Reducing widespread pipe sharing and risky sex among crystal methamphetamine smokers in Toronto: do safer smoking kits have a potential role to play?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Crystal methamphetamine smoking is associated with many negative health consequences, including the potential for transmission of hepatitis. We examined whether or not a kit for crystal methamphetamine smoking might have some potential to reduce the negative health effects of crystal methamphetamine smoking. METHODS: Five focus groups were conducted with crystal methamphetamine smokers recruited by community health agencies and youth shelters in Toronto, Canada. Target groups included homeless/street-involved youth, sex workers, men who have sex with men, and youth in the party scene. Participants (n = 32) were asked questions about motivations for crystal methamphetamine use, the process of smoking, health problems experienced, sharing behaviour, risky sexual practices, and the ideal contents of a harm reduction kit. RESULTS: Pipe sharing was widespread among participants and was deemed integral to the social experience of smoking crystal methamphetamine. Heated pipes were unlikely to cause direct injuries, but participants mentioned having dry, cracked lips, which may be a vector for disease transmission. Many reported having sex with multiple partners and being less likely to use condoms while on the drug. Demand for harm reduction kits was mixed. CONCLUSIONS: Changing pipe sharing behaviours may be difficult because many participants considered sharing to be integral to the social experience of smoking crystal methamphetamine. Within the context of a broader health promotion and prevention program, pilot testing of safer smoking kits to initiate discussion and education on the risks associated with sharing pipes and unprotected sex for some communities (e.g., homeless/street-involved youth) is worth pursuing.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".