4.2 Article

Barriers to practicing risk reduction strategies among people who inject drugs

期刊

ADDICTION RESEARCH & THEORY
卷 24, 期 1, 页码 62-68

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.3109/16066359.2015.1068301

关键词

Risk reduction; harm reduction; injection drug use; heroin; barriers

资金

  1. NIDA NIH HHS [R21 DA026773] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Introduction and aims: People who inject drugs (PWID) engage in practices that put them at risk for various infections and overdose. The primary aim of this study was to examine common barriers to engaging in two risk reduction practices - cleaning one's skin at the injection site and always using new needles to inject - among heroin injectors in Denver, CO. Method: In 2010, 48 PWIDs were recruited through street outreach and completed a structured interview that included questions on the frequency of specific risk reduction practices (skin cleaning and using new needles) and barriers associated with these practices. Results: Though many of the reported barriers were similar across the two practices, the most common barriers associated with skin cleaning included being in withdrawal and not being prepared with materials prior to injection. Fear of being arrested and being in withdrawal were most frequently reported for using new needles. Multivariate and t-test analyses demonstrated that individuals who skin cleaned and used new needles more frequently reported less barriers to these practices. Conclusions: Participants reported a number of barriers to risk reduction, including those that are within the personal control of the injector, barriers that are consequences of addiction or psychological problems and those that are structural or a function of the risk environment. Statistical analysis found that PWIDs who were more likely to skin clean and use new needles reported less barriers. Addressing barriers when intervening with PWID appears important to increase the success of risk reduction interventions.

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

4.2
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