Potential use of safer injecting facilities among injection drug users in Vancouver's Downtown Eastside.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The Vancouver Coastal Health Authority will initiate North America's first sanctioned safer injecting facility, as a pilot project, on Sept. 15, 2003. The analyses presented here were conducted to estimate the potential use of safer injecting facilities by local illicit injection drug users (IDUs) and to evaluate the potential impact of newly established Health Canada restrictions and current police activities on the use of the proposed facility. METHODS: During April and May 2003, we recruited active IDUs in Vancouver's Downtown Eastside to participate in a feasibility study. We used descriptive and univariate statistics to determine potential use of a safer injecting facility and to explore factors associated with willingness to use such a facility with and without federal restrictions and police presence. RESULTS: Overall, 458 street-recruited IDUs completed an interviewer-administered survey, of whom 422 (92%) reported a willingness to use a safer injecting facility. Those expressing willingness were more likely to inject in public (odds ratio [OR] 3.9, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.9-8.0). When the restrictions in the Health Canada guidelines were considered, only 144 (31%) participants were willing to use a safer injecting facility. IDUs who inject alone were more likely (OR 1.8, 95% CI 1.0-3.1) and women were less likely (OR 0.6, 95% CI 0.4-0.9) to be willing to use a safer injecting facility operating under these restrictions. Only 103 (22%) of the participants said they would be willing to use a safer injecting facility if police were stationed near the entrance. INTERPRETATION: Most IDUs participating in this study expressed a willingness to use a safer injecting facility. However, willingness declined substantially when the IDUs were asked about using a facility operating under selected Health Canada restrictions and in the event that police were stationed near the entrance.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".