High Rates of Primary Care and Emergency Department Use Among Injection Drug Users in Vancouver
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Frequent use of emergency rooms by injection drug users (IDUs) has been attributed to a lack of access to primary care and barriers to health services. Using a community-based sample of IDUs, we examined rates of primary care and emergency room use among IDUs and identified correlates of frequent emergency department use. METHODS: From January to November 2003, we enrolled IDUs into a prospective cohort study involving a baseline questionnaire, comprehensive retrospective and prospective health record linkages. We examined rates of primary care and emergency department utilization, and diagnoses upon arrival in the emergency room. Logistic regression was used to determine factors independently associated with frequent emergency room use. RESULTS: Of the 883 IDUs included in this analysis, 687 (78 per cent) accessed a primary care clinic in the previous year, while 528 (60 per cent) participants accessed the emergency room (ER) during the years 2002 and 2003. Abscesses, cellulitis and other skin infections accounted for the greatest proportion of ER use. Factors independently associated with frequent ER use included: frequent crystal methamphetamine injection (AOR = 2.4, 95 per cent CI: 1.0-5.6); non-fatal overdose (AOR = 2.1, 95 per cent CI: 1.4-3.3); HIV-positive status (AOR = 1.5, 95 per cent CI: 1.1-2.1), having been physically assaulted (AOR = 1.5, 95 per cent CI: 1.1-2.1); and primary care utilization (AOR = 1.5, 95 per cent CI: 1.0-2.1). DISCUSSION: high rates of ER use were observed among IDUs, despite high rates of primary care use among this same population. ER use was due primarily to preventable injection-related complications that are less amenable to primary care interventions, and therefore educational and prevention efforts that encourage and enable sterile injection practices should be promoted.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".