Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current issue
    • Past issues
    • Collections
  • Authors & Reviewers
    • Overview for Authors
    • Preparing manuscripts
    • Submission Checklist
    • Publication Fees
    • Forms
    • Editorial Policies
    • Editorial Process
    • Patient-Oriented Research
    • Manuscript Progress
    • Submitting a letter
    • Information for Reviewers
    • Open access
  • Alerts
    • Email alerts
    • RSS
  • About
    • General information
    • Staff
    • Editorial board
    • Contact
  • CMAJ JOURNALS
    • CMAJ
    • CJS
    • JAMC
    • JPN

User menu

Search

  • Advanced search
CMAJ Open
  • CMAJ JOURNALS
    • CMAJ
    • CJS
    • JAMC
    • JPN
CMAJ Open

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current issue
    • Past issues
    • Collections
  • Authors & Reviewers
    • Overview for Authors
    • Preparing manuscripts
    • Submission Checklist
    • Publication Fees
    • Forms
    • Editorial Policies
    • Editorial Process
    • Patient-Oriented Research
    • Manuscript Progress
    • Submitting a letter
    • Information for Reviewers
    • Open access
  • Alerts
    • Email alerts
    • RSS
  • About
    • General information
    • Staff
    • Editorial board
    • Contact
  • Subscribe to our alerts
  • RSS feeds
  • Follow CMAJ Open on Twitter
Research

Public drug injecting in London, Ontario: a cross-sectional survey

Ayden Scheim, Beth Rachlis, Geoff Bardwell, Sanjana Mitra and Thomas Kerr
April 11, 2017 5 (2) E290-E294; DOI: https://doi.org/10.9778/cmajo.20160163
Ayden Scheim
Departments of Epidemiology and Biostatistics (Scheim) and of Women's Studies and Feminist Research (Bardwell), Western University, London, Ont.; Ontario HIV Treatment Network (Rachlis, Mitra); Division of Clinical Public Health (Rachlis), Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ont.; British Columbia Centre for Excellence in HIV/AIDS (Kerr) and Department of Medicine (Kerr), University of British Columbia, St. Paul's Hospital; British Columbia Centre on Substance Use (Bardwell, Kerr), St. Paul's Hospital, Vancouver, BC
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Beth Rachlis
Departments of Epidemiology and Biostatistics (Scheim) and of Women's Studies and Feminist Research (Bardwell), Western University, London, Ont.; Ontario HIV Treatment Network (Rachlis, Mitra); Division of Clinical Public Health (Rachlis), Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ont.; British Columbia Centre for Excellence in HIV/AIDS (Kerr) and Department of Medicine (Kerr), University of British Columbia, St. Paul's Hospital; British Columbia Centre on Substance Use (Bardwell, Kerr), St. Paul's Hospital, Vancouver, BC
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Geoff Bardwell
Departments of Epidemiology and Biostatistics (Scheim) and of Women's Studies and Feminist Research (Bardwell), Western University, London, Ont.; Ontario HIV Treatment Network (Rachlis, Mitra); Division of Clinical Public Health (Rachlis), Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ont.; British Columbia Centre for Excellence in HIV/AIDS (Kerr) and Department of Medicine (Kerr), University of British Columbia, St. Paul's Hospital; British Columbia Centre on Substance Use (Bardwell, Kerr), St. Paul's Hospital, Vancouver, BC
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Sanjana Mitra
Departments of Epidemiology and Biostatistics (Scheim) and of Women's Studies and Feminist Research (Bardwell), Western University, London, Ont.; Ontario HIV Treatment Network (Rachlis, Mitra); Division of Clinical Public Health (Rachlis), Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ont.; British Columbia Centre for Excellence in HIV/AIDS (Kerr) and Department of Medicine (Kerr), University of British Columbia, St. Paul's Hospital; British Columbia Centre on Substance Use (Bardwell, Kerr), St. Paul's Hospital, Vancouver, BC
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Thomas Kerr
Departments of Epidemiology and Biostatistics (Scheim) and of Women's Studies and Feminist Research (Bardwell), Western University, London, Ont.; Ontario HIV Treatment Network (Rachlis, Mitra); Division of Clinical Public Health (Rachlis), Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ont.; British Columbia Centre for Excellence in HIV/AIDS (Kerr) and Department of Medicine (Kerr), University of British Columbia, St. Paul's Hospital; British Columbia Centre on Substance Use (Bardwell, Kerr), St. Paul's Hospital, Vancouver, BC
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Tables
  • Related Content
  • Responses
  • Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

Background: Harms associated with public drug injection in large cities are well-established, but little is known about challenges that public injecting may pose for smaller municipalities. We evaluated the prevalence and correlates of public injecting among a sample of people who inject drugs in London, a mid-sized city in southwestern Ontario.

Methods: Between March and April 2016, a sample of people who injected drugs participated in a quantitative survey as part of the Ontario Integrated Supervised Injection Services Feasibility Study. Bivariable and multivariable logistic regression models estimated associations of sociodemographic characteristics, sociostructural exposures and drug use behaviours with regular public injecting (injecting in public ≥ 25% of the time over the previous 6 mo). We also described the locations and rationales provided for public injecting.

Results: A total of 196 participants (38.3% female, median age 39 yr) provided complete data. Of the 196, 141 (71.9%) reported any public injecting in the previous 6 months, and 91 (46.4%) injected in public regularly. Homelessness or unstable housing (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 2.04, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.01-4.12) and frequently injecting opioids (adjusted OR 2.27, 95% CI 1.17-4.42) or crystal methamphetamine (adjusted OR 2.38, 95% CI 1.18-4.79) daily were independently associated with regular public injection. Convenience (98 participants [69.5%]) and homelessness (56 [39.7%]) were the most commonly reported reasons for public injecting.

Interpretation: As in large cities in Canada, public injecting in London is common and appears to be associated with unstable housing and high-intensity injecting. These results indicate an urgent need to create safer environments for people who inject drugs in London, including supervised injection, to reduce the negative individual and community impacts of public injecting.

Public drug injection remains a source of substantial individual and community harm in settings throughout the world. In the Canadian context, high levels of public injecting have been documented among people who inject drugs in Vancouver,1-3 Ottawa,4 Toronto5 and Montréal,6 where 54%-77% of people who inject drugs reported any recent public injecting, and 17%-23% reported injecting predominantly in public. Public injecting poses the risks of discovery by police, robbery and violence. These immediate risks to individual safety and to one's drug supply are compounded by health risks related to unsafe injection practices and contribute to hasty injection and reduced ability to ensure safety and hygiene.7-9 Public injecting tends to be concentrated among the most vulnerable people who inject drugs, being independently associated with homelessness, recent incarceration, high-intensity drug use (e.g., injecting daily or more) and injecting-related risks (e.g., nonfatal overdose, needle-sharing, not cooking and filtering drugs) in several large Canadian cities.1-4,6,10,11 At a community level, public injecting is perceived as a threat to public order and contributes to improper disposal of injection-related litter.12

Although these public health and order challenges posed by public injecting in major urban centres are well-documented, little is known about challenges that public injecting may pose for smaller municipalities. In the current study, we examined public injecting in London, a mid-sized city in southwestern Ontario located about halfway between Toronto and Detroit. London is Canada's 15th-largest city, with a population of around 370 000 in 2011.13 Statistics Canada estimates that one-third of Canadians live in cities characterized as London's "peer group."14 However, London appears to bear a disproportionate burden of injection drug use and related harms.15

Needle and syringe programs in London distributed over 2.5 million clean needles in 2014.16 Concern has consistently been expressed regarding public drug use and discarded injection equipment in London's core.17 A 2012 Public Health Agency of Canada survey revealed higher levels of injecting of nonprescribed opioids (75%) and hepatitis C infection (79%) among people who inject drugs in this city than the national averages.18 In 2012, London's health region recorded deaths related to prescription opioids at twice the provincial rate.19 In recent years, the number of deaths due to overdose in London has declined, potentially related to a shift toward crystal methamphetamine use among people who inject drugs.20 In 2015, the city experienced an outbreak of new HIV diagnoses among people who inject drugs, who accounted for two-thirds of new HIV diagnoses in London's health unit, compared to 12% provincially.15

These data point to the need for enhanced efforts to identify and prevent drug-related individual and community harms in London and similar mid-sized communities. Therefore, among a sample of people who inject drugs in London, we sought to 1) evaluate the prevalence of recent regular public injecting and associations with sociodemographic characteristics, sociostructural exposures and drug use behaviours, and 2) describe the locations and rationales provided for public injecting.

Methods

Setting and design

We obtained data from the Ontario Integrated Supervised Injection Services Feasibility Study, a cross-sectional survey of people who inject drugs in London and Thunder Bay, Ont. The present study focuses on London data only.

Recruitment

Survey data were collected between March and April 2016 by 3 peer research associates. Eligible participants were aged 18 years or more and reported injecting drugs within the previous 6 months. Based on consultation with expert advisors, including local health care providers and peer research associates, a targeted recruitment strategy was developed. Potential participants were recruited through outreach by peer research associates (on the street and in venues people who inject drugs are known to frequent), recruitment flyers posted in local health and social service agencies, and word-of-mouth (including peer-to-peer distribution of wallet-sized cards). Survey interviews took place at 3 community agencies (including 1 organization that serves women only) across 2 neighbourhoods in London's core. Participants provided written informed consent and were provided a $25 honorarium.

Data collection

The questionnaire, which was administered by an interviewer, was adapted from previous studies of supervised injection feasibility,21 programmed on electronic tablets and pretested for clarity and functionality. Survey questions pertained to sociodemographic characteristics, drug use behaviours, health conditions and use of health care services, overdose experiences, and willingness to use and design preferences for supervised injection services. A copy of the questionnaire is included as Appendix 1 (available at www.cmajopen.ca/content/5/2/E290/suppl/DC1).

Measures

Participants were asked, "In the last 6 months, how often did you inject in public or semi-public areas like a park, an alley or a public washroom?" Response options included never, occasionally (less than 25% of the time), sometimes (25%-74% of the time), usually (≥ 75% of the time) or always. Responses were categorized to create variables indicating any public injection (yes v. no) and regular public injection (our outcome), defined as yes (v. no) if respondents indicated injecting in public sometimes or more often (25%-100% of the time). Data were also collected on specific locations in which participants injected in the previous 6 months, rationales for injecting in public and use of outdoor water sources to prepare drugs or rinse syringes.

Sociodemographic characteristics and sociostructural exposures included age (in years), gender (male v. female; transgender participants were categorized based on self-reported gender identity), ethnicity (white v. Indigenous/person of colour), and homelessness or unstable housing, incarceration, drug selling (reporting "selling drugs" as a source of income) and engaging in sex work (including exchanging sex for goods) over the previous 6 months (all yes v. no).

Participants were asked in which London neighbourhood they injected most often. Two responses - downtown and Old East (a lower-income, primarily residential neighbourhood adjacent to downtown) - were endorsed by 79% of respondents and were thus included as dichotomous variables (usually injects in specified neighbourhood v. usually injects elsewhere). Drug use behaviours included frequent opioid injection and frequent crystal methamphetamine injection (both daily v. less often) to reflect the dominant classes of drugs used by the sample. Other drug use characteristics included usually injecting alone (always or usually v. less often over the previous 6 mo), needing help injecting over the previous 6 months (yes v. no), syringe sharing in the previous 6 months (borrowing and/or lending v. neither), ever overdosing unintentionally (yes v. no) and ever accessing treatment for substance use (yes v. no).

Statistical analyses

All analyses were conducted with the use of SAS version 9.4. We stratified descriptive statistics for sociodemographic characteristics, sociostructural exposures and drug use behaviours by recent regular public injecting, and used bivariable logistic regression models to evaluate associations. To adjust for potential confounding, we entered variables associated with regular public injecting at p < 0.05 in bivariate analyses into a multivariable logistic regression model. As few data were missing, we used complete case analysis, resulting in a sample size of 194 for multivariable logistic regression.

Ethics approval

Ethics approval was obtained from research ethics boards at the University of Toronto and the University of British Columbia.

Results

Of 199 participants, 196 (98.5%) provided data pertaining to public injection and are included in this analysis. The sample was predominantly white (146 participants [74.5%]) and male (121 [61.7%]) and had a median age of 39 (interquartile range 33-50) years. Characteristics of the study sample stratified by recent regular public injecting, alongside bivariable odds ratios (ORs), are presented in Table 1. Overall, 91 participants (46.4%) reported regular public injection (≥ 25% of the time) in the previous 6 months. In unadjusted models, age was negatively associated with regular public injection (OR for 1-yr increase 0.94, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.91-0.97). Factors positively associated with regular public injection were homelessness or unstable housing (OR 2.93, 95% CI 1.62-5.29), recent incarceration (OR 2.59, 95% CI 1.05-6.37), usually injecting downtown (OR 2.46, 95% CI 1.27-4.74), frequent opioid injection (OR 3.21, 95% CI 1.78-5.78), frequent crystal methamphetamine injection (OR 3.80, 95% CI 2.05-7.07) and recent syringe sharing (OR 3.25, 95% CI 1.59-6.63). In the adjusted model (Table 2), homelessness or unstable housing (adjusted OR 2.04, 95% CI 1.01-4.12), frequent opioid injection (adjusted OR 2.27, 95% CI 1.17-4.42) and frequent crystal methamphetamine injection (adjusted OR 2.38, 95% CI 1.18-4.79) remained significantly and positively associated with recent regular public injection.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 1: Characteristics of Ontario Integrated Supervised Injection Services Feasibility Study participants in London, Ontario stratified by recent regular public injecting and bivariate associations
View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 2: Multivariable logistic regression predicting recent regular public injecting in London (n = 194)

Among the 141 participants (71.9%) who reported any public injection in the previous 6 months, the most common public locations for injecting were washrooms (90 participants [63.8%]), parks (69 [48.9%]), parking lots (66 [46.8%]) and alleys or laneways (61 [43.3%]) (Table 3). Common reasons provided for injecting in public included convenience (98 participants [69.5%]), homelessness (56 [39.7%]) and being too far from home (43 [30.5%]). Recent use of outdoor water sources for preparing drugs or rinsing syringes was reported by 61 participants (43.3%).

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 3: Injection behaviours among those who injected in public in the previous 6 months

Interpretation

We found that, as in larger municipalities, public drug injection is a substantial public health and community-level problem in the mid-sized city of London. The prevalence of any recent public injecting in our sample (71.9%) was comparable to findings among people who inject drugs in Canada's largest cities,3,5,6 and almost 1 in 2 participants (46.4%) reported that at least one-quarter of their recent injections took place in public or semipublic settings. Consistent with prior research,1-4,6 regular public injecting was independently positively associated with homelessness or unstable housing and high-intensity injection of both opioids and crystal methamphetamine. Although neighbourhood of use was not independently associated with public injecting, crude prevalence was significantly higher among those who reported that they usually injected in downtown London, which has important implications for service planning. This may reflect the tendency of people experiencing homelessness or unstable housing to spend time and inject downtown.

Limitations

This study has several limitations. First, although use of peer recruitment and interviewers contributed to success in reaching a diversity of people who inject drugs (e.g., with respect to gender and race/ethnicity), the sample was not randomly sampled and may not be representative of this population in London. As is common in studies of people who inject drugs, participants were recruited through peer outreach and service provider organizations. Thus, the sampling approach was more likely to capture marginalized people who inject drugs, who may be more likely to inject in public. Second, all data were self-reported and, hence, subject to social desirability bias and recall bias. In particular, reported levels of unintentional overdose appeared low in comparison to other samples of people who inject drugs.

Conclusion

This study contributes evidence of a substantial burden of public drug injecting in a mid-sized Canadian city. Consistent with findings from Canada's largest cities, public injecting was associated with unstable housing and high-intensity drug use. Supervised injection services and Housing First approaches warrant consideration as interventions to reduce public injecting and its negative consequences for public health and order in London.

Supplemental information

For reviewer comments and the original submission of this manuscript, please see www.cmajopen.ca/content/5/2/E290/suppl/DC1

Acknowledgements

The authors thank the study participants, research team and staff (including Elaine Hamm, Andrew MacLean and Samantha Scott) and the study Advisory Committee for their contributions.

Footnotes

  • Competing interests: None declared.

  • Contributors: Thomas Kerr designed the Ontario Integrated Supervised Injection Services Feasibility Study. Geoff Bardwell, Sanjana Mitra and Ayden Scheim acquired the data. Ayden Scheim conducted the analysis and wrote the manuscript. All of the authors contributed to interpretation of findings and revision of the manuscript for intellectual content, approved the final version to be published and agreed to act as guarantors of the work.

  • Funding: This study was supported by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) Centre for REACH in HIV/AIDS, the Ontario HIV Treatment Network and Thomas Kerr's CIHR Foundation Grant (no. FDN-148476). Ayden Scheim was supported by Pierre Elliott Trudeau Foundation and Vanier Canada Graduate scholarships.

References

  1. ↵
    1. McKnight I,
    2. Maas B,
    3. Wood E,
    4. et al.
    (2007) Factors associated with public injecting among users of Vancouver's supervised injection facility. Am J Drug Alcohol Abuse 33:319–25.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Marshall BDL,
    2. Kerr T,
    3. Qi J,
    4. et al.
    (2010) Public injecting and HIV risk behaviour among street-involved youth. Drug Alcohol Depend 110:254–8.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  2. ↵
    1. DeBeck K,
    2. Small W,
    3. Wood E,
    4. et al.
    (2009) Public injecting among a cohort of injecting drug users in Vancouver, Canada. J Epidemiol Community Health 63:81–6.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  3. ↵
    1. Navarro C,
    2. Leonard L
    (2004) Prevalence and factors related to public injecting in Ottawa, Canada: implications for the development of a trial safer injecting facility. Int J Drug Policy 15:275–84.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  4. ↵
    1. Bayoumi AM,
    2. Strike C,
    3. Brandeau M,
    4. et al.
    (2012) Report of the Toronto and Ottawa Supervised Consumption Assessment Study, 2012. Toronto: St. Michael's Hospital. Availablewww.stmichaelshospital.com/pdf/research/SMH-TOSCA-report.pdf. accessed 2016 Nov. 11.
  5. ↵
    1. Green T,
    2. Hankins C,
    3. Palmer D,
    4. et al.
    (2003) Ascertaining the need for a supervised injection facility (SIF): the burden of public injecting in Montreal, Canada. J Drug Issues 33:713–31.
    OpenUrl
  6. ↵
    1. Rhodes T,
    2. Kimber J,
    3. Small W,
    4. et al.
    (2006) Public injecting and the need for "safer environment interventions" in the reduction of drug-related harm. Addiction 101:1384–93.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Small W,
    2. Rhodes T,
    3. Wood E,
    4. et al.
    (2007) Public injection settings in Vancouver: physical environment, social context and risk. Int J Drug Policy 18:27–36.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  7. ↵
    1. Dovey K,
    2. Fitzgerald J,
    3. Choi Y
    (2001) Safety becomes danger: dilemmas of drug-use in public space. Health Place 7:319–31.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  8. ↵
    1. Kinner SA,
    2. Milloy MJ,
    3. Wood E,
    4. et al.
    (2012) Incidence and risk factors for non-fatal overdose among a cohort of recently incarcerated illicit drug users. Addict Behav 37:691–6.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  9. ↵
    1. Milloy MJ,
    2. Kerr T,
    3. Mathias R,
    4. et al.
    (2008) Non-fatal overdose among a cohort of active injection drug users recruited from a supervised injection facility. Am J Drug Alcohol Abuse 34:499–509.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  10. ↵
    1. Wood E,
    2. Kerr T,
    3. Small W,
    4. et al.
    (2004) Changes in public order after the opening of a medically supervised safer injecting facility for illicit injection drug users. CMAJ 171:731–4.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  11. ↵
    (2012) Focus on Geography series, 2011 Census. Ottawa: Statistics Canada. Availablehttps://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2011/as-sa/fogs-spg/Facts-cma-eng.cfm?LANG=Eng&GK=CMA&GC=555. accessed 2016 Nov. 11.
  12. ↵
    (2013) Health regions and peer groups. Ottawa: Statistics Canada. Availablewww.statcan.gc.ca/pub/82-402-x/2013003/regions/hrpg-eng.htm. accessed 2016 Nov. 11.
  13. ↵
    (2016) Persons who inject drugs in Middlesex-London: an update. Report no. 040-16. London (ON): Middlesex-London Health Unit. Availablehttps://www.healthunit.com/uploads/2016-06-16-report-040-16.pdf. accessed 2016 Nov. 11.
  14. ↵
    1. Campanella E
    (2015 Aug. 14) More than 2.5 million needles distributed in London last year. London Free Press. Availablewww.lfpress.com/2015/08/13/more-than-25-million-needles-distributed-in-london-last-year. accessed 2016 Nov. 11.
  15. ↵
    1. De Bono N
    (2016 Oct. 25) London city hall: consultant calling for downtown crackdown. London Free Press. Availablewww.lfpress.com/2016/10/24/consultant-calling-for-downtown-crackdown. accessed 2016 Nov. 11.
  16. ↵
    (2013) A profile of people who inject drugs in London, Ontario: report on the Public Health Agency of Canada I - Track Survey, Phase 3, Middlesex-London, 2012. London (ON): Middlesex-London Health Unit. Availablehttps://www.healthunit.com/uploads/public-health-agency-of-canada-i-track-survey-phase-3.pdf. accessed 2016 Nov. 11.
  17. ↵
    (2014) The impact of prescription and non-prescription drug use in Middlesex-London. London (ON): Middlesex-London Health Unit. Availablehttps://www.healthunit.com/uploads/2014-05-15-report-032-14.pdf. accessed 2017 Feb. 3.
  18. ↵
    1. Richmond R
    (2016 Mar. 17) Decrease in London's overdose deaths obscures a growing, longer-term threat from crystal meth. London Free Press. Availablewww.lfpress.com/2016/03/17/decrease-in-londons-overdose-deaths-obscures-a-growing-longer-term-threat-from-crystal-meth. accessed 2017 Feb. 5.
  19. ↵
    1. Kerr T,
    2. Wood E,
    3. Small D,
    4. et al.
    (2003) Potential use of safer injecting facilities among injection drug users in Vancouver's Downtown Eastside. CMAJ 169:759–63.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  • Copyright 2017, Joule Inc. or its licensors
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

CMAJ Open: 5 (2)
Vol. 5, Issue 2
1 Apr 2017
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author

Article tools

Respond to this article
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
To sign up for email alerts or to access your current email alerts, enter your email address below:
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on CMAJ Open.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Public drug injecting in London, Ontario: a cross-sectional survey
(Your Name) has sent you a message from CMAJ Open
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the CMAJ Open web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Public drug injecting in London, Ontario: a cross-sectional survey
Ayden Scheim, Beth Rachlis, Geoff Bardwell, Sanjana Mitra, Thomas Kerr
Apr 2017, 5 (2) E290-E294; DOI: 10.9778/cmajo.20160163

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Public drug injecting in London, Ontario: a cross-sectional survey
Ayden Scheim, Beth Rachlis, Geoff Bardwell, Sanjana Mitra, Thomas Kerr
Apr 2017, 5 (2) E290-E294; DOI: 10.9778/cmajo.20160163
Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like

Related Articles

  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • No citing articles found.
  • Google Scholar

Similar Articles

Collections

  • Clinical
    • Public Health
      • Other public health
    • Vulnerable populations

Content

  • Current issue
  • Past issues
  • Collections
  • Alerts
  • RSS

Authors & Reviewers

  • Overview for Authors
  • Preparing manuscripts
  • Manuscript Submission Checklist
  • Publication Fees
  • Forms
  • Editorial Policies
  • Editorial Process
  • Patient-Oriented Research
  • Submit a manuscript
  • Manuscript Progress
  • Submitting a letter
  • Information for Reviewers

About

  • General Information
  • Staff
  • Editorial Board
  • Advisory Panel
  • Contact Us
  • Advertising
  • Media
  • Reprints
  • Copyright and Permissions
  • Accessibility
  • CMA Civility Standards
CMAJ Group

Copyright 2023, CMA Impact Inc. or its licensors. All rights reserved. ISSN 2291-0026

All editorial matter in CMAJ OPEN represents the opinions of the authors and not necessarily those of the Canadian Medical Association or its subsidiaries.

To receive any of these resources in an accessible format, please contact us at CMAJ Group, 500-1410 Blair Towers Place, Ottawa ON, K1J 9B9; p: 1-888-855-2555; e: [email protected].

View CMA's Accessibility policy.

 

Powered by HighWire