New York City pharmacists' attitudes toward sale of needles/syringes to injection drug users before implementation of law expanding syringe access
- 80 Downloads
In May 2000, New York State passed legislation permitting the sale, purchase, and possession of up to 10 needles and syringes (hereafter “syringes”) without a prescription, intended to reduce blood-borne pathogen transmission among injection drug users (IDUs). To obtain baseline data on pharmacists' attitudes and practices related to human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) prevention and IDUs, a telephone survey was administered to 130 pharmacists systematically selected in New York City. Less than half of pharmacists were aware of the new law; 49.6% were willing to or supported providing nonprescription sales of syringes to IDUs. Pharmacists in support tended to be less likely to consider customer appearance “very important.” Managing and supervising pharmacists were more likely than staff pharmacists to support syringe sales to IDUs. Managing and supervising pharmacists who stocked packs of 10 syringes and personal sharps disposal containers, pharmacists who supported syringe exchange in the pharmacy, and pharmacists who were willing to sell syringes to diabetics without a prescription were more likely to support syringe sales to IDUs. Syringe disposal was a prominent concern among all pharmacists. Those not in support of syringe sales to IDUs tended to be more likely to believe the practice would increase drug use. These data suggest the need for initiatives to address concerns about syringe disposal and tailored continuing education classes for pharmacists on HIV and viral hepatitis prevention among IDUs.
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 1.Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.US HIV and AIDS Cases Reported Through December 1999 Year-End Edition. Atlanta, GA: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; 2000:11(2):Table 5.Google Scholar
- 2.New York City Department of Health, Office of AIDS Surveillance.AIDS in the Boroughs and Neighborhoods of New York City. New York: New York City Department of Health; 1999.Google Scholar
- 3.New York City Department of Health, Office of AIDS Surveillance.Estimates of Persons Living with AIDS in New York City, 1999 Edition. New York: New York City Department of Health; 2000.Google Scholar
- 5.Normand J, Vlahov D, Moses LE, eds.Preventing HIV Transmission: the Role of Sterile Needles and Bleach. Washington, DC: National Academy of Medicine; 1995.Google Scholar
- 9.Farley T. Survey on needle sales.La Morbid Rep. 1996;7(3):3.Google Scholar
- 11.Meyers T, Cockerill R, Millson P, Rankin J, Worthington C.Canadian Community Pharmacies HIV/AIDS Prevention and Health Promotion: Result of a National Survey. Ottawa: Canadian Public Health Association; 1995.Google Scholar
- 12.National Commission on Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome.The Twin Epidemics of Substance Use and HIV. Washington, DC: National Commission on Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome; 1991.Google Scholar
- 13.Lurie P, Reingold A.The Public Health Impact of Needle Exchange Programs in the United States and Abroad [prepared for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention]. Berkeley, CA: University of California, School of Public Health; San Francisco, CA: University of California, Institute for Health Policy Studies; 1993.Google Scholar
- 14.Office of Technology Assessment.The Effectiveness of AIDS Prevention Efforts. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office; 1995.Google Scholar
- 15.Coffin PO. Syringe availability as HIV prevention: a review of the modalities.J Urban Health. 2000;77:302–326 (Table 2).Google Scholar
- 16.Linas BP, Coffin PO, Backes G, Vlahov D. New York State pharmacists' attitudes toward needle and syringe sales to injection drug users before implementation of syringe deregulation.J Urban Health. 77(4):768–780.Google Scholar
- 19.Wright-DeAguero L, Weinstein B, Jones TS. Impact of the change in Connecticut syringe prescription laws on pharmacy sales and pharmacy managers' practices.J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr Hum Retrovirol. 1998;18(suppl 1):S102-S110.Google Scholar