| Literature DB >> 31071182 |
Tsz Ho Kwan1, Ngai Sze Wong2, Shui Shan Lee2.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: HIV spread in injecting drug users (IDU) occurs efficiently between individuals within their social networks. While methadone maintenance treatment has long known to be effective in combating HIV transmission in IDU, the impacts of one's social connections and HIV status have not been well characterised. A study was conducted with the objective of differentiating the pattern of treatment participation between HIV-positive and negative methadone users and to understand its association with social connections with peers.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31071182 PMCID: PMC6508728 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0216727
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Fig 1Algorithm for spatial-temporal social network construction.
Fig 2Social connections between methadone users.
Characteristics of case-controlled HIV-positive and negative users who attended the methadone programme in 2016 (N = 432).
| HIV-positive methadone users (N = 54) | HIV-negative methadone users (N = 378) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| n (%) | n (%) | OR (95% CI) | X2 | P | |
| Demographics | |||||
| Ethnic Chinese | 33 (61%) | 287 (76%) | 0.50 (0.28–0.90) | 5.40 | 0.02 |
| Male | 50 (93%) | 346 (92%) | 1.16 (0.39–3.41) | - | 0.52 |
| Age in 2016, years | - | 0.04 | |||
| Attributes at first enrolment | |||||
| Age, years | - | 0.01 | |||
| Working fulltime | 4 (7%) | 77 (20%) | 0.31 (0.11–0.89) | 5.21 | 0.02 |
| Working parttime | 8 (15%) | 42 (11%) | 1.39 (0.62–3.15) | 0.63 | 0.43 |
| Being unemployed | 38 (70%) | 201 (53%) | 2.09 (1.13–3.88) | 5.65 | 0.02 |
| Having a history of injection | 25 (50%) | 107 (32%) | 2.16 (1.19–3.93) | 6.53 | 0.01 |
| Methadone programme utilisation pattern | |||||
| Number of re-admissions in 2016 | - | 0.21 | |||
| Number of clinic visits in 2016 | - | 0.07 | |||
| Mode dose in 2016, mg | - | 0.71 | |||
| Minimum dose in 2016, mg | - | 0.98 | |||
| Minimum dose <20 mg in 2016 | 3 (6%) | 74 (20%) | 0.24 (0.07–0.80) | 6.34 | 0.01 |
| Maximum dose in 2016, mg | - | 0.75 | |||
| Dose range in 2016, mg | - | 0.79 | |||
| Social connections with other users | |||||
| Connected with at least one other user in 2016 | 22 (41%) | 224 (59%) | 0.47 (0.27–0.84) | 6.61 | 0.01 |
| Degree centrality (N = 22; 224) | - | 0.26 | |||
| Clustering coefficient (N = 22; 224) | - | 0.03 | |||
a Fisher’s exact test
Comparison between methadone users active in 2016 with and without social connections with another user (N = 432).
| Connected (N = 246) | Not connected (N = 186) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| n (%) | n (%) | OR (95% CI) | X2 | P | |
| Demographics | |||||
| Ethnic Chinese | 201 (82%) | 119 (64%) | 2.52 (1.62–3.91) | 17.34 | <0.001 |
| Male | 227 (92%) | 169 (91%) | 1.20 (0.61–2.38) | 0.28 | 0.60 |
| Age in 2016, years | - | <0.001 | |||
| Attributes at first enrolment | |||||
| Age, years | - | <0.001 | |||
| Working fulltime | 53 (22%) | 28 (15%) | 1.55 (0.94–2.57) | 2.93 | 0.09 |
| Working parttime | 22 (9%) | 28 (15%) | 0.55 (0.31–1.00) | 3.86 | 0.049 |
| Being unemployed | 119 (48%) | 120 (65%) | 0.52 (0.35–0.76) | 11.17 | 0.001 |
| Having a history of injection | 64 (32%) | 68 (37%) | 0.79 (0.52–1.21) | 1.18 | 0.28 |
| Methadone programme utilisation pattern | |||||
| Length of methadone use, years | - | <0.001 | |||
| Number of re-admissions in 2016 | - | 0.03 | |||
| Number of clinic visits in 2016 | - | <0.001 | |||
| Mode dose in 2016, mg | - | <0.001 | |||
| Minimum dose in 2016, mg | - | <0.001 | |||
| Minimum dose <20 mg in 2016 | 41 (17%) | 36 (19%) | 0.83 (0.51–1.37) | 0.52 | 0.47 |
| Maximum dose in 2016, mg | - | <0.001 | |||
| Dose range in 2016, mg | - | 0.002 | |||