Taking action to reduce injecting drug‐related harms in prisons: The evidence of effectiveness of prison needle exchange in six countries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article examines the issue of prison needle‐exchange programmes (PNEP) based upon the international experience and evidence in six countries. A review of existing literature was undertaken together with original research comprising site visits to prison needle‐exchange programmes in four countries operating such initiatives in October 2002. During the course of the research, prison needle exchange programmes were initiated in two other countries, Kyrgyzstan and Belarus. Site visits were not possible in respect of these two countries, and data was gathered via conversations with staff and funding organisations involved and by the examination of documentary evidence. The paper presents an overview of the PNEP initiated and a commentry on the outcomes. Based upon the evidence emerging from the investigation, the paper concludes that while prison syringe‐exchange programmes have been implemented in diverse environments and under differing circumstances, the results of the programmes have been remarkably consistent. Improved prisoner health and reduction of needle sharing have been achieved. Fears of violence, increased drug consumption, and other negative consequences have not materialised. Based on the evidence and experience, it can be concluded unequivocally that prison needle‐exchange programmes effectively address the health‐related harms associated with needle sharing in prisons and do not undermine institutional safety or security.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".