4.1 Article

Difference in HIV testing behavior by injection status, among users of illicit drugs

Journal

Publisher

ROUTLEDGE JOURNALS, TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/09540121.2021.1913716

Keywords

HIV testing; illicit drug users; HIV; AIDS prevention; social support; social network characteristics

Funding

  1. National Institute on Drug Abuse [R01-DA018061]
  2. NIH Award R25 Grant -Initiative for maximizing student diversity

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The study found that injection status among illicit drug users affects HIV testing behavior, with education level, condomless sex, STIs, heroin use, and emotional support also being contributing factors.
Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) infection remains prevalent among the marginalized and drug using population in the United States. Testing for HIV is an important and cost-effective way to reduce HIV prevalence. Our objective was to determine if there is a difference in the number of HIV testing by injection status among users of illicit drugs and if a person's social network characteristics is a contributing factor. Using a cross-sectional design and negative binomial regression models, we assessed HIV testing behavior of people who use non-injected drugs (PWND) compared to people who use injected drugs (PWID). In an analytic sample of 539 participants, PWND tested for HIV 19% less compared to PWID, PR (95% CI) = 0.81 (0.66, 0.98), p = 0.03. Other contributing factors of testing were education, condomless sex, STIs, heroin use, and participant's sex network. The interaction term between PWND and emotional support in relation to HIV testing was significant, 1.33 (1.03, 1.69), p=0.03. These findings suggest HIV testing behavior differed by injection status, and this relationship may be dependent on emotional support. To exert a greater impact on the HIV epidemic, interventions and policies encouraging HIV testing in PWND, an understudied at-risk sub-population, are warranted.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available