Premium
Use of supervised injection facilities and injection risk behaviours among young drug injectors
Author(s) -
Bravo María J.,
Royuela Luis,
De la Fuente Luis,
Brugal María T.,
Barrio Gregorio,
DomingoSalvany Antonia
Publication year - 2009
Publication title -
addiction
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 2.424
H-Index - 193
eISSN - 1360-0443
pISSN - 0965-2140
DOI - 10.1111/j.1360-0443.2008.02474.x
Subject(s) - drug , injection drug use , medicine , young adult , injector , drug injection , psychology , environmental health , medical emergency , psychiatry , gerontology , engineering , mechanical engineering
ABSTRACT Aims To study the use of supervised injection facilities (SIFs) as a predictor of safer injecting practices. Design Cross‐sectional study conducted with face‐to‐face interview using a structured questionnaire with computer‐assisted personal interviewing. Dried blood spot samples were collected for human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) and hepatitis C virus (HCV) antibody testing. Setting All participants were street‐recruited by chain referral methods in Madrid and Barcelona. Participants A total of 249 young heroin drug injectors recruited by the ITINERE cohort study in two Spanish cities with SIFs. Measurements The main outcome measures were self‐reported injecting behaviours and SIFs attendance. Results SIF users were more marginalized socially than non‐users. They were also more often regular injectors (weekly or more versus sporadic) [odds ratio (OR) = 4.9, 95% confidence interval (CI): 2.7–8.8], speedball users (OR = 2.5, 95% CI: 1.5–4.3) and anti‐HCV‐positive (OR = 3.1, 95% CI: 1.4–7.1). In the logistic regression analysis, using SIFs was associated independently with not borrowing used syringes (OR = 3.3, 95% CI: 1.4–7.7). However, no significant association was found between SIF use and not sharing injection equipment indirectly (OR = 1.1, 95% CI: 0.5–2.2). Conclusions SIFs attract highly disadvantaged drug injectors who engage none the less in less borrowing of used syringes than non‐users of these facilities. The risks of indirect sharing should be emphasized when counselling SIF attendees.