4.5 Article

Trends and key correlates of prescription opioid injection misuse in the United States

期刊

ADDICTIVE BEHAVIORS
卷 78, 期 -, 页码 145-152

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.addbeh.2017.10.018

关键词

Prescription opioid injection; Opioid abuse; Opioid addiction

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Despite concerns over increasing harms associated with prescription opioid injection misuse, there is a paucity of research on the magnitude, characteristics, injection practices, and syringe sources for people who inject prescription opioids; limiting the implementation of targeted policy and programmatic initiatives. Materials and methods: Data from the 2003 through 2014 National Surveys on Drug Use and Health were used to estimate prescription opioid injection trends and examine risky injection practices and syringe sources for people who inject prescription opioids. Multivariable logistic regression was used to identify characteristics associated with prescription opioid injection. Results: Among people 12 years or older, the rate of prescription opioid injection misuse increased from 1.6 per 1000 in 2003-2005 to 2.7 per 1000 in 2012-2014 (p value for trend < 0.05). Groups with increased odds of prescription opioid injection included: males, non-Hispanic whites, having an annual household income < $50,000, the uninsured, people with Medicaid, and people with past-year use disorders for cocaine, heroin, or prescription opioids. Risky injection practices such as reusing a needle and sharing needles were common among people with a history of prescription opioid injection misuse. Conclusion This study found significant increases in prescription opioid injection misuse trends in the U.S. These findings underscore the need to bring to scale evidence-based interventions to increase the provision of medication-assisted treatment for opioid use disorders and expand access to comprehensive risk-reduction services for people who inject drugs.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据