MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W1992893270 · doi:10.1111/j.1360-0443.2007.01991.x

[Commentary] REDUCING SYRINGE SHARING AMONG INJECTING DRUG USERS IN WINNIPEG: 81% SUCCESS OR 19% FAILURE?

2007· letter· en· W1992893270 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Don C. Des Jarlais

Notice bibliographique

RevueAddiction · 2007
Typeletter
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueHIV, Drug Use, Sexual Risk
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésSyringeSample (material)Needle sharingMedicinePopulationOdds ratioOddsDemographyPsychologySocial psychologyEnvironmental healthFamily medicineHuman immunodeficiency virus (HIV)PsychiatryLogistic regressionInternal medicineSociology

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Shaw and colleagues [1] present a statistically sophisticated analysis of determinants of syringe sharing among injecting drug users (IDUs) in Winnipeg, Canada. Nineteen per cent of the sample reported receptive syringe sharing in the 6 months prior to the interview. Receptive syringe sharing was associated with difficulties in obtaining syringes (odds ratio = 3.61) and a number of social relationship characteristics. Sharing was more frequent with sex partners, relatives, people to whom the subject felt emotionally close and people with whom the subject cooperated to obtain and use drugs. Interpretation of the ease/difficulty in obtaining syringes factor is relatively straightforward. Interpretation of the social relationship factors is more complicated as there is likely to be overlap among these factors, and the ability of multivariate analysis to determine ‘true’ independent contributions within complicated human relationships is limited. One advantage of the Shaw et al. analysis is that it permits estimating the population-attributable risk percentage for sharing due to difficulties in obtaining clean syringes. Fifteen per cent of the sample reported difficulties, so that almost 40% of the 19% of the subjects reporting sharing would be associated with difficulties in obtaining clean syringes. If these difficulties were removed, the percentage of subjects reporting sharing would presumably fall from 19% to approximately 12%. Before considering how this 12% of subjects sharing due to social factors might be reduced, it is worthwhile to consider what is going right among the IDUs in Winnipeg. Although Shaw and colleagues [1] do not report any trend data, the human immunodeficency virus (HIV) prevalence of 5% in their sample is low. Winnipeg appears to have avoided the rapid outbreaks of HIV among IDUs that occurred in other Canadian cities. This is notable because cocaine is the most commonly injected drug in Winnipeg, and the city has a high proportion of ethnic minorities (First Nations, Metis) IDUs. Cocaine injection and ethnic minority status were important factors in HIV transmission in cities such as Vancouver [2]. The Winnipeg IDUs also appear to be avoiding injecting in the wrong places. Very few report injecting in shooting galleries (6%) and very few in hotels (8%), locations that can generate rapid change in sharing partners and thus drive very rapid HIV transmission [3]. Of particular interest, only 49% of the subjects were hepatitis C virus (HCV) seropositive. This is a relatively low rate; in most IDU populations HCV prevalence ranges from 60% to 90% [4]. The Winnipeg sample reported a mean of over 13 years injecting, so that the relatively low HCV prevalence is not a simple function of short duration of injecting. Shaw et al. provide a sophisticated analysis of the determinants of recent receptive syringe sharing among IDUs in Winnipeg and consider how sharing might be reduced even further. Given what happened with HIV among IDUs in other Canadian cities, such as Montreal, Ottawa and Vancouver, it would be very helpful to have an equally sophisticated analysis of the reasons why IDUs in Winnipeg have such relatively low HIV and HCV seroprevalence.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,001
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesMéta-épidémiologie (sens strict), Intégrité de la recherche
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: Sans objet
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,241
Score d'incertitude au seuil1,000

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,000
Bibliométrie0,0020,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,001
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0010,005
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,036
Tête enseignante GPT0,323
Écart entre enseignants0,287 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations2
Publié2007
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueAddictionMême sujetHIV, Drug Use, Sexual RiskTravaux en français237 207