Kristina T Phillips1, Catherine Stewart2, Bradley J Anderson3, Jane M Liebschutz4, Debra S Herman5, Michael D Stein2. 1. Center for Integrated Health Care Research, Kaiser Permanente Hawaii, Honolulu, HI, 96817, United States. Electronic address: Kristina.T.Phillips@kp.org. 2. Boston University School of Public Health, Boston, MA, 02118, United States. 3. Behavioral Medicine and Addictions Research, Butler Hospital, Providence, RI, 02906, United States. 4. Division of General Internal Medicine, Center for Research on Health Care, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, 15213, United States. 5. Behavioral Medicine and Addictions Research, Butler Hospital, Providence, RI, 02906, United States; Warren Alpert Medical School of Brown University, Providence, RI, 02912, United States.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: People who inject drugs (PWID) are at high risk for skin and soft tissue infections (SSTIs), but few interventions have targeted their reduction. The goal of the current study was to test the effects of a brief skin and needle hygiene behavioral intervention (SKIN) in a two-group randomized controlled trial with 12-month follow-up. METHOD: PWID (N = 252) were recruited from inpatient hospital units at a single urban medical center site and randomly assigned to an assessment-only (AO) condition or SKIN, which was a two-session intervention that included psychoeducation, behavioral skills demonstrations, and motivational interviewing. Mixed effects generalized linear models assessed the impact of the intervention on frequency of: 1) self-reported SSTIs, 2) uncleaned skin injections, and 3) injection. RESULTS: Participants were 58.3 % male, 59.5 % White, and averaged 38 years of age. SKIN participants had 35 % fewer SSTIs compared to AO (p = .179), a difference of nearly one infection per year. The mean rate of uncleaned skin injections was about 66 % lower (IRR = 0.34, 95 % CI 0.20; 0.59, p < .001) among SKIN participants compared to AO. Almost one-third of participants reported no injection over follow-up and the mean rate of injection during follow-up was about 39 % lower (IRR = 0.61; 95 % CI 0.36; 1.02, p = .058) among persons randomized to SKIN than AO. CONCLUSIONS: The SKIN intervention reduced uncleaned skin injections but did not reduce SSTIs significantly more than a control condition. Brief interventions can improve high-risk practices among PWID and lead to clinically meaningful outcomes.
BACKGROUND: People who inject drugs (PWID) are at high risk for skin and soft tissue infections (SSTIs), but few interventions have targeted their reduction. The goal of the current study was to test the effects of a brief skin and needle hygiene behavioral intervention (SKIN) in a two-group randomized controlled trial with 12-month follow-up. METHOD: PWID (N = 252) were recruited from inpatient hospital units at a single urban medical center site and randomly assigned to an assessment-only (AO) condition or SKIN, which was a two-session intervention that included psychoeducation, behavioral skills demonstrations, and motivational interviewing. Mixed effects generalized linear models assessed the impact of the intervention on frequency of: 1) self-reported SSTIs, 2) uncleaned skin injections, and 3) injection. RESULTS: Participants were 58.3 % male, 59.5 % White, and averaged 38 years of age. SKIN participants had 35 % fewer SSTIs compared to AO (p = .179), a difference of nearly one infection per year. The mean rate of uncleaned skin injections was about 66 % lower (IRR = 0.34, 95 % CI 0.20; 0.59, p < .001) among SKIN participants compared to AO. Almost one-third of participants reported no injection over follow-up and the mean rate of injection during follow-up was about 39 % lower (IRR = 0.61; 95 % CI 0.36; 1.02, p = .058) among persons randomized to SKIN than AO. CONCLUSIONS: The SKIN intervention reduced uncleaned skin injections but did not reduce SSTIs significantly more than a control condition. Brief interventions can improve high-risk practices among PWID and lead to clinically meaningful outcomes.
Authors: Tim Rhodes; Jo Kimber; Will Small; John Fitzgerald; Thomas Kerr; Matthew Hickman; Greg Holloway Journal: Addiction Date: 2006-10 Impact factor: 6.526
Authors: Michael Marks; Emily Pollock; Margaret Armstrong; Stephen Morris-Jones; Michael Kidd; Philip Gothard; Mahdad Noursadeghi; Justin F Doherty Journal: J Infect Date: 2012-10-12 Impact factor: 6.072
Authors: Perrine Roux; Jean-Marie Le Gall; Marie Debrus; Camélia Protopopescu; Khadim Ndiaye; Baptiste Demoulin; Caroline Lions; Aurelie Haas; Marion Mora; Bruno Spire; Marie Suzan-Monti; Maria Patrizia Carrieri Journal: Addiction Date: 2015-09-28 Impact factor: 6.526
Authors: Hannah L F Cooper; Sabriya Linton; Mary E Kelley; Zev Ross; Mary E Wolfe; Yen-Tyng Chen; Maria Zlotorzynska; Josalin Hunter-Jones; Samuel R Friedman; Don Des Jarlais; Salaam Semaan; Barbara Tempalski; Elizabeth DiNenno; Dita Broz; Cyprian Wejnert; Gabriela Paz-Bailey Journal: Int J Drug Policy Date: 2015-08-08
Authors: Michael D Stein; Kristina T Phillips; Debra S Herman; Julia Keosaian; Catherine Stewart; Bradley J Anderson; Zoe Weinstein; Jane Liebschutz Journal: Addiction Date: 2020-09-21 Impact factor: 6.526
Authors: Thomas D Brothers; Dan Lewer; Nicola Jones; Samantha Colledge-Frisby; Michael Farrell; Matthew Hickman; Duncan Webster; Andrew Hayward; Louisa Degenhardt Journal: PLoS Med Date: 2022-07-19 Impact factor: 11.613
Authors: Raagini Jawa; Michael D Stein; Bradley Anderson; Jane M Liebschutz; Catherine Stewart; Kristina T Phillips; Joshua A Barocas Journal: Int J Drug Policy Date: 2021-03-18