Prior opiate injection and incarceration history predict injection drug use among inmates
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: To describe injection drug use among inmates, and to identify correlates of drug injection while incarcerated. DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey. SETTING: Six provincial correctional centres in Ontario, Canada. PARTICIPANTS: Face-to-face interviews were conducted with a random sample of 439 adult males and 158 females. MEASUREMENTS: Inmates were asked about drug use in their lifetime, outside the year prior to their current incarceration, and while incarcerated in the past year. Among the 32% (189 / 597) with a prior history of drug injection, independent correlates of injection while incarcerated in the past year were identified using multiple logistic regression. FINDINGS: Among all inmates while incarcerated in the past year, 45% (269 /597) used drugs and 19% (113 / 596) used non-cannabis drugs. Among those with a prior history of injecting, 11% (20 / 189) injected while incarcerated in the past year. Rates of injection with used needles were the same pre-incarceration as they were while incarcerated (32%). Independent correlates of drug injection while incarcerated were injection of heroin (OR = 6.4) or other opiates (OR = 7.9) and not injected with used needles (OR = 0.20) outside in the year prior to incarceration, and ever being incarcerated in a federal prison (OR = 5.3). CONCLUSIONS: The possibility of transmission of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), hepatitis C (HCV) or other blood-borne diseases exists in Ontario correctional centres. In this setting, drug injection while incarcerated is primarily related to opiate use prior to incarceration. The correlation between injecting and extensive incarceration history suggests missed opportunities to improve inmates' health.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".