. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2013 Aug 1.

Published in final edited form as: Am J Drug Alcohol Abuse. 2011 Aug 11;38(1):55–62. doi: 10.3109/00952990.2011.600389

TABLE 3.

GEE analysis of factors associated with not using the SIF in the last 6 months (n = 76) versus using the facility among those who initially reported being willing to use an injection site (n = 274)

Characteristic¹	Univariate		Multivariate
Characteristic¹	OR(95% CI)	p-Value	AOR(95% CI)	p-Value
Younger than 39 years of age
Yes versus no	1.65(1.18–2.29)	.003	1.68(1.21–2.34)	.002
Gender
Female versus male	1.09(0.75–1.58)	.660
Infrequent exposure to DTES²
Yes versus no	1.93(1.38–2.71)	<.001	1.86(1.30–2.66)	<.001
Infrequent cocaine injection²
< daily versus > daily	1.82(1.36–2.44)	<.001	1.52(1.12–2.06)	.007
Infrequent heroin injection²
< daily versus > daily	2.80(2.11–3.71)	<.001	2.46(1.84–3.28)	<.001
Incarceration²
Yes versus no	0.78(0.59–1.09)	.141
Any addiction treatment²
Yes versus no	1.42(1.05–1.93)	.024	1.23(0.90–1.68)	.185

Notes: GEE, generalized estimating equations; SIF, supervised injection facility; OR, odds ratio; CI, confidence interval; AOR, adjusted odds ratio; DTES, Downtown Eastside of Vancouver, which is the neighborhood where the SIF is located, infrequent exposure defined as being in the neighborhood less than 2–3 times per week.

Variable measures collected between December 2003 and November 2005.

Denotes activities or situations referring to previous 6 months.