Unsafe injection practices in a cohort of injection drug users in Vancouver: could safer injecting rooms help?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In several European countries safer injecting rooms have reduced the public disorder and health-related problems of injection drug use. We explored factors associated with needle-sharing practices that could potentially be alleviated by the availability of safer injecting rooms in Canada. METHODS: The Vancouver Injection Drug User Study is a prospective cohort study of injection drug users (IDUs) that began in 1996. The analyses reported here were restricted to the 776 participants who reported actively injecting drugs in the 6 months before the most recent follow-up visit, during the period January 1999 to October 2000. Needle sharing was defined as either borrowing or lending a used needle in the 6-month period before the interview. RESULTS: Overall, 214 (27.6%) of the participants reported sharing needles during the 6 months before follow-up; 106 (13.7%) injected drugs in public, and 581 (74.9%) reported injecting alone at least once. Variables independently associated with needle sharing in a multivariate analysis included difficulty getting sterile needles (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 2.7, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.8-4.1), requiring help to inject drugs (adjusted OR 2.0, 95% CI 1.4-2.8), needle reuse (adjusted OR 1.8, 95% CI 1.3-2.6), frequent cocaine injection (adjusted OR 1.6, 95% CI 1.1-2.3) and frequent heroin injection (adjusted OR 1.5, 95% CI 1.04-2.1). Conversely, HIV-positive participants were less likely to share needles (adjusted OR 0.5, 95% CI 0.4-0.8), although 20.2% of the HIV-positive IDUs still reported sharing needles. INTERPRETATION: Despite the availability of a large needle-exchange program and targeted law enforcement efforts in Vancouver, needle sharing remains an alarmingly common practice in our cohort. We identified a number of risk behaviours--difficulty getting sterile needles, needle sharing and reuse, injection of drugs in public and injecting alone (one of the main contributing causes of overdose)--that may be alleviated by the establishment of supervised safer injecting rooms.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".