Joanna M Kesten1, Rachel Ayres2, Jane Neale2, Jody Clark3, Peter Vickerman4, Matthew Hickman4, Sabi Redwood5. 1. NIHR Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care West (NIHR CLAHRC West) at University Hospitals Bristol NHS Foundation Trust, UK; NIHR Health Protection Research Unit on Evaluation of Interventions, University of Bristol, UK; School of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, UK. Electronic address: jo.kesten@bristol.ac.uk. 2. Bristol Drugs Project, Bristol, UK. 3. Bristol City Council, Bristol, UK. 4. NIHR Health Protection Research Unit on Evaluation of Interventions, University of Bristol, UK; School of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, UK. 5. NIHR Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care West (NIHR CLAHRC West) at University Hospitals Bristol NHS Foundation Trust, UK; School of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, UK.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: It is recommended that needle and syringe programmes (NSP) distribute low dead space syringes (LDSS) to reduce blood-borne virus transmission. We explored the acceptability of detachable LDSS among people who inject drugs (PWID) and staff who work to support them. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were performed with 23 PWID (15 men and 8 women) and 13 NSP staff members (6 men and 7 women) in Bath and Bristol, England. Recruited PWID reflected varying demographic characteristics, drug use and injecting preferences. Interviews explored experiences of different types of injecting equipment, facilitators and barriers of changing this equipment and attitudes towards detachable LDSS. Interviews were audio recorded, transcribed verbatim and analysed using the Framework Method. RESULTS: Decisions about injecting practices were underpinned by several factors, including early experiences and peer initiation; awareness and availability of alternatives; and the ability to inject successfully. Rinsing and re-using syringes represented a quandary where rinsing could encourage re-use, but not rinsing could result in the re-use of unclean equipment. Most PWID were reluctant to change equipment particularly in the absence of any problems injecting. Prioritising getting a 'hit' over the prevention of potential problems was an important barrier to change. Overall detachable LDSS are likely to be acceptable. Lower risk of transferring infections and reduced drug wastage were valued benefits of detachable LDSS. There was a preference for a gradual introduction of detachable LDSS in which PWID are given an opportunity to try the new equipment alongside their usual equipment. CONCLUSION: Detachable LDSS are likely to be acceptable and should therefore be offered to those using detachable high dead space syringes and/or fixed 1ml LDSS syringes to inject into deeper femoral veins. An intervention is needed to support their introduction with 'training', 'education', 'persuasion' and eventual 'restriction' components.
BACKGROUND: It is recommended that needle and syringe programmes (NSP) distribute low dead space syringes (LDSS) to reduce blood-borne virus transmission. We explored the acceptability of detachable LDSS among people who inject drugs (PWID) and staff who work to support them. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were performed with 23 PWID (15 men and 8 women) and 13 NSP staff members (6 men and 7 women) in Bath and Bristol, England. Recruited PWID reflected varying demographic characteristics, drug use and injecting preferences. Interviews explored experiences of different types of injecting equipment, facilitators and barriers of changing this equipment and attitudes towards detachable LDSS. Interviews were audio recorded, transcribed verbatim and analysed using the Framework Method. RESULTS: Decisions about injecting practices were underpinned by several factors, including early experiences and peer initiation; awareness and availability of alternatives; and the ability to inject successfully. Rinsing and re-using syringes represented a quandary where rinsing could encourage re-use, but not rinsing could result in the re-use of unclean equipment. Most PWID were reluctant to change equipment particularly in the absence of any problems injecting. Prioritising getting a 'hit' over the prevention of potential problems was an important barrier to change. Overall detachable LDSS are likely to be acceptable. Lower risk of transferring infections and reduced drug wastage were valued benefits of detachable LDSS. There was a preference for a gradual introduction of detachable LDSS in which PWID are given an opportunity to try the new equipment alongside their usual equipment. CONCLUSION: Detachable LDSS are likely to be acceptable and should therefore be offered to those using detachable high dead space syringes and/or fixed 1ml LDSS syringes to inject into deeper femoral veins. An intervention is needed to support their introduction with 'training', 'education', 'persuasion' and eventual 'restriction' components.
Authors: Elizabeth Hancock; Zoe Ward; Rachel Ayres; Jane Neale; Deborah Hussey; Joanna May Kesten; Matthew Hickman; Peter Vickerman Journal: Addiction Date: 2019-11-19 Impact factor: 6.526
Authors: Joanna May Kesten; Ed Holder; Rachel Ayres; Pete Ellis; Steve Taylor; Matthew Hickman; Graeme Henderson Journal: PLoS One Date: 2022-06-23 Impact factor: 3.752
Authors: Adam Trickey; Margaret T May; Vivian Hope; Zoe Ward; Monica Desai; Ellen Heinsbroek; Matthew Hickman; Peter Vickerman Journal: Drug Alcohol Depend Date: 2018-09-15 Impact factor: 4.492
Authors: Jeremy Horwood; Christalla Pithara; Ava Lorenc; Joanna M Kesten; Mairead Murphy; Andrew Turner; Michelle Farr; Jon Banks; Sabi Redwood; Helen Lambert; Jenny L Donovan Journal: Front Sociol Date: 2022-09-15
Authors: William A Zule; Poonam G Pande; David Otiashvili; Georgiy V Bobashev; Samuel R Friedman; V Anna Gyarmathy; Don C Des Jarlais Journal: Harm Reduct J Date: 2018-01-15