Associations Between Injection Risk and Community Disadvantage Among Suburban Injection Drug Users in Southwestern Connecticut, USA
- 729 Downloads
Increases in drug abuse, injection, and opioid overdoses in suburban communities led us to study injectors residing in suburban communities in southwestern Connecticut, US. We sought to understand the influence of residence on risk and injection-associated diseases. Injectors were recruited by respondent-driven sampling and interviewed about sociodemographics, somatic and mental health, injection risk, and interactions with healthcare, harm reduction, substance abuse treatment, and criminal justice systems. HIV, hepatitis B and C (HBV and HCV) serological testing was also conducted. Our sample was consistent in geographic distribution and age to the general population and to the patterns of heroin-associated overdose deaths in the suburban towns. High rates of interaction with drug abuse treatment and criminal justice systems contrasted with scant use of harm reduction services. The only factors associated with both dependent variables—residence in less disadvantaged census tracts and more injection risk—were younger age and injecting in one’s own residence. This contrasts with the common association among urban injectors of injection-associated risk behaviors and residence in disadvantaged communities. Poor social support and moderate/severe depression were associated with risky injection practices (but not residence in specific classes of census tracts), suggesting that a region-wide dual diagnosis approach to the expansion of harm reduction services could be effective at reducing the negative consequences of injection drug use.
KeywordsInjection drug use Suburbs Injection risk Community disadvantage index Harm reduction Substance abuse treatment Criminal justice
This study was supported by a grant from the National Institute on Drug Abuse (1R01DA023408). Dr. Palacios was supported by a diversity supplement awarded to this Grant. The authors would especially like to thank John Hamilton, Joann Montgomery, and the staff at the Center for Human Services, part of the Recovery Network of Programs, who arranged for many of the seeds to contact our study. The authors also wish to thank Amisha Patel who performed the serological testing.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare no competing interests.
- 3.Kline A, Mammo A, Culleton R, et al. Trends in injection drug use among persons entering addiction treatment—New Jersey, 1992–1999. MMWR. 2001;50:378–81.Google Scholar
- 5.Thorpe LE, Bailey SL, Huo D, Monterosso ER, Ouellet LJ. Injection-related risk behaviors in young urban and suburban injection drug users in Chicago (1997–1999). J AIDS. 2001;27:71–8.Google Scholar
- 6.National Survey on Drug Use & Health. U. S. Department of Health & Human Services. 2011. http://www.oas.samhsa.gov/nsduh/reports.htm. Accessed 27 Sept 2011.
- 7.Johnston LD, O’Malley PM, Bachman JG, Schulenberg JE. Monitoring the future: national survey results on drug use, 1975–2010. Ann Arbor: Institute for Social Research, The University of Michigan; 2011.Google Scholar
- 10.Watson CA, Weng CX, French T, et al. Substance abuse treatment utilization, HIV risk behaviors, and recruitment among suburban injection drug users in Long Island, New York. AIDS Behav. 2013. doi: 10.1007/s10461-013-0512-2.
- 15.Pratt TC, Cullen FT. Assessing macro-level predictors and theories of crime: a meta-analysis. Crime Justice Rev Res. 2005;32:373–450.Google Scholar
- 21.National Institute on Drug Abuse. Risk behavior assessment. Rockville: NIDA; 1991.Google Scholar
- 24.Heimer R, Khoshnood K, Bigg D, Guydish J, Junge B. Syringe use and re-use: effects of syringe exchange programs in four cities. J AIDS. 1998;18(suppl. 1):S37–44.Google Scholar
- 31.Beck AT, Steer RA. Beck anxiety inventory manual. San Antonio: The Psychological Corp., Harcourt Brace & Co.; 1993.Google Scholar
- 34.Cleeland CS. Measurement of pain by subjective report. In: Chapman CR, Loeser JD, editors. Advances in pain research and therapy: issues in pain management, vol. 12. New York: Raven Press; 1989. p. 391–403.Google Scholar
- 38.Volz E, Heckathorn DD. Probability based estimation theory for respondent-driven sampling. J Off Stat. 2008;24:79–97.Google Scholar
- 40.Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. The Socioeconomic Mapping and Resource Topography (SMART) System. Washington, D.C.: U. S. Department of Justice; 2010. http://www.smartgis.info/smart/About.aspx. Accessed 26 June, 2013.
- 44.Hardin J, Hibble J. Generalized estimating equations. New York: Chapman & Hall/CRC; 2003.Google Scholar
- 46.Hocking D. R script to calculate QIC for Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE) Model Selection, 2012. http://danieljhocking.wordpress.com/2012/03/24/r-script-to-calculate-qic-for-generalized-estimating-equation-gee-model-selection/. Last Accessed 25 June 2013.
- 49.Des Jarlais DC, Arasteh K, Friedman SR. HIV among drug users at Beth Israel Medical Center, New York City, the first 25 years. Subst Use Misuse. 2011;46:131–9.Google Scholar
- 53.Kaplan E. Needles that kill: modeling human immuno-deficiency virus transmission via shared drug injection equipment in shooting galleries. Rev Infect Dis. 1989;11:289–98 (erratum Rev Infect Dis 211: 672).Google Scholar
- 55.Mills S, Saidel T, Magnani R, Brown T. Surveillance and modelling of HIV, STI, and risk behaviours in concentrated HIV epidemics. Sex Transm Infect. 2004;80(Suppl 2):ii57–ii62.Google Scholar
- 56.Perucci CA, Abeni D, Arca M, Davoli M, Pugliese A. Modelling the HIV and AIDS epidemic among drug injectors. In: Ball A, Stimson GV, Des Jarlais DC, editors. Drug injecting and HIV infection: global dimensions and local responses. London: UCL Press; 1998.Google Scholar
- 58.Pollack HA and Heimer R. The impact and cost-effectiveness of methadone maintenance treatment in preventing HIV and hepatitis C. Chapter 17 In: Weissing L, Jager JC, editors. Impact and costs of hepatitis C in injecting drug users in the European Union. Lisbon: European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction; 2003, pp. 345–67.Google Scholar
- 60.The Ohio Substance Abuse Monitoring Network. Highlights of Statewide Drug Use Trends: January 2005–June 2005. Columbus, OH: Wright State University, University of Akron. 2005. http://www.odadas.state.oh.us/public/OsamHome.aspx. Last Accessed 25 June 2013.
- 64.U. S. Census Bureau. Census 2000 summary file 3. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau; 2000.Google Scholar
- 65.Gile KJ, Johnston LG, Salganik M. Diagnostics for respondent-driven sampling. arXiv. 2012:1–41.Google Scholar