Self‐perception of assisting with future injection drug initiation: The influence of relationships in the process of drug injecting initiation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION AND AIMS: People who inject drugs (PWID) play critical roles in assisting others into injection drug use (IDU) initiation. Understanding perceptions of PWID's risk of initiating others is needed to inform interventions for prevention. The objective was to examine factors associated with self-perception of assisting with future IDU initiation events. The primary variables of interest are the relationships of PWID with the person(s) they assisted and their reasons for previously providing initiation assistance. DESIGN AND METHODS: Data from Preventing Injecting by Modifying Existing Responses, a multi-site prospective community-recruited cohort study, were analysed. Analyses were restricted to PWID who reported ever providing IDU initiation assistance. Site-specific (Vancouver, Canada [n = 746]; San Diego, USA [n = 95] and Tijuana, Mexico [n = 92]) multivariable logistic regression analyses were performed to determine factors associated with self-perception of assisting with future IDU initiation. RESULTS: Having provided IDU initiation assistance to a family member or intimate partner decreased the odds of self-perception of assisting with future IDU initiation in Vancouver (AOR = 0.4; 95% CI 0.2-0.8); however, previous IDU initiation assistance to an 'other' increased the odds of self-perception of assisting with future IDU in Tijuana (AOR = 12.0; 95% CI 2.1-70.3). Daily IDU (Vancouver: AOR = 3.7; 95% CI 2.1-6.4) and less than daily IDU (San Diego: AOR = 5.9; 95% CI 1.3-27.1) (Vancouver: AOR = 2.6; 95% CI 1.4-2.9) were associated with increased self-perception of assisting with future IDU compared to current non-injectors. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: Relationship to past initiates and IDU frequency might increase PWID's self-perception of assisting with future IDU. Interventions focused on social support and reducing IDU frequency may decrease occurrences of IDU initiation assistance.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".