OBJECTIVE: We analyzed data on all drug-treatment admissions in San Francisco County over a 4-year period (n = 35,460) to evaluate the potential negative effects of the San Francisco needle-exchange program. METHODS: Admissions in the 2 years preceding implementation of the exchange program (1987-1988) were compared with admissions in the 2 years following implementation (1989-1990). RESULTS: No negative consequences of needle exchange were detected. Specifically, the presence of the exchange program was not associated with (1) increases in injection drug use, (2) increases in needle-sharing behavior, or (3) changing drug-use behavior from non-injection to injection. We also compared high-drug-use neighborhoods with and without local needle-exchange sites. Neighborhoods without needle-exchange sites showed a greater increase in proportion of admissions for injection drug use, and in frequency of injection, over time. CONCLUSIONS: Because of methodological limitations, our findings are preliminary. Longitudinal studies comparing needle-exchange and non-exchange cohorts are needed to further evaluate effects of this intervention.
OBJECTIVE: We analyzed data on all drug-treatment admissions in San Francisco County over a 4-year period (n = 35,460) to evaluate the potential negative effects of the San Francisco needle-exchange program. METHODS: Admissions in the 2 years preceding implementation of the exchange program (1987-1988) were compared with admissions in the 2 years following implementation (1989-1990). RESULTS: No negative consequences of needle exchange were detected. Specifically, the presence of the exchange program was not associated with (1) increases in injection drug use, (2) increases in needle-sharing behavior, or (3) changing drug-use behavior from non-injection to injection. We also compared high-drug-use neighborhoods with and without local needle-exchange sites. Neighborhoods without needle-exchange sites showed a greater increase in proportion of admissions for injection drug use, and in frequency of injection, over time. CONCLUSIONS: Because of methodological limitations, our findings are preliminary. Longitudinal studies comparing needle-exchange and non-exchange cohorts are needed to further evaluate effects of this intervention.
Authors: Ryan J Deibert; Gary Goldbaum; Theodore R Parker; Holly Hagan; Robert Marks; Michael Hanrahan; Hanne Thiede Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2006-06-29 Impact factor: 9.308
Authors: Carmen L Masson; James L Sorensen; Nina Grossman; Karl A Sporer; Don C Des Jarlais; David C Perlman Journal: Subst Use Misuse Date: 2010-05 Impact factor: 2.164
Authors: D R Holtgrave; N L Qualls; J W Curran; R O Valdiserri; M E Guinan; W C Parra Journal: Public Health Rep Date: 1995 Mar-Apr Impact factor: 2.792
Authors: Peter J Davidson; Alexis Martinez; Alexandra Lutnick; Alex H Kral; Ricky N Bluthenthal Journal: Drug Alcohol Depend Date: 2014-12-02 Impact factor: 4.492
Authors: Don C Des Jarlais; Kamyar Arasteh; Courtney McKnight; Martin Ringer; Samuel R Friedman Journal: Addiction Date: 2009-11-05 Impact factor: 6.526