Skip to main content

Estimated Number of People Who Inject Drugs in San Francisco, 2005, 2009, and 2012

AIDS and Behavior volume 20, pages 2914–2921 (2016)Cite this article

Abstract

Allocation of resources to public health responses depends on having plausible estimates of the size of the population at risk. Unfortunately, the numbers of people who inject drugs (PWID) are difficult to estimate since injection drug use is highly stigmatized. Though estimation methods exist, the robustness of the methods to their assumptions is not well understood. Comparisons between methods are also lacking; information regarding the successive-sampling method is particularly scarce. The present study used several methods—including the successive-sampling method—to produce population size estimates from three rounds of cross-sectional surveys of PWID in San Francisco. It compares these estimates across time and across method. Our summary estimates are 10,158 for 2005, 15,554 for 2009, and 22,500 for 2012. Though the point summaries suggest an increasing population, considerable uncertainty is involved. Comparisons between and within methods reveal high variability, suggesting dependence on assumptions and analytic choices. We conclude that further research is needed to improve upon the estimation methods or develop entirely new ones. Meanwhile, plausible estimates can be achieved via multiple methods while avoiding the pitfall of relying on a single method that may be highly biased and highly imprecise.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

43,34 €

Price includes VAT (Finland)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Fig. 1

References

  1. Aceijas C, Rhodes T. Global estimates of prevalence of HCV infection among injecting drug users. Int J Drug Policy. 2007;18(5):352–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Hagan H, Pouget ER, Des Jarlais DC, Lelutiu-Weinberger C. Meta-regression of hepatitis C virus infection in relation to time since onset of illicit drug injection: the influence of time and place. Am J Epidemiol. 2008;168(10):1099–109.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Prejean J, Song R, Hernandez A, et al. Estimated HIV incidence in the United States, 2006–2009. PLoS One. 2011;6(8):e17502.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Wejnert C, Pham H, Oster AM, et al. HIV infection and HIV-associated behaviors among injecting drug users—20 cities, United States, 2009. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2012;61(8):133–8.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Deiss RG, Rodwell TC, Garfein RS. Tuberculosis and illicit drug use: review and update. Clin Infect Dis. 2009;48(1):72–82.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Perdue T, Hagan H, Thiede H, Valleroy L. Depression and HIV risk behavior among Seattle-area injection drug users and young men who have sex with men. AIDS Educ Prev. 2003;15(1):81–92.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Jones DL, Waldrop-Valverde D, Gonzalez P, et al. Mental health in HIV seronegative and seropositive IDUs in South Florida. AIDS Care. 2010;22(2):152–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Mackesy-Amiti ME, Donenberg GR, Ouellet LJ. Prevalence of psychiatric disorders among young injection drug users. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2012;124(1–2):70–8.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Solet D, Hagan H, Nakagawara J, Plough A, Ball JK. Unintentional opiate overdose deaths–King County, Washington, 1990–1999. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2000;49(28):636–40.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Seal KH, Kral AH, Gee L, et al. Predictors and prevention of nonfatal overdose among street-recruited injection heroin users in the San Francisco Bay Area, 1998–1999. Am J Public Health. 2001;91(11):1842–6.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Ochoa KC, Davidson PJ, Evans JL, Hahn JA, Page-Shafer K, Moss AR. Heroin overdose among young injection drug users in San Francisco. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2005;80(3):297–302.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Backmund M, Schuetz C, Meyer K, Edlin BR, Reimer J. The risk of emergency room treatment due to overdose in injection drug users. J Addict Dis. 2009;28(1):68–73.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Vlahov D, Wang C, Ompad D, et al. Mortality risk among recent-onset injection drug users in five US cities. Subst Use Misuse. 2008;43(3–4):413–28.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Evans JL, Tsui JI, Hahn JA, Davidson PJ, Lum PJ, Page K. Mortality among young injection drug users in San Francisco: a 10-year follow-up of the UFO study. Am J Epidemiol. 2012;175(4):302–8.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. UNAIDS/WHO Working Group on Global HIV/AIDS and STI Surveillance. Guidelines on Estimating the Size of Populations Most at Risk to HIV. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization; 2010.

  16. Johnston LG, Prybylski D, Raymond HF, Mirzazadeh A, Manopaiboon C, McFarland W. Incorporating the service multiplier method in respondent-driven sampling surveys to estimate the size of hidden and hard-to-reach populations: case studies from around the world. Sex Transm Dis. 2013;40(4):304–10.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Shaghaghi A, Bhopal RS, Sheikh A. Approaches to recruiting ‘hard-to-reach’ populations into research: a review of the literature. Health Promot Perspect. 2011;1(2):86–94.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Zipf G, Chiappa M, Porter KS, Ostchega Y, Lewis BG, Dostal J. National health and nutrition examination survey: plan and operations, 1999–2010. Vital Health Stat. 2013;1 (56).

  19. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. Results from the 2010 national survey on drug use and health: summary of national findings. Rockville, MD: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration; 2011.

    Google Scholar 

  20. MacKellar D, Valleroy L, Karon J, Lemp G, Janssen R. The young men’s survey: methods for estimating HIV seroprevalence and risk factors among young men who have sex with men. Public Health Rep. 1996;111(Suppl 1):138–44.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Johnston LG, Sabin K, Mai TH, Pham TH. Assessment of respondent driven sampling for recruiting female sex workers in two Vietnamese cities: reaching the unseen sex worker. J Urban Health. 2006;83(6 Suppl):i16–28.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Bernard HR, Killworth P, Johnsen EC, Shelley GA, McCarty C. Estimating the ripple effect of a disaster. Connections. 2001;24(2):18–22.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Bernard HR, Hallett T, Iovita A, et al. Counting hard-to-count populations: the network scale-up method for public health. Sex Transm Infect. 2010;86 (Suppl 2):ii11–ii15.

  24. Andrewartha HG. Introduction to the study of animal populations. 2nd ed. London: Chapman & Hall; 1970.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  25. Seber GAF. The effects of trap response on tag recapture estimates. Biometrics. 1970;26(1):13–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Seber GAF. The estimation of animal abundance and related parameters. 2nd ed. London: C Griffin & Co; 1982.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Hook EB, Regal RR. The value of capture-recapture methods even for apparent exhaustive surveys. The need for adjustment for source of ascertainment intersection in attempted complete prevalence studies. Am J Epidemiol. 1992;135(9):1060–7.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Greenwood JA. Estimating number of narcotic addicts. Washington, DC: US Department of Justice; 1971.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  29. Surowiecki J. The wisdom of crowds: why the many are smarter than the few and how collective wisdom shapes business, economies, societies, and nations. New York: Doubleday Books; 2004.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Bickel PJ, Nair VN, Wang PC. Nonparametric inference under biased sampling from a finite population. Ann Stat. 1992;80:853–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Handcock MS, Gile KJ, Mar CM. Estimating hidden population size using respondent-driven sampling data. Electronic Journal of Statistics. 2014;8(1):1491–521.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  32. Handcock MS, Gile KJ, Mar CM. Estimating the size of populations at high risk for HIV using respondent-driven sampling data. Biometrics. 2015.

  33. Heckathorn DD. Respondent-driven sampling: a new approach to the study of hidden populations. Soc Probl. 1997;44(2):174–99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Salganik MJ, Fazito D, Bertoni N, Abdo AH, Mello MB, Bastos FI. Assessing network scale-up estimates for groups most at risk of HIV/AIDS: evidence from a multiple-method study of heavy drug users in Curitiba. Brazil. Am J Epidemiol. 2011;174(10):1190–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Jing L, Qu C, Yu H, Wang T, Cui Y. Estimating the sizes of populations at high risk for HIV: a comparison study. PLoS One. 2014;9(4):e95601.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  36. Gallagher KM, Sullivan PS, Lansky A, Onorato IM. Behavioral surveillance among people at risk for HIV infection in the US: the National HIV Behavioral Surveillance System. Public Health Rep. 2007;122(Suppl 1):32–8.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  37. Lansky A, Abdul-Quader AS, Cribbin M, et al. Developing an HIV behavioral surveillance system for injecting drug users: the National HIV Behavioral Surveillance System. Public Health Rep. 2007;122(Suppl 1):48–55.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  38. Evans JL, Hahn JA, Page-Shafer K, et al. Gender differences in sexual and injection risk behavior among active young injection drug users in San Francisco (the UFO Study). J Urban Health. 2003;80(1):137–46.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  39. Coffin P, Jin H, Huriaux E, Mirzazadeh A, Raymond HF. Trends in use of health care and HIV prevention services for persons who inject drugs in San Francisco: results from National HIV Behavioral Surveillance 2005–2012. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2015;146:45–51.

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

  1. San Francisco Department of Public Health, 25 Van Ness Ave Ste 500, San Francisco, CA, 94102, USA

    Yea-Hung Chen, Willi McFarland & Henry F. Raymond

  2. Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of California, San Francisco, USA

    Willi McFarland & Henry F. Raymond

Authors
  1. Yea-Hung Chen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Willi McFarland
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Henry F. Raymond
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Henry F. Raymond.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Chen, YH., McFarland, W. & Raymond, H.F. Estimated Number of People Who Inject Drugs in San Francisco, 2005, 2009, and 2012. AIDS Behav 20, 2914–2921 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10461-015-1268-7

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10461-015-1268-7

Keywords

  • PWID
  • Population size estimation methods
  • Population size
  • Respondent-driven sampling