OBJECTIVES: This study estimates the quantity and geographic distribution of discarded needles on the streets of Baltimore, Md, during the 2 years after a needle exchange program opened. METHODS: Thirty-two city blocks were randomly sampled. Counts were taken of the number of syringes, drug vials, and bottles before the needle exchange program opened and then at 6 periodic intervals for 2 years after the program opened. Nonparametric and generalized estimating equation models were used to examine change over time. RESULTS: Two years after the needle exchange program opened, there was a significant decline in the overall quantity of discarded needles relative to that of drug vials and bottles (background trash). The block mean of number of needles per 100 trash items was 2.42 before the program opened and 1.30 2 years later (mean within-block change = -0.028, P < .05). There was no difference in the number of discarded needles by distance from the program site. CONCLUSIONS: These data suggest that this needle exchange program did not increase the number of distribution of discarded needles.
OBJECTIVES: This study estimates the quantity and geographic distribution of discarded needles on the streets of Baltimore, Md, during the 2 years after a needle exchange program opened. METHODS: Thirty-two city blocks were randomly sampled. Counts were taken of the number of syringes, drug vials, and bottles before the needle exchange program opened and then at 6 periodic intervals for 2 years after the program opened. Nonparametric and generalized estimating equation models were used to examine change over time. RESULTS: Two years after the needle exchange program opened, there was a significant decline in the overall quantity of discarded needles relative to that of drug vials and bottles (background trash). The block mean of number of needles per 100 trash items was 2.42 before the program opened and 1.30 2 years later (mean within-block change = -0.028, P < .05). There was no difference in the number of discarded needles by distance from the program site. CONCLUSIONS: These data suggest that this needle exchange program did not increase the number of distribution of discarded needles.
Authors: M C Doherty; R S Garfein; D Vlahov; B Junge; P J Rathouz; N Galai; J C Anthony; P Beilenson Journal: Am J Epidemiol Date: 1997-04-15 Impact factor: 4.897
Authors: Evan Wood; Thomas Kerr; Will Small; Kathy Li; David C Marsh; Julio S G Montaner; Mark W Tyndall Journal: CMAJ Date: 2004-09-28 Impact factor: 8.262
Authors: Lynn D Wenger; Alexis N Martinez; Lisa Carpenter; Dara Geckeler; Grant Colfax; Alex H Kral Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2010-05-13 Impact factor: 9.308
Authors: Hannah Cooper; Don Des Jarlais; Zev Ross; Barbara Tempalski; Brian H Bossak; Samuel R Friedman Journal: J Urban Health Date: 2012-08 Impact factor: 3.671
Authors: Scott S Santibanez; Richard S Garfein; Andrea Swartzendruber; David W Purcell; Lynn A Paxton; Alan E Greenberg Journal: J Urban Health Date: 2006-01 Impact factor: 3.671
Authors: Hansel E Tookes; Alex H Kral; Lynn D Wenger; Gabriel A Cardenas; Alexis N Martinez; Recinda L Sherman; Margaret Pereyra; David W Forrest; Marlene LaLota; Lisa R Metsch Journal: Drug Alcohol Depend Date: 2011-12-29 Impact factor: 4.492
Authors: Harry Levine; Tyler S Bartholomew; Victoria Rea-Wilson; Jason Onugha; David Jonathon Arriola; Gabriel Cardenas; David W Forrest; Alex H Kral; Lisa R Metsch; Emma Spencer; Hansel Tookes Journal: Drug Alcohol Depend Date: 2019-06-29 Impact factor: 4.492
Authors: Marcelo H Fernández-Viña; Nadya E Prood; Adam Herpolsheimer; Joshua Waimberg; Scott Burris Journal: Public Health Rep Date: 2020 Jul/Aug Impact factor: 2.792