Are needle and syringe programmes associated with a reduction in HIV transmission among people who inject drugs: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Needle and syringe programmes (NSP) aim to reduce the risk of HIV by providing people who inject drugs (PWID) with sterile injecting equipment. A recent review of reviews (ROR) concluded that there was only tentative evidence to support the effectiveness of NSP in reducing HIV. We carried out a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the association between NSP and HIV transmission. METHODS: Relevant primary articles presenting data on the risk of HIV transmission associated with NSP were identified in two stages: (i) from reviews identified in two published RORs (covering the period 1980-2008); and (ii) a literature search of CINAHL, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, MEDLINE and PsychINFO for primary articles published since the most recent high quality review (covering the period 2008-12). Study results were synthesized using random-effects meta-analysis. RESULTS: There were 12 studies comprising at least 12 000 person-years of follow-up. Exposure to NSP was associated with a reduction in HIV transmission: pooled effect size 0·66 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0·43, 1·01] across all studies, and 0·42 (95% CI 0·22, 0·81) across six higher quality studies (according to the Newcastle-Ottawa tool). CONCLUSIONS: There is evidence to support the effectiveness of NSP in reducing the transmission of HIV among PWID, although it is likely that other harm reduction interventions have also contributed to the observed reduction in HIV risk. NSP should be considered as just one component of a programme of interventions to reduce both injecting risk and other types of HIV risk behaviour.
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 | 0.017 | 0.041 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.021 | 0.054 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| 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".