Social structural factors that shape assisted injecting practices among injection drug users in Vancouver, Canada: a qualitative study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Injection drug users (IDU) commonly seek manual assistance with illicit drug injections, a practice known to be associated with various health-related harms. We investigated the social structural factors that shape risks related to assisted injection and the harms that may result. METHODS: Twenty semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted with IDU enrolled in the ACCESS or Vancouver Injection Drug Users Study (VIDUS) who reported requiring assistance injecting in the past six months. Audio-recorded interviews were transcribed verbatim and a thematic analysis was conducted. RESULTS: Barriers to self-injecting included a lack of knowledge of proper injecting technique, a loss of accessible veins, and drug withdrawal. The exchange of money or drugs for assistance with injecting was common. Harms experienced by IDU requiring assistance injecting included theft of the drug, missed injections, overdose, and risk of blood-borne disease transmission. Increased vulnerability to HIV/HCV infection within the context of intimate relationships was represented in participant narratives. IDU identified a lack of services available for those who require assistance injecting, with notable mention of restricted use of Vancouver's supervised injection facility. CONCLUSIONS: This study documents numerous severe harms that arise from assisted injecting. Social structural factors that shape the risks related to assisted injection in the Vancouver context included intimate partner relations and social conventions requiring an exchange of goods for provision of injecting assistance. Health services for IDU who need help injecting should include targeted interventions, and supervised injection facilities should attempt to accommodate individuals who require assistance with injecting.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".