↓ Skip to main content

CMAJ

Summary of findings from the evaluation of a pilot medically supervised safer injecting facility

Overview of attention for article published in Canadian Medical Association Journal, November 2006
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (98th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
51 news outlets
blogs
9 blogs
policy
1 policy source
twitter
47 X users
wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
146 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
171 Mendeley
Title
Summary of findings from the evaluation of a pilot medically supervised safer injecting facility
Published in
Canadian Medical Association Journal, November 2006
DOI 10.1503/cmaj.060863
Pubmed ID
Authors

Evan Wood, Mark W Tyndall, Julio S Montaner, Thomas Kerr

Abstract

In many cities, infectious disease and overdose epidemics are occurring among illicit injection drug users (IDUs). To reduce these concerns, Vancouver opened a supervised safer injecting facility in September 2003. Within the facility, people inject pre-obtained illicit drugs under the supervision of medical staff. The program was granted a legal exemption by the Canadian government on the condition that a 3-year scientific evaluation of its impacts be conducted. In this review, we summarize the findings from evaluations in those 3 years, including characteristics of IDUs at the facility, public injection drug use and publicly discarded syringes, HIV risk behaviour, use of addiction treatment services and other community resources, and drug-related crime rates. Vancouver's safer injecting facility has been associated with an array of community and public health benefits without evidence of adverse impacts. These findings should be useful to other cities considering supervised injecting facilities and to governments considering regulating their use.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 47 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 171 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 <1%
Portugal 1 <1%
Unknown 169 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 41 24%
Student > Master 38 22%
Researcher 16 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 8%
Student > Postgraduate 8 5%
Other 19 11%
Unknown 36 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 39 23%
Social Sciences 32 19%
Nursing and Health Professions 18 11%
Psychology 13 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 4%
Other 22 13%
Unknown 41 24%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 532. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 10 April 2023.
All research outputs
#46,931
of 25,528,120 outputs
Outputs from Canadian Medical Association Journal
#84
of 9,489 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#66
of 168,094 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Canadian Medical Association Journal
#2
of 51 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,528,120 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 9,489 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 34.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 168,094 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 51 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.