Increasing Availability of Benzodiazepines among People who Inject Drugs in a Canadian Setting
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Benzodiazepine misuse is associated with mortality and is common among people who inject drugs (PWID). This study aimed to examine the temporal trends in the availability of benzodiazepines among PWID in a Canadian setting, and to identify factors associated with more immediate access to benzodiazepines. METHODS: Data were derived from 3 prospective cohorts of PWID in Vancouver, Canada, between June 2012 and May 2015. The primary outcome was the perceived availability of benzodiazepines, measured in 3 levels: not available, delayed availability (available in ≥10 minutes), and immediate availability (available in <10 minutes). The authors used multivariable generalized estimating equations to identify factors associated with availability of benzodiazepines. RESULTS: In total, 1641 individuals were included in these analyses. In multivariable analyses, factors associated with immediate benzodiazepine availability included incarceration (adjusted odds ratio [AOR]: 1.42, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.06, 1.89) and participation in methadone maintenance therapy (MMT) (AOR: 1.35, 95% CI: 1.14, 1.60). Factors associated with delayed benzodiazepine availability included incarceration (AOR: 1.45, 95% CI: 1.02, 2.07) and participation in MMT (AOR: 1.77, 95% CI: 1.48, 2.12). Benzodiazepine availability increased throughout the study period for both immediate (AOR: 1.14, 95% CI: 1.10, 1.18 per 6-month follow-up period) and delayed (AOR: 1.17, 95% CI: 1.12, 1.22 per 6-month follow-up period) availability. CONCLUSIONS: Among our sample of PWID, benzodiazepine availability is increasing and was associated with health and criminal justice system characteristics. Our findings indicate a need to examine prescribing practices and educate both PWID and health care providers about the risks associated with benzodiazepine use.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".