Prevalence and factors related to public injecting in Ottawa, Canada: implications for the development of a trial safer injecting facility.
Prevalence and factors related to public injecting in Ottawa, Canada: implications for the development of a trial safer injecting facility.
复制标题
DOI：
10.1016/j.drugpo.2004.03.003
复制
发表时间：
2004-01-01
影响因子：
4.4
通讯作者：
Leonard, L.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Navarro, C.;Leonard, L.
背景：2003年1月，加拿大联邦政府宣布支持对加拿大更安全的注射设施(SIF)进行科学评估。由于来自欧洲和澳大利亚的新证据表明，SIF对减少公共区域注射毒品有显著贡献，本文的目的是调查渥太华公共注射的性质及其对该市未来SIF的影响。方法：2002年10月至2003年1月，街头招募的现役注射吸毒者同意接受个人访谈。采用多因素Logistic回归分析公共注射的相关因素。对关于在公共场所注射的原因的开放式问题的答复进行了内容分析。研究结果：总体而言，506名参与者中有65%的人报告在过去六个月内在任何公共场所注射过。无家可归是公共注射的最强预测因素(调整后的优势比：6.6，95%可信区间：3.8-11.6)。在公共场所注射的吸毒者也明显更有可能是男性；在较小的年龄就开始注射毒品；在成瘾严重程度量表上得分更高；以及报告共用使用的针头，最常使用吗啡以外的任何鸦片类药物注射，在过去六个月内与五个或更多不同的人注射，以及与男性客户发生性关系。从福利中获得大部分收入是有保护作用的。主要在公共场所注射的注射吸毒者长期需要一个提供隐私和安全的地点，而临时公共注射者往往只在迫切需要药物治疗时才报告在公共场合注射。结论：这些研究结果表明，实施SIF可以通过提供清洁、私人和安全的注射场所，以及无菌注射设备和住房和成瘾服务，帮助减轻渥太华注射吸毒者中与公开注射有关的危害。
Background: In January 2003, the Canadian federal government announced its support of the scientific evaluation of safer injecting facilities (SIFs) in Canada. As emerging evidence from Europe and Australia has demonstrated that SIFs contribute significantly to reductions in the injection of drugs in public areas, the objective of this paper is to examine the nature of public injecting in Ottawa and its implications for a prospective SIF in the city. Methods: Between October 2002 and January 2003, street-recruited active IDUs consented to personal interviews. Multiple logistic regression was used to determine factors related to public injecting. Content analysis was undertaken of responses to an open-ended question regarding reasons for injecting in public locations. Findings: Overall, 65% of 506 participants reported injecting in any public place in the previous six months. Homelessness was the strongest predictor of public injecting (adjusted odds ratio: 6.6, 95% confidence interval (CI): 3.8-11.6). IDUs injecting in public locations were also significantly more likely to be males; to have initiated drug injecting at younger ages; to score higher on a severity of addiction scale; and to report sharing used needles, injecting most often with any opiate other than morphine, injecting with five or more different people in the previous six months, and trading sex with male clients. Receiving most income from welfare was protective. IDUs who injected predominantly in public places were in chronic need of a location offering privacy and safety, whereas casual public injectors tended to report injecting in public only when in immediate need of a drug fix. Conclusions: These findings suggest that the implementation of a SIF could help alleviate harms related to public injecting among IDUs in Ottawa by the provision of a clean, private, and safe place to inject, with access to sterile injection equipment and housing and addiction services.