided by anyone else; 0.74 advise clients to replace their pipe if it is scratched, chipped, or cracked; 0.71 recommend clients to change mouthpieces that room burnt; and 0.70 recommend clients to change the display if it shrinks and also becomes loosened in the pipe.

We inquiry participants about the styles their programs use to provide education come clients about drug-related hazard behaviors and also practices. Given the general method in which we framed these questions, us cannot determine if and where the responses pertain to distribution of education on injection- or smoking-related behaviors, or both. Through that caveat, we minimal these analyses to only supervisors who reported the their program offers education regarding how come use more secure smoking tools (n = 58) and found that all reported that their program provides educational info pamphlets or brochures; 0.97 market one-on-one counseling; 0.79 market demonstrations; 0.52 offer peer-delivered education; 0.38 offer skills-building sessions or group education; and also 0.09 use instructional videos.

Distribution of more secure crack cocaine smoking equipment

When request if their routine distributes “any” safer crack cocaine cigarette smoking equipment, 0.64 of managers responded affirmatively. Of these participants, nearly all (0.96) indicated that their routine distributes pipes; over half (0.55) reported that their regime has dispersed safer smoking devices for much less than 5 years, if 0.43 have done for this reason for an ext than 5 years and the remainder did no know how long their regime has dispersed this equipment. That the programs that distribute pipes, 0.92 apparently distribute the recommended heat-resistant Pyrex and/or borosilicate glass pipes, when 0.08 distribute pipes of one unknown form of glass. The proportions of supervisors who reported circulation of various other pieces of more secure smoking equipment were together follows: 0.94 because that mouthpieces, 0.94 because that screens, and 0.92 for push sticks. In addition to offering each piece of recommended equipment separately, 0.86 indicated that your program offers pre-packaged kits containing pipe plus other safer cigarette smoking equipment. In short, many of the programs that distribute more secure smoking devices reported providing out the recommended types of pipes and also a complement of other safer smoking materials. Just 0.50 of our full sample reported the their program gives clients with containers for safer disposal of used smoking equipment.

Among participants that reported that their regime does not distribute safer smoking devices (0.35), the two most frequently endorsed factors for not doing therefore were not enough capital (0.32) and lack of client demand (0.25). Just two attendees selected “opposition from legislation enforcement” as a reason. Six managers wrote added reasons in your surveys and three the these suggested that their programs room seeking to implement more secure crack cocaine smoking equipment distribution and/or have actually received recent approval to carry out so.

When asked around distribution policies, 0.53 of supervisors who shown that their regimen distributes pipes reported no best on the variety of pipes the they will provide to a client at any type of one time; the remaining 0.47 shown that their regimen sets a maximum. Reported boundaries ranged native one come 20 pipes every visit, despite most typically participants (0.57) suggested that their program imposes a maximum of one or two pipes per client at a time. When asked why their regimen imposes limits on pipeline distribution, 0.61 that these managers reported the this quantity adequately meets customer demand and also 0.52 reported concerns about running the end of supplies. Number of participants added much more information to your surveys that argued that maximums are imposed due to concerns around clients selling their pipes on the street (e.g., “Some clients have been recognized to offer what they don’t use”). One participant added that a advantage of having actually a pipe limit is the it keeps clients who smoke crack cocaine coming back to their regime for services (i.e., “to preserve continuity of call with the clients so that we can administer support, education, and referrals”).

Influence of finest practices on more secure smoking education and distribution practices

Also as part of the virtual survey, we asked supervisors if they and their staff had used the recent set of national best practice recommendations <27> to adjust and align program techniques with claimed evidence-based guidance. Simply under half of participants (0.49) reported that their program provided the recommendations to influence pipe circulation practices, 0.49 also did so to influence safer smoking education practices, and 0.39 did so to influence other smoking equipment (e.g., mouthpieces, screens) circulation practices.

See more: How Many Protons Are In A Hydrogen Atom Have? Atomic Structure

Ontario: an ext programs distributing pipes over time

Finally, to study potential alters in pipe circulation over time, us performed Ontario-specific sub-analyses and also compared review data gathered in 2008 <25> through data from the 2015 survey. Evaluation showed a far-reaching increase in the relationship of programs distributing pipe in Ontario from 0.15 come 0.71.