Abstract
Background
Requiring help injecting was recently associated with syringe sharing, and later HIV-1 and HCV seroconversion among injection drug users (IDU) in Vancouver. This risk factor remains poorly understood. The present study investigates this risk factor among Vancouver IDUs.
Methods
We evaluated factors associated with requiring help injecting among participants enrolled in the Vancouver Injection Drug User Study (VIDUS) using univariate and logistic regression analyses. VIDUS participants who were followed-up during the period December 2000 to December 2001 were eligible for the present analyses. We also evaluated self-reported reasons for requiring help injecting.
Results
Overall, 661 active injection drug users were interviewed during the study period. Among this population, 151 (22.8%) had required help injecting during the last six months, whereas 510 (77.2%) indicated that they had not. Variables that were independently associated with requiring help injecting included borrowing a used syringe (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] = 2.18), frequent cocaine injection (AOR = 1.57), and female gender (AOR = 2.29). Among males, the most common reasons for requiring help injecting were: having no viable veins (77.1%), and anxiousness or being drug sick (42.9%). Among females, the most common reasons reported were: having no viable veins (71.6%), jugular injection or ‘jugging’ (45.7%), and being anxious or drug sick (27.2%). Almost twice as many females (13.6% vs 7.1%) reported not knowing how to inject as their reason for requiring help injecting.
Conclusion
Although current public health approaches, such as needle exchange, are unable to address the concerns associated with requiring help injecting, available evidence suggests that safer injecting facilities have the potential to substantially mitigate this risk behaviour.
Résumé
Contexte
On a récemment associé le fait d’avoir besoin d’aide pour se piquer au partage des seringues, et plus tard à la séroconversion VIH-1 et VHC chez les utilisateurs de drogues injectables (UDI) de Vancouver. Nous avons voulu étudier ce facteur de risque, encore mal compris, chez les UDI de Vancouver.
Méthode
À l’aide d’analyses univariées et de régression logistique, nous avons évalué les facteurs associés au fait d’avoir besoin d’aide pour se piquer chez les participants de la VIDUS (enquête vancouveroise auprès des utilisateurs de drogues injectables). Les analyses portaient sur les participants à la VIDUS ayant fait l’objet d’un suivi entre décembre 2000 et décembre 2001. Nous avons également évalué les motifs pour lesquels les intéressés déclaraient avoir besoin d’aide pour se piquer.
Résultats
Dans l’ensemble, 661 utilisateurs actifs de drogues injectables ont été interviewés durant la période de référence. De ce nombre, 151 (22,8 %) avaient eu besoin d’aide pour se piquer au cours des six mois précédents, et 510 (77,2 %) n’en avaient pas eu besoin. Certaines variables présentaient une corrélation indépendante avec le fait d’avoir besoin d’aide pour se piquer: l’emprunt d’une seringue usagée (rapport de cotes ajusté [RCA] = 2,18), l’injection fréquente de cocaïne (RCA=1,57) et le fait d’être une femme (RCA=2,29). Chez les hommes, les raisons le plus souvent déclarées d’avoir besoin d’aide pour se piquer étaient l’absence de veines adéquates (77,1 %) et l’anxiété ou l’état de manque (42,9 %). Chez les femmes, les raisons le plus souvent déclarées étaient l’absence de veines adéquates (71,6 %), l’injection dans une veine jugulaire (45,7 %) et l’anxiété ou l’état de manque (27,2 %). Les femmes étaient près de deux fois plus nombreuses que les hommes (13,6 % contre 7,1 %) à déclarer avoir besoin d’aide parce qu’elles ne savaient pas comment s’y prendre.
Conclusion
Bien que les approches actuelles de santé publique, comme l’échange de seringues, ne répondent pas aux préoccupations liées au fait d’avoir besoin d’aide pour se piquer, les données disponibles donnent à penser que des piqueries plus sûres pourraient peut-être atténuer considérablement ce comportement à risque.
Footnotes
Acknowledgements: Evan Wood is supported by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR), the George F. Elliot Foundation, and the BC Health Research Foundation. Martin Schechter is a Canadian Institutes of Health Research Senior Investigator. We also thank Bonnie Devlin, John Charette, Kathy Churchill, Caitlin Johnston, Robin Brooks, Steve Kain, Guillermo Fernandez, Peter Vann, and Nancy Laliberte for their research and administrative assistance; and all the participants in the VIDUS study.
References
- 1.Strathdee SA, Patrick DM, Archibald CP, Ofner M, Cornelisse PG, Rekart M, et al. Social determinants predict needle-sharing behaviour among injection drug users in Vancouver, Canada. Addiction. 1997;92:1339–47. doi: 10.1111/j.1360-0443.1997.tb02852.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Wood E, Schechter MT, Tyndall MW, Montaner JS, O’Shaughnessy MV, Hogg RS. Antiretroviral medication use among injection drug users: Two potential futures. AIDS. 2000;14:1229–35. doi: 10.1097/00002030-200006160-00021. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Strathdee Steffanie A., Patrick David M., Currie Sue L., Cornelisse Peter G.A., Rekart Michael L., Montaner Julio S.G., Schechter Martin T., OʼShaughnessy Michael V. Needle exchange is not enough. AIDS. 1997;11(8):F59–F65. doi: 10.1097/00002030-199708000-00001. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.The Needle Exchange Programs Prohibition Act of 1998 — Statements on Introduced billsJoint Resolutions Senate — April 21, 1998 . Congressional Record. 1998. p. S3356. [Google Scholar]
- 5.Bennett SS. Needle-exchange programmes in the USA [letter; comment] Lancet. 1998;351(9105):839. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(05)78977-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Bellm J. Needle-exchange programmes are not the answer [letter; comment] Lancet. 1999;353:1657–61. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(05)75044-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Wood E, Tyndall MW, Spittal P, Li K RS H, O’Shaughnessy M, et al. Needle exchange and difficulty with needle access during an ongoing HIV epidemic. Int J Drug Policy. 2002;13:95–102. doi: 10.1016/S0955-3959(02)00008-7. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Schechter MT, Strathdee SA, Cornelisse PG, Currie S, Patrick DM, Rekart ML, et al. Do needle exchange programmes increase the spread of HIV among injection drug users?: An investigation of the Vancouver outbreak. AIDS. 1999;13:F45–51. doi: 10.1097/00002030-199904160-00002. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Tyndall MW, Currie S, Spittal P, Li K, Wood E, O’Shaughnessy MV, et al. Intensive injection cocaine use as a primary risk factor of HIV seroconversion among polydrug users in Vancouver. AIDS. 2003;17(6):887–93. doi: 10.1097/00002030-200304110-00014. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Wood E, Tyndall MW, Spittal PM, Li K, Kerr T, Hogg RS, et al. Unsafe injection practices in a cohort of injection drug users in Vancouver: Could safer injecting rooms help? CMAJ. 2001;165:405–10. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Kerr T, Palepu A. Safe injection facilities in Canada: Is it time? CMAJ. 2001;165:436–37. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Harm reduction: Closing the distance. CMAJ. 2001;165:389. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Spittal PM, Craib KJ, Wood E, Laliberte N, Li K, Tyndall MW, et al. Risk factors for elevated HIV incidence rates among female injection drug users in Vancouver. CMAJ. 2002;166:894–99. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Miller CL, Johnston C, Spittal PM, Li K, Laliberte N, Montaner JS, et al. Opportunities for prevention: Hepatitis C prevalence and incidence in a cohort of young injection drug users. Hepatology. 2002;36:737–42. doi: 10.1053/jhep.2002.35065. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.Wood E, Tyndall MW, Spittal PM, Li K, Anis AH, Hogg RS, et al. Impact of supply-side policies for control of illicit drugs in the face of the AIDS and overdose epidemics: Investigation of a massive heroin seizure. CMAJ. 2003;168:165–69. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Wood E, Tyndall MW, Spittal PM, Li K, Hogg RS, Montaner JS, et al. Factors associated with persistent high-risk syringe sharing in the presence of an established needle exchange programme. AIDS. 2002;16:941–43. doi: 10.1097/00002030-200204120-00021. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17.Spittal PM, Schechter MT. Injection drug use and despair through the lens of gender. CMAJ. 2001;164:802–3. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18.Dolan K, Kimber J, Fry C, Fitzgerald J, McDonald D, Frautmann F. Drug consumption facilities in Europe and the establishment of supervised injecting centres in Australia. Drug and Alcohol Review. 2000;19:337–46. doi: 10.1080/713659379. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 19.de Jong W, Weber U. The professional acceptance of drug use: A closer look at drug consumption rooms in the Netherlands, Germany, and Switzerland. Int J Drug Policy. 1999;10:99–108. doi: 10.1016/S0955-3959(98)00072-3. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 20.Ronco C, Spuhler G, Coda P, Schopfer R. Evaluation for alley-rooms I, II, and III in Basel. Soc Prev Med. 1996;41:S58–68. doi: 10.1007/BF01318589. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21.Kemmesies U. Final Report: The open drug scene and the safe injection room offers in Frankfurt am Main. 1999. [Google Scholar]
- 22.van Beek I, Gilmour S. Preference to have used a medically supervised injecting centre among injecting drug users in Kings Cross, Sydney. Aust N Z J Public Health. 2000;24:540–42. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-842X.2000.tb00507.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23.Wood E, Kerr T, Spittal PM, Li K, Small W, Tyndall MW, et al. The potential public health and community impacts of safer injecting facilities: Evidence from a cohort of injection drug users. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2003;32:2–8. doi: 10.1097/00126334-200301010-00002. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24.Kimber J, MacDonald M. Six Month Process Report on the Medically Supervised Injecting Centre. National Alcohol and Drug Research Centre, University of New South Wales. 2002. [Google Scholar]
- 25.Broadhead RS, Kerr TH, Grund JP, Altice FL. Safer injection facilities in North America: Their place in public policy and health initiatives. J Drug Issues. 2002;32(1):329–55. doi: 10.1177/002204260203200113. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 26.Wood A, Stewart W, Zetel P. Supervising consumption: Exploring the implications for nursing in Canada; 2002. [Google Scholar]
- 27.Vancouver Sun, Friday April 12, 2002, A2. Nurses help addicts inject heroin.
- 28.Vancouver Sun, Saturday April 13, 2002, B6. Nothing illegal at AIDS clinic: police.
- 29.Malkin I, Gold J, Elliott R. Safe Injection Sites: Issues, Obstacles & Obligations. Montreal: Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network; 2002. [Google Scholar]
- 30.Elliot R, Malkin I, Gold J. Establishing Safe Injection Facilities in Canada: Legal and Ethical Issues. 2002. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 31.De Irala J, Bigelow C, McCusker J, Hindin R, Zheng L. Reliability of self-reported human immunodeficiency virus risk behaviours in a residential drug treatment population. Am J Epidemiol. 1996;143:725–32. doi: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a008806. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 32.Des Jarlais DC, Paone D, Milliken J, Turner CF, Miller H, Gribble J, et al. Audio-computer interviewing to measure risk behaviour for HIV among injecting drug users: A quasi-randomised trial. Lancet. 1999;353:1657–61. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(98)07026-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 33.Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network. Injection Drug Use and HIV/AIDS: Legal and Ethical Issues. Montreal: Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network; 1999. [Google Scholar]