A comparison of the prevalence of HIV infection and injecting risk behaviour in urban and rural samples in Scotland
A comparison of the prevalence of HIV infection and injecting risk behaviour in urban and rural samples in Scotland
复制标题
DOI：
10.1046/j.1360-0443.1998.9368557.x
复制
发表时间：
1998-06-01
期刊：
影响因子：
6
通讯作者：
Higgins, K
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Haw, S;Higgins, K
目标。比较城乡注射吸毒者中艾滋病毒感染和注射危险行为的流行情况。设计。使用多地点抽样策略招募了两个注射吸毒者样本。首先由训练有素的采访者对应答者进行访谈，然后收集唾液标本进行匿名艾滋病毒抗体检测。设置。受访者是从戒毒服务机构和街头场所招募的。参与者。如果受访者“曾经”注射毒品并且目前正在使用毒品，则有资格纳入研究。测量。所采取的测量包括自我报告的药物使用模式和注射危险行为。用GACELISA检测唾液样本是否存在HIV感染，免疫印迹分析证实阳性样本。发现。我们的数据表明，有两个不同的人口，地理上是离散的，但在概况和目前的注射风险行为方面大致相似。邓迪市注射吸毒者的HIV感染率为26.8% (95% CI, 20.2% ~ 33.0%)，而泰赛德农村注射吸毒者的HIV感染率为3.7% （95% CI, 0.13% ~ 15.8%）。艾滋病毒感染率的这种显著差异，我们将其归因于1980年至1980年期间城市注射吸毒者的高注射风险。1984年，来自城市感染中心的移徙有限，农村注射吸毒者不愿与其直接社会和亲属网络以外的注射吸毒者共用。结论。尽管目前的注射风险行为水平在我们的城市和农村样本中相似，但农村注射吸毒者可能不太可能从其他注射者那里感染艾滋病毒，因为农村人口中艾滋病毒感染率较低，共享网络更封闭。这对发展和扩大药物服务的影响已加以考虑。
Aims. To compare the prevalence of HIV infection and injecting risk behaviour: among injecting drug users from urban and rural areas. Designs. Two samples of injecting drug users were recruited using a multi-site sampling strategy. Respondents were first interviewed by trained interviewers then specimens of saliva were collected for anonymous testing for antibodies to HIV. Setting. Respondents were recruited from drug treatment services and street sites. Participants. Respondents were eligible for inclusion in the study if they had "ever" injected a drug and were currently using drugs. Measurements. Measurements taken included self-reported patterns of drug use and injecting risk behaviour. Specimens of saliva were tested for the presence of HIV infection using GACELISA with reactive specimens confirmed by Western blot analysis. Findings. Our data indicate that there are two separate populations which are geographically discrete but broadly similar in profile and current injecting risk behaviour. The prevalence of HIV infection among IDUs from Dundee city was found to be 26.8% (95% CI, 20.2%-33.0%) compared with 3.7% (95% CI, 0.13%-15.8%) for IDUs from rural Tayside. This marked difference in prevalence of HIV infection we attribute to a high level of injecting risk among urban IDUs between 1980 and.1984, limited migration from the urban epicentre of infection and a reluctance among rural IDUs to share with IDUs outside their immediate social and kinship networks. Conclusions. Although current levels of injecting risk behaviour are similar in our urban and rural samples, rural IDUs may be less likely to contract HIV from their fellow injectors because of the lower prevalence of HIV infection and more closed sharing networks within the rural population. The implications of this for the development and expansion of drug services ave considered.