STAGE 5. Defining the action plan

What steps should be completed?

Step 1: Specify intervention actions

COCAINE-RELATED HARM REDUCTION PROGRAMMES

The quality of evidence for this type of intervention is very low as there are no rigorous studies that have assessed harm reduction strategies in cocaine-dependent patients. This situation is largely attributable to the fact that harm reduction programmes aimed exclusively at habitual cocaine users are very scarce. In spite of this, some strategies tested in this field, mainly related to supervised consumption rooms, show a positive impact in the reduction of harms related to the consumption of this substance^1,2, and are well received by the consumers themselves³.

Although for some years programmes os distribution kits for a safer use of crack have been launched in canada, the United States and some Latin American countries, to date there are no rigorous studies about their effectiveness. Based on these data, there is a general recommendation that cocaine users (in their various modalities) should have access to information and advice related to the substance and its effects on health and their environment as well as information on available treatment alternatives.

 

References:

 1 Haydon E & Fischer B. (2005). Crack use as a public health problem in Canada: call for an evaluation of ‘safer crack use kits’. Canadian Journal of Public Health. 96(3): 185-188.

2  Shannon K et al. (2006). Potential community and public health impacts of medically supervised safer smoking facilities for crack cocaine users. Harm Reduction Journal. 3: 1-8.

3 Collins CL et al. (2005). Rationale to evaluate medically supervised safer smoking facilities for non-injection illicit drug users. Canadian Journal of Public Health. 96(5): 344-347.