Operational issues in syringe exchanges: The New York City tagging alternative study
- 37 Downloads
It is estimated that 50% of the approximate 200,000 intravenous drug users (IDUs) in New York City (NYC) are infected with HIV. Syringe exchange, a common method of HIV prevention in many countries was legalized in NYC in 1992. As syringe exchange has gained public support and the number of functioning exchanges has grown in the country, more attention has been given to the study of operational characteristics of syringe exchanges.
Syringe exchanges may be considered health service delivery organizations, and the specific methods of service delivery may greatly influence their effectiveness in reducing HIV risk behavior among injecting drug users. Improving operational characteristics of syringe exchanges requires both careful data collection, in order to reduce ambiguity in interpretation, and methods for cumulating knowledge, so that previous learning experiences need not be repeated with each new exchange. We report here on the practice of marking (“tagging”) syringes distributed by exchanges in NYC during the period from 1990 through 1994. During this period the NYC exchanges operated illegally as underground exchanges, and then received legal status and expanded greatly.
Developing regulations that reflect the reality of the program operations while allowing for monitoring and oversight is a complicated process, especially when implemented in states that maintain paraphernalia and prescription laws and where “unauthorized” possession of injection equipment remains a criminal activity under existing legal statutes. The particular situation in NYC which required the revision of existing regulations during a period of rapid program expansion and implementation of a large system of syringe exchange further illustrates the multiple pressures which accompany such a process. In order to implement meaningful regulations which maximize the public health benefits of syringe exchange programs on an individual and community level, recommendations are made.
KeywordsDrug User Inject Drug User Health Service Delivery Intravenous Drug User Public Health Benefit
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 1.Centers for Disease Control.HIV/AIDS Surveillance Report. Second Quarter Edition. U.S. AIDS cases reported through June 1993. July 1993, Vol. 5, No. 2.Google Scholar
- 2.New York City Department of Health, Office of AIDS Surveillance.New York City AIDS Surveillance Report. January 30, 1993.Google Scholar
- 3.Des Jarlais DC and Friedman SR. AIDS and Legal Access to Sterile Injection Equipment.The Annals of the Am Academy of Political and Social Science 1992; 521:42–65.Google Scholar
- 4.Lurie P and Reingold AL. (Eds)The Public Impact of Needle-Exchange Programs in the United States and Abroad: Summary, Conclusions, and Recommendations. California: University of California, San Francisco, Institute for Health Policy Studies, 1993.Google Scholar
- 5.U.S. General Accounting Office.Needle Exchange Programs: Research Suggests Promise as an AIDS Prevention Strategy. Report to the Chairman, Select Committee on Narcotics Abuse and Control, House of Representative. Washington, DC: U.S. House of Representatives, March 23, 1993.Google Scholar
- 6.National Commission on AIDS.Report: The Twin Epidemics of Substance Use and HIV. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1993.Google Scholar
- 7.Paone D, Des Jarlais DC, Caloir S, Friedmann PB, Ness I, Friedman SR.New York City Syringe Exchange: An Overview. Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences, in press.Google Scholar
- 8.Drug exchange programs favored by small majority in national poll.AIDS Policy & Law 1994; 9:6.Google Scholar
- 9.Des Jarlais DC, Paone D.Who Uses Syringe Exchange in the U.S.? Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences, in press.Google Scholar
- 10.Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. March 5, 1993. Vol. 42 No. 8.Google Scholar
- 11.New York State Department of Health/AIDS Institute.Annual Report of the New York State-Authorized Needle Exchange Programs. August 1, 1992-September 30, 1993.Google Scholar
- 12.Anderson W. The New York Needle Trial: The Politics of Public Health in the Age of AIDS.Am J Public Health 1991;81:1506–17.Google Scholar
- 13.Bordowitz v. State of New York, 1991.Google Scholar
- 14.Paone D.Should Needle Use Be Decriminalized? Presented at Turning Points: Key Policy Debates on HIV in the Inner City, Health Science Center at Brooklyn, State University of New York, Brooklyn, NY, 1994.Google Scholar
- 15.New York City Department of Health.The Pilot Needle Exchange Study in New York City: A Bridge to Treatment. December 1989.Google Scholar
- 16.New York State Department of Health/AIDS Institute.Revised NYS Regulations (10 NYCRR Section 80.135); draft of April 28, 1993.Google Scholar
- 17.Paone D, Des Jarlais DC, Caloir S, Friedmann P, Ness I, Friedman SR. New York City Syringe Exchange: An Overview. In:Needle Exchange and Bleach Distribution Programs: Report of a Workshop. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, forthcoming.Google Scholar
- 18.Guydish J, Clark G, Garcia D, Downing M, Case P, Sorenson JL. Evaluating needle exchange: Do distributed needles come back?Am J Public Health 1991; 81:617–619.Google Scholar
- 19.Grund J-PC, Kaplan CD, Adriaans NFP. Needle exchanging and drug sharing: A view from Rotterdam.Newsletter, International Working Group on AIDS and IV Drug Use 1989; 4(1):4–5.Google Scholar
- 20.Kaplan EH, O'Keefe E. Let the needles do the talking! Evaluating the New Haven Needle Exchange.Interfaces 1993; 23:7–26.Google Scholar
- 21.Donoghoe MC, Syringe exchange: Has it worked?Druglink 1991; January/February:8–11.Google Scholar
- 22.Buning E.Newsletter, International Working Group on AIDS and IV Drug Use 1988; 3:4–5.Google Scholar