Informal recycling, income generation and risk: Health and social harms among people who use drugs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Informal recycling refers to the street-based collection of discarded materials for reuse, resale, or return to a recycling facility for money. While qualitative research has explored experiences and perceptions of informal recycling, little is known about the scope and exposures associated with informal recycling among people who use drugs (PWUD). METHODS: Using data from two prospective longitudinal cohorts of PWUD, we examined the prevalence of informal recycling and its association with social, structural and health risks, including criminal justice system involvement. RESULTS: Between June 2010 and May 2015, of 1664 participants, 557 (33.5%) reported engaging in informal recycling during the study period. In multivariable generalised estimating equations (GEE) analyses, informal recycling was positively associated with injection drug use (Adjusted Odds Ratio (AOR) = 1.43, 95% Confidence Interval (CI) 1.21-1.68), public injection (AOR = 1.27, 95% CI 1.09-1.49), methamphetamine use (AOR = 1.35, 95% CI 1.05-1.72), difficulty finding harm reduction equipment (AOR = 1.16, 95% CI 1.02-1.32), and police interactions (AOR = 1.35, 95% CI 1.18-1.55). Sub-analyses revealed PWUD engaged in informal recycling were more likely to be told to move on, ticketed, stopped for jaywalking, and directed to services by police. CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest informal recycling as a situated practice for PWUD, with potential indications for higher-risk drug use, experiencing greater surveillance, and difficulty accessing health and addiction treatment services. This research highlights the significance of the broader risk environment and the need for health-promoting policies for socioeconomically marginalised PWUD engaged in informal recycling.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".