Factors Associated With the Use of Supervised Consumption Facilities Among Women Who Inject Drugs in a Canadian Setting
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Supervised consumption facilities (SCFs) are evidence-based harm reduction interventions that have been shown to reduce the risk of social and health-related harms associated with injection drug use. Previous qualitative studies have highlighted important motivations for SCF use among women who use drugs. However, factors associated with SCF use among women have not previously been evaluated. METHODS: Data were obtained from 2 longitudinal community-recruited cohorts of people who use drugs in Vancouver, Canada between 2003 and 2017. Multivariable generalized estimating equations were used to calculate the odds of SCF use associated with social and structural risk factors for drug-related harm among women who reported injection drug use in the preceding 6-months. RESULTS: A total of 795 participants were included in the study, contributing to 6302 interviews, with 602 participants (76%) reporting SCF use in at least one interview. Multivariable analysis demonstrated daily heroin and crystal methamphetamine injection (Adjusted Odds Ratio [AOR] = 1.32 and 1.65, respectively), injecting in public (AOR = 1.77), binge injection (AOR = 1.22) and lack of housing (AOR = 1.74) to be associated with SCF use. CONCLUSIONS: The current study demonstrates higher intensity patterns of drug use, including daily heroin and crystal methamphetamine injection, injecting in public and binge injection, as well as homelessness to be associated with SCF use among women. Future research should identify barriers to SCF use among women to minimize the risk of overdose and other drug-related harms.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".