AIMS: To study the effectiveness of an educational intervention on risks associated with drug injection, comparing primary [unsafe HIV-hepatitis C virus (HCV) practices] and secondary (local complications at injecting site) end-points in harm reduction (HR) programmes offering this intervention versus HR programmes not offering it. DESIGN: This non-random clustered intervention study was conducted in nine intervention groups (programmes offering the intervention) and eight control groups (programmes not offering it). Each participant was followed-up through a telephone interview at enrolment and at 6 and 12 months. SETTING: The study took place in 17 cities throughout France. PARTICIPANTS: Of the 271 participants, 144 were enrolled into the intervention group and 127 in the control group. Of the latter, 113 received at least one educational session. INTERVENTION: A series of participant-centred face-to-face educational sessions. Each session included direct observation by trained non-governmental organization (NGO) staff or volunteers of participants' self-injecting the psychoactive product they used habitually; analysis by the trained NGO staff or volunteers of the participant's injecting practices, identification of injection-related risks and explanation of safer injecting practices; and an educational exchange on the individual participant's injection practices and the questions he or she asked. MEASUREMENTS: Primary and secondary outcomes were 'at least one unsafe HIV-HCV practice' and at least one injection-related complication (derived from a checklist). FINDINGS: The proportion of participants with at least one unsafe HIV-HCV practice in the intervention group decreased significantly, from 44% at M0 to 25% at M6, as well as complications at the injection site (from 66 to 39% at M12), while in the control group it remained mainly stable. Multivariate probit analyses showed that the intervention group experienced a significant reduction in unsafe HIV-HCV practices at M6 [coefficient, 95% confidence interval (CI) = -0.73 (-1.47 to 0.01)] and in injection-related complications at M12 [coefficient, 95% CI = -1.01 (-1.77 to -0.24)], compared with the control group. CONCLUSIONS: An inexpensive and easily implemented educational intervention on risks associated with drug injection reduces significantly unsafe HIV-HCV transmission practices and injection-related complications.
RCT Entities:
AIMS: To study the effectiveness of an educational intervention on risks associated with drug injection, comparing primary [unsafe HIV-hepatitis C virus (HCV) practices] and secondary (local complications at injecting site) end-points in harm reduction (HR) programmes offering this intervention versus HR programmes not offering it. DESIGN: This non-random clustered intervention study was conducted in nine intervention groups (programmes offering the intervention) and eight control groups (programmes not offering it). Each participant was followed-up through a telephone interview at enrolment and at 6 and 12 months. SETTING: The study took place in 17 cities throughout France. PARTICIPANTS: Of the 271 participants, 144 were enrolled into the intervention group and 127 in the control group. Of the latter, 113 received at least one educational session. INTERVENTION: A series of participant-centred face-to-face educational sessions. Each session included direct observation by trained non-governmental organization (NGO) staff or volunteers of participants' self-injecting the psychoactive product they used habitually; analysis by the trained NGO staff or volunteers of the participant's injecting practices, identification of injection-related risks and explanation of safer injecting practices; and an educational exchange on the individual participant's injection practices and the questions he or she asked. MEASUREMENTS: Primary and secondary outcomes were 'at least one unsafe HIV-HCV practice' and at least one injection-related complication (derived from a checklist). FINDINGS: The proportion of participants with at least one unsafe HIV-HCV practice in the intervention group decreased significantly, from 44% at M0 to 25% at M6, as well as complications at the injection site (from 66 to 39% at M12), while in the control group it remained mainly stable. Multivariate probit analyses showed that the intervention group experienced a significant reduction in unsafe HIV-HCV practices at M6 [coefficient, 95% confidence interval (CI) = -0.73 (-1.47 to 0.01)] and in injection-related complications at M12 [coefficient, 95% CI = -1.01 (-1.77 to -0.24)], compared with the control group. CONCLUSIONS: An inexpensive and easily implemented educational intervention on risks associated with drug injection reduces significantly unsafe HIV-HCV transmission practices and injection-related complications.
Authors: Kristina T Phillips; Bradley J Anderson; Debra S Herman; Jane M Liebschutz; Michael D Stein Journal: J Addict Med Date: 2017 Nov/Dec Impact factor: 3.702
Authors: Kristina T Phillips; Catherine Stewart; Bradley J Anderson; Jane M Liebschutz; Debra S Herman; Michael D Stein Journal: Drug Alcohol Depend Date: 2021-02-27 Impact factor: 4.492
Authors: Perrine Roux; Daniela Rojas Castro; Khadim Ndiaye; Marie Debrus; Camélia Protopopescu; Jean-Marie Le Gall; Aurélie Haas; Marion Mora; Bruno Spire; Marie Suzan-Monti; Patrizia Carrieri Journal: PLoS One Date: 2016-06-13 Impact factor: 3.240