Harm reduction theories and strategies for control of human immunodeficiency virus: a review of the literature
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: To provide a comprehensive review of the literature on harm reduction theories and strategies related primarily to licit and illicit drug use. BACKGROUND: Although human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)/acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS) disease transmission is well understood, it continues to spread, particularly among injection drug users (IDUs). Despite early indications that HIV would be contained within the IDU community, it is spreading to non-IDU sexual partners and to children of IDUs, threatening a more widespread epidemic. METHODS: An examination of research studies and theoretical writings including reviews and policy papers published in English between 1990 and 2000. RESULTS: Harm reduction does not seek to eliminate drug use; it focuses on minimizing the personal and social harms and costs associated with drug use and spread of HIV. It seeks to ameliorate conditions surrounding drug use responsible for the spread of HIV in the IDU community: unequal access to health services; sharing of infected needles; racial and social discrimination; poverty; exposure to street violence; inadequate housing; lack of employment; poor general or mental health and other demographic and social determinants. Some controversial harm reduction strategies are described: methadone maintenance programmes, illegal drugs dispensing under controlled conditions, needle exchanges, HIV testing, vein maintenance, safe-sex and would-care programmes. CONCLUSION: The main challenge is to get IDUs to protect themselves against HIV when suffering physical and social privations and addiction needs. Diverse perspectives on harm reduction are problematic with consequences for success of drug use initiatives. Practical, ethical and theoretical complexities exist but further research is needed to build support for a harm-reduction orientation in practice and policy formulation.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".