Engagement in hepatitis C virus cascade of care and factors associated with testing among people who inject drugs in Iran
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Understanding the hepatitis C virus (HCV) cascade of care (CoC) and factors associated with engagement is crucial for designing interventions for achieving HCV elimination. However, data on engagement in the HCV CoC among people who inject drugs (PWID) in the Middle East and North Africa remains limited. We examined the HCV CoC and factors associated with testing among Iranian PWID. METHODS: We recruited PWID in 14 cities using respondent-driven sampling. PWID completed structured interviews capturing measures on socio-demographics, behaviors, and HCV CoC. We examined the self-reported numbers and proportions of individuals who ever tested for HCV, tested positive for HCV antibody, were diagnosed with HCV, initiated HCV treatment, and achieved sustained virologic response (SVR). Multivariable logistic regression models were built to assess factors associated with HCV antibody testing. RESULTS: Of 2308 PWID, 23.1% had ever received an HCV antibody test, 13.9% received the HCV antibody test in the last year, 3.4% had tested positive for HCV antibodies, and 2.5% had received an HCV diagnosis. Of those diagnosed, 54.4% reported initiating treatment, and 31.6% had achieved SVR. HCV antibody testing was significantly associated with having knowledge about HCV transmission through sharing needle/syringe (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 8.09; 95% confidence intervals [CI] 5.25, 12.48), living with HIV (aOR 4.15; 1.58, 10.92), no previous history of homelessness (aOR 1.89; 1.31, 2.72), history of arrest/incarceration (aOR 1.83; 1.26, 2.64), history of being diagnosed with any mental health problems (aOR 2.88; 1.79, 4.61), history of non-fatal overdose (aOR 1.51; 1.08, 2.10), receiving needle exchange programs in the last 12 months (aOR 6.20; 3.86, 9.93), opioid agonist treatment in the last six months (aOR 2.10; 1.39, 3.18), and having ever received HBV vaccine (aOR 2.31; 1.59, 3.35). CONCLUSIONS: We found a considerably low engagement in HCV CoC among PWID in Iran. Enhancing access to testing services for PWID, especially those with limited awareness of HCV transmission and those encountering structural challenges, is essential as the initial step in the HCV CoC. This improvement is vital for strengthening HCV elimination efforts in Iran.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".