Non-injection drug use among incarcerated people in Iran: Findings from three consecutive national bio-behavioral surveys
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Prisons often serve as high-risk environments for drug use, and incarcerated people are at a high risk for substance use-related mental and physical harms. This study aimed to determine the prevalence of non-injection drug use inside the prison and its related factors among incarcerated people in Iran. METHODS: We utilized data from three national bio-behavioral surveillance surveys conducted among incarcerated people in Iran in 2009, 2013, and 2017. Eligibility criteria were being ≥ 18 years old, providing informed consent, and being incarcerated for over a week. Overall, 17,228 participants across all surveys were recruited through a multi-stage random sampling approach. Each participant underwent a face-to-face interview and HIV test. The primary objective of the study was to assess self-reported non-injection drug use within the prison environment within the last month. A multivariable logistic regression model was built to determine associated covariates with drug use inside prison and an adjusted odds ratio (aOR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were reported. RESULT: The prevalence of non-injection drug use inside the prison was 24.1% (95% CI 23.5, 24.7) with a significant decreasing trend (39.7% in 2009, 17.8% in 2013, 14.0% in 2017; p-value < 0.001). Overall, 44.0% of those who used drugs were also receiving opioid agonist therapy (OAT) and we noted that in 2017, 75.1% of those on OAT used stimulants. In the multivariable logistic regression model, the year of interview (2013: aOR = 1.43 and 2009: aOR = 5.60), younger age (19-29: aOR = 1.14 and 30-40: aOR = 1.37), male sex (aOR = 3.35), < high school education (aOR = 1.31), having a history of previous incarceration (aOR = 1.26), and having a history of lifetime HIV testing (aOR = 1.76) were significantly and positively associated with recent non-injection drug use inside the prison. CONCLUSIONS: Approximately one in four incarcerated people in Iran reported drug use within the last month inside prisons. While a declining trend in non-injection drug use was noted, substantial gaps persist in harm reduction programs within Iranian prisons. In particular, there is a pressing need for improvements in drug treatment programs, focusing on the integration of initiatives specifically designed for people who use stimulants.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".