Safer injecting education for HIV prevention within a medically supervised safer injecting facility
Safer injecting education for HIV prevention within a medically supervised safer injecting facility
Evan Wood, Mark W. Tyndall, Jo-Anne Stoltz, Will Small, Ruth Zhang, Jacqueline O’Connell, Julio S.G. Montaner, Thomas Kerr (2005)
Safer injecting education for HIV prevention within a medically supervised safer injecting facility
English
Website
BACKGROUND: Requiring help injecting has recently been independently associated with syringe sharing and HIV incidence among injection drug users (IDUs) in Vancouver. We examined IDUs who were receiving safer injecting education within a supervised injecting facility (SIF) in Vancouver.
METHODS: The Scientific Evaluation of Supervised Injecting (SEOSI) cohort is based on a representative sample of SIF users. We examined the prevalence and correlates of receiving safer injecting education within the SIF using univariate and logistic regression analyses.
RESULTS: Between May 31, 2003 and Oct 22, 2004, 874 individuals of the SEOSI cohort have completed the baseline questionnaire, among whom 293 (33.5%) received safer injecting education. In multivariate analyses, requiring help with an injection in the last 6 months (OR = 2.20 [95% CI: 1.62–2.98]) and sex-trade involvement in the last 6 months (OR = 1.54 [1.09–2.16]) were independently associated with receiving safer injecting education within the SIF.
CONCLUSIONS: Since requiring help injecting has previously been associated with HIV incidence, it is encouraging that this risk factor was associated with receiving safer injecting education within the SIF. Nevertheless, prospective evaluation is necessary to examine if receiving safer injecting education is associated with reduced HIV risk behaviour and blood-borne disease incidence.
METHODS: The Scientific Evaluation of Supervised Injecting (SEOSI) cohort is based on a representative sample of SIF users. We examined the prevalence and correlates of receiving safer injecting education within the SIF using univariate and logistic regression analyses.
RESULTS: Between May 31, 2003 and Oct 22, 2004, 874 individuals of the SEOSI cohort have completed the baseline questionnaire, among whom 293 (33.5%) received safer injecting education. In multivariate analyses, requiring help with an injection in the last 6 months (OR = 2.20 [95% CI: 1.62–2.98]) and sex-trade involvement in the last 6 months (OR = 1.54 [1.09–2.16]) were independently associated with receiving safer injecting education within the SIF.
CONCLUSIONS: Since requiring help injecting has previously been associated with HIV incidence, it is encouraging that this risk factor was associated with receiving safer injecting education within the SIF. Nevertheless, prospective evaluation is necessary to examine if receiving safer injecting education is associated with reduced HIV risk behaviour and blood-borne disease incidence.
