Predictors of cessation of injection drug use in a cohort of young, street-based injecting drug users
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives: To identify the factors associated with cessation of injecting drug use in young street-based injecting drug users. Methods: Subjects were originally recruited from various street-based outreach programs and had to have reported injecting drugs within the prior 6 months at baseline or during follow-up, as well as having completed at least 2 follow-up questionnaires. Follow-up occurred from January 1995 to September 2000. Cessation of injecting drug use was defined as having reported no injection at 2 consecutive follow-up questionnaires, averaging at least one year in total. Incidence rates of cessation were calculated and stratified by duration of injection. Adjusted hazard ratios were calculated in order to identify independent predictors of cessation. Results: A total of 305 subjects met the inclusion criteria. Of those, 119 (39%) ceased injecting for approximately one year or more. The incidence of cessation was 32.6/100 person-years, but consistently declined as duration of time spent injecting increased. Independent predictors of IDU cessation were: having at least one parent born outside of Canada (HR=1.4; 95% Confidence Interval (CI): 1.1-1.7); injecting on a less than monthly or less than weekly basis on average within the last month (HR=6.6; 95% CI: 3.1-14.1 and HR=2.4; 95% CI: 1.1-5.5, respectively); injecting an average of two or fewer different types of drug within the last six months (HR=1.8; 95% CI: 0.9-3.5); and having been employed within the last six months (HR=1.7; 95% CI: 1.1-2.7). Independent predictors of not stopping injecting drugs were: homelessness within the last six months (HR=0.6; 95% CI: 0.4-1.0); and having attended a needle exchange program within the last six months (HR=0.5; 95% CI: 0.3-0.8). Conclusion: Cessation of injecting drug use among youth is considerably higher in the first years of injecting. Young IDUs with non-Canadian family backgrounds, as well as those who inject less frequently, inject fewer different types of drugs, and have a more stable lifestyle tend to be more likely to stop injecting drugs for a period of one year.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".