Characteristics of supervised injection site clients and factors associated with requiring overdose intervention, Montreal, Canada, 2018–2022
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: Supervised injection sites (SIS) offer a hygienic environment in which people can inject drugs under observation; as such, these harm reduction services have been on the forefront of the overdose epidemic. We sought to understand factors predictive of an overdose requiring an emergency response intervention at SIS in Montréal, Canada. METHODS: We used administrative data from all four Montréal SIS from 1 March 2018 - 31 October 2022 to first calculate the rate of onsite overdose requiring intervention (e.g., naloxone or oxygen administration, nurse or paramedic assessment, etc.) and descriptive statistics. We then used a logistic regression model, with generalized estimating equations to adjust for clients' repeat visits, to test associations between onsite overdose intervention and client gender, age, drug injected (fentanyl vs other opioid vs non-opioid), most frequent injection location, frequency of injecting, duration of injecting, housing stability, attendance at multiple SIS, and time period (before or after 15 March 2020). RESULTS: During the observation period, Montréal SIS received 122,509 visits from 2,127 unique clients. The rate of overdose requiring intervention was 8.16 (95 % CI 7.66, 8.68) per 1000 visits. While 278 (13 %) of clients experienced an onsite overdose intervention, these clients accounted for 64,267 (52 %) SIS visits. Transgender clients (aOR = 2.28, 95 % CI 1.18, 4.41, compared to men) and clients younger than 25 were at greater risk of experiencing an onsite overdose requiring intervention (e.g., clients 35-44 had an aOR = 0.44, 95 % CI 0.30, 0.64, compared to clients younger than 25). Injecting most often in a public place was associated with greater risk of an onsite overdose requiring intervention (aOR = 3.62, 95 % CI 3.04, 4.30), while reporting unstable housing (aOR = 0.56, 95 % CI 0.47, 0.66) and attending more than one SIS (aOR = 0.13, 95 % CI 0.10, 0.16) predicted lesser risk. Compared to clients who reported injecting daily, greater risk of overdose requiring intervention was observed among those who reported injecting 3-6 days a week (aOR = 1.48, 95 % CI 1.18, 1.85), 1-2 days a week (aOR = 2.43, 95 % CI 1.90, 3.11), and "occasionally" (aOR = 2.60, 95 % CI 2.13, 3.18), but not those who reported not injecting in the past several months (aOR = 0.44, 95 % CI 0.25, 0.79). Compared to clients who had been injecting for five or more years, an injection duration of 1-4 years was associated with reduced risk of an overdose requiring intervention (aOR = 0.79, 95 % CI 0.64, 0.98), while those newer (<1 year) to injecting were at greater risk of such an intervention (aOR = 2.11, 95 % CI 1.50, 2.97). Compared to clients intending to inject fentanyl, we observed a lower risk of an overdose requiring intervention for those injecting other opioids (aOR = 0.22, 95 % CI 0.18, 0.26) or non-opioids (aOR = 0.06, 95 % CI 0.04, 0.08). Injecting after 15 March 2020 was also associated with greater risk (aOR = 1.99, 95 % CI 1.65, 2.41). CONCLUSION: Across four Montréal SIS, site visits with an overdose requiring intervention were associated with transgender identity, younger age, stable housing, intending to inject fentanyl, injecting less frequently than daily, injecting for either more than five years or less than a year, single site attendance, and injecting most often in a public place. Montréal SIS serve a diverse clientele who inject drugs, with differing risks of onsite overdose.
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 machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,003 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,003 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,003 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,005 | 0,000 |
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.
score_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 découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».