Satellite Needle Distribution Among Injection Drug Users: Policy and Practice in Two Canadian Cities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Access to clean needles and syringes through needle exchange programs (NEPs) has reduced both high-risk behaviors and the transmission of blood-borne infections among injection drug users (IDUs). However, policies regarding "needle-for-needle" exchange versus unrestricted needle distribution remain controversial. The objective of this study was to compare sources of needles, trends in needle distribution, and the practice of satellite needle distribution (SND) among IDUs in Vancouver and Montreal. SND was defined as receiving a new syringe from another individual through trading, purchasing, borrowing, or being given the syringe outright, or supplying a syringe to another individual through trading, selling, lending, or giving a syringe outright. This was practiced by 46% of IDUs in Vancouver and 50% of IDUs in Montreal. SND was associated with borrowing used injection equipment (adjusted OR [AOR], 2.62; 95% CI: 1.85-3.71), conducting bulk needle exchanges (AOR, 1.85; 95% CI: 1.34-2.54), being married or in a common-law relationship (AOR, 1.85; 95% CI: 1.34-2.54), and regular visits to the NEP (> weekly) (AOR, 1.54; 95% CI: 1.17-2.13). In Vancouver, SND was also associated with borrowing used needles (AOR, 2.07; 95% CI: 1.22-3.52). In these two cities, despite different distribution policies, almost half of the participants reported SND, and this was associated with high risk sharing. The practice of SND appears to be an important mechanism for needle acquisition, especially for those at highest risk for HIV and hepatitis C transmission.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".