MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2174799583 · doi:10.1093/pubmed/fdv143

Healthcare avoidance by people who inject drugs in Bangkok, Thailand

2015· article· en· W2174799583 on OpenAlexafffund
Alexandra Heath, Thomas Kerr, Lianping Ti, K. Kaplan, Paisan Suwannawong, Evan Wood, Kanna Hayashi

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Public Health · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHIV, Drug Use, Sexual Risk
Canadian institutionsSt. Paul's HospitalUniversity of British Columbia
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchChulalongkorn UniversityMichael Smith Health Research BC
KeywordsHealth carePsychological interventionMedicineCriminalizationOddsEnvironmental healthPublic healthFamily medicineLogistic regressionSubstance abusePopulationOdds ratioPsychiatryNursingPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Although people who inject drugs (IDU) often contend with various health-related harms, timely access to health care among this population remains low. We sought to identify specific individual, social and structural factors constraining healthcare access among IDU in Bangkok, Thailand. METHODS: Data were derived from a community-recruited sample of IDU participating in the Mitsampan Community Research Project between July and October 2011. We assessed the prevalence and correlates of healthcare avoidance due to one's drug use using multivariate logistic regression. RESULTS: Among 437 participants, 112 (25.6%) reported avoiding health care because they were IDU. In multivariate analyses, factors independently associated with avoiding health care included having ever been drug tested by police [adjusted odds ratio (AOR) = 1.80], experienced verbal abuse (AOR = 3.15), been discouraged from engaging in usual family activities (AOR = 3.27), been refused medical care (AOR = 10.90), experienced any barriers to health care (AOR = 4.87) and received healthcare information and support at a drop-in centre (AOR = 1.92) (all P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: These findings highlight the need to address the broader policy environment, which perpetuates the criminalization and stigmatization of IDU, and to expand peer-based interventions to facilitate access to health care for IDU in this setting.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.191
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.091
GPT teacher head0.387
Teacher spread0.295 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations34
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Public HealthSame topicHIV, Drug Use, Sexual RiskFrench-language works237,207