Czarina N Behrends1, Chin-Shang Li1,2, David R Gibson1,2. 1. a Graduate Group in Epidemiology , University of California , Davis, Davis , California , USA. 2. b Department of Public Health Sciences , University of California , Davis, Davis , California , USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: While there is substantial evidence that syringe exchange programs (SEPs) are effective in preventing HIV among people who inject drugs (PWID), nearly all the evidence comes from PWID who obtain syringes from an SEP directly. Much less is known about the benefits of secondary exchange to PWID who get syringes indirectly from friends or acquaintances who visit an SEP for them. OBJECTIVES: We evaluated the effectiveness of direct versus indirect syringe exchange in reducing HIV-related high-risk injecting behavior among PWID in two separate studies conducted in Sacramento and San Jose, California, cities with quite different syringe exchange models. METHODS: In both studies associations between direct and indirect syringe exchange and self-reported risk behavior were examined with multivariable logistic regression models. Study 1 assessed effects of a "satellite" home-delivery syringe exchange in Sacramento, while Study 2 evaluated a conventional fixed-site exchange in San Jose. RESULTS: Multivariable analyses revealed 95% and 69% reductions, respectively, in high-risk injection associated with direct use of the SEPs in Sacramento and San Jose, and a 46% reduction associated with indirect use of the SEP in Sacramento. Conclusions/Importance: The very large effect of direct SEP use in Sacramento was likely due in part to home delivery of sterile syringes. While more modest effects were associated with indirect use, such use nevertheless is valuable in reducing the risk of HIV transmission of PWID who are unable or unwilling to visit a syringe exchange.
BACKGROUND: While there is substantial evidence that syringe exchange programs (SEPs) are effective in preventing HIV among people who inject drugs (PWID), nearly all the evidence comes from PWID who obtain syringes from an SEP directly. Much less is known about the benefits of secondary exchange to PWID who get syringes indirectly from friends or acquaintances who visit an SEP for them. OBJECTIVES: We evaluated the effectiveness of direct versus indirect syringe exchange in reducing HIV-related high-risk injecting behavior among PWID in two separate studies conducted in Sacramento and San Jose, California, cities with quite different syringe exchange models. METHODS: In both studies associations between direct and indirect syringe exchange and self-reported risk behavior were examined with multivariable logistic regression models. Study 1 assessed effects of a "satellite" home-delivery syringe exchange in Sacramento, while Study 2 evaluated a conventional fixed-site exchange in San Jose. RESULTS: Multivariable analyses revealed 95% and 69% reductions, respectively, in high-risk injection associated with direct use of the SEPs in Sacramento and San Jose, and a 46% reduction associated with indirect use of the SEP in Sacramento. Conclusions/Importance: The very large effect of direct SEP use in Sacramento was likely due in part to home delivery of sterile syringes. While more modest effects were associated with indirect use, such use nevertheless is valuable in reducing the risk of HIV transmission of PWID who are unable or unwilling to visit a syringe exchange.
Entities:
Keywords:
HIV risk behavior; Secondary syringe exchange; people who inject drugs; satellite syringe exchange; syringe exchange
Authors: Traci C Green; Ricky N Bluthenthal; Merrill Singer; Leo Beletsky; Lauretta E Grau; Patricia Marshall; Robert Heimer Journal: Drug Alcohol Depend Date: 2010-05-26 Impact factor: 4.492
Authors: Mark W Tyndall; Julie Bruneau; Susan Brogly; Patricia Spittal; Michael V O'Shaughnessy; Martin T Schechter Journal: J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr Date: 2002-09-01 Impact factor: 3.731
Authors: Jennifer Lorvick; Ricky N Bluthenthal; Andrea Scott; Mary Lou Gilbert; Kara S Riehman; Rachel L Anderson; Neil M Flynn; Alex H Kral Journal: Subst Use Misuse Date: 2006 Impact factor: 2.164
Authors: Norah Palmateer; Jo Kimber; Matthew Hickman; Sharon Hutchinson; Tim Rhodes; David Goldberg Journal: Addiction Date: 2010-03-02 Impact factor: 6.526
Authors: R S Broadhead; D D Heckathorn; D L Weakliem; D L Anthony; H Madray; R J Mills; J Hughes Journal: Public Health Rep Date: 1998-06 Impact factor: 2.792
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
Authors: Dennis P Watson; James A Swartz; Lisa Robison-Taylor; Mary Ellen Mackesy-Amiti; Kim Erwin; Nicole Gastala; Antonio D Jimenez; Monte D Staton; Sarah Messmer Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2021-03-31 Impact factor: 3.295
Authors: Malin Värmå Falk; Susanne Strömdahl; Anna Mia Ekström; Martin Kåberg; Niklas Karlsson; Helena Dahlborn; Anders Hammarberg Journal: Harm Reduct J Date: 2020-10-22