Youth Wellness Hubs Ontario: Development and initial implementation of integrated youth services in Ontario, Canada.

AIM: The need for youth-friendly early intervention services to meet the mental health, substance use, primary care, and other social needs of adolescents and young adults is well-documented. This article describes Youth Wellness Hubs Ontario, a province-wide initiative in Ontario, Canada to build and implement a one-stop-shop model of integrated youth services. METHODS: We describe the development of Youth Wellness Hubs Ontario, in the context of global youth mental health system transformation, as well as pan-Canadian youth mental health system change. We also describe Youth Wellness Hubs Ontario's values and services. RESULTS: The demonstration phase of Youth Wellness Hubs Ontario was initiated in 2017-2018. Youth Wellness Hubs Ontario is co-created with youth for youth aged 12-25 years old across diverse community contexts. Youth Wellness Hubs Ontario centres engagement and equity, and offers developmentally-appropriate services in an integrated, community-based walk-in format. As an initiative committed to continuous learning and quality improvement, Youth Wellness Hubs Ontario offers evidence-based and evidence-generating services, and measurement-based care. Youth Wellness Hubs Ontario is supported by backbone resources with expertise in implementation science, health equity, Indigenous practices, youth and family engagement, evaluation, and knowledge translation. In 2020 Youth Wellness Hubs Ontario secured sustainable funding for the first 10 locations and scale-up began in 2021, with 10 additional locations in development. CONCLUSIONS: Youth Wellness Hubs Ontario demonstrates the feasibility of integrated mental health and substance use early intervention services, offered in the context of a broad range of health and social services.

Design considerations for supervised consumption facilities (SCFs): preferences for facilities where people can inject and smoke drugs.

BACKGROUND: Supervised consumption facilities (SCFs) aim to improve the health and well-being of people who use drugs by offering safer and more hygienic alternatives to the risk environments where people typically use drugs in the community. People who smoke crack cocaine may be willing to use supervised smoking facilities (SSFs), but their facility design preferences and the views of other stakeholders have not been previously investigated in detail. METHODS: We consulted with people who use drugs and other stakeholders including police, fire and ambulance service personnel, other city employees and city officials, healthcare providers, residents, and business owners (N = 236) in two Canadian cities without SCFs and asked how facilities ought to be designed. All consultations were audio-recorded and transcribed. Thematic analyses were used to describe the knowledge and opinions of stakeholders. RESULTS: People who use drugs see SSFs as offering public health and safety benefits, while other stakeholders were more sceptical about the need for SSFs. People who use drugs provided insights into how a facility might be designed to accommodate supervised injection and supervised smoking. Their strongest preference would allow both methods of drug use within the same facility with some form of physical separation between the two based on different highs, comfort regarding exposure to different methods of drug administration, and concerns about behaviours often associated with smoking crack cocaine. Other stakeholders raised a number of SSF implementation challenges worthy of consideration. CONCLUSION: Decision-makers in cities considering SCF or SSF implementation should consider the opinions and preferences of potential clients to ensure that facilities will attract, retain, and engage people who use drugs.

Police perceptions of supervised consumption sites (SCSs): a qualitative study.

Police are key stakeholders in cities considering supervised consumption site (SCS) implementation. We examine police perceptions of SCSs using data collected between 2008 and 2010. Data from interviews and focus groups conducted with police officers of varied ranks (n = 18) in Ottawa and Toronto, Canada, were analyzed using thematic analyses. Participants opposed SCS implementation in their respective cities. The police views we heard invoke values and perspectives on evidence that differ from those used in research. Whether these divergent frameworks are reconcilable is a question for future research. Study limitations are noted. The Ontario HIV Treatment Network funded the study.

Giving away used injection equipment: missed prevention message?

BACKGROUND: Our objective was to examine factors associated with distributive injection equipment sharing and how needle exchange programs (NEPs) can help reduce distributive sharing among injection drug users (IDUs). METHODS: 145 English speaking Canadian IDUs ages 16 years and over who had injected in the past 30 days were recruited for a cross-sectional survey. Participants were asked about their socio-demographic characteristics, HIV risk behaviours, social support, drug treatment readiness, program satisfaction, health and social service use and NEP drug use. Bivariate statistics and logistic regression were used to characterize the population and examine correlates of sharing behaviour. RESULTS: More IDUs reported distributive sharing of cookers (45%) than needles (36%) or other types of equipment (water 36%; filters 29%; swabs 8%). Regression analyses revealed the following factors associated with distributing used cookers: a history of cocaine/crack injection, an Addiction Severity Index (ASI) score indicative of a mental health problem, and older than 30 years of age. Factors associated with giving away used water included: male, injected methadone, injected other stimulants and moved 3+ times in the past 6 months. Factors associated with giving away used filters included: injected cocaine/crack or stayed overnight on the street or other public place. Factors associated with giving away swabs included: an ASI mental health score indicative of a mental health problem, and HCV negative status. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings show that more IDUs give away cookers than needles or other injection equipment. While the results showed that correlates of sharing differed by piece of equipment, each point to distributive sharing by the most marginalized IDUs. Targeting prevention efforts to reduce equipment sharing in general, and cookers in particular is warranted to reduce use of contaminated equipment and viral transmission.