Correlates of Safe Syringe Acquisition and Disposal Practices among Young IDUs: Broadening our Notion of Risk
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The current study examines the relationship of syringe use patterns with acquisition and disposal practices among injection drug users (IDUs). Study participants (N = 294) were IDUs between 15 and 30 years old in Baltimore, Maryland, who had initiated drug injection within the past five years. Safe acquisition was defined as obtaining syringes from the Baltimore syringe exchange program and pharmacies. Safe disposal was defined as depositing syringes at the syringe exchange program or in a closed container. Participants were primarily male, White, and had low levels of education. In the six months prior to being interviewed, 25% reported safe syringe acquisition and 47% reported safe disposal. In a multivariate model controlling for demographic variables, factors that were significantly associated with safe acquisition were injecting for more than two years, obtaining two or more syringes per pickup, using a syringe for five or more injections, and safe disposal of syringes. In a multivariate model controlling for demographic variables, factors that were that were significantly associated with safe disposal were injecting daily and safe syringe acquisition. Infectious disease prevention efforts need to specifically target young and newly initiated IDUs in promoting safe syringe acquisition and disposal practices.
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 | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".