Correction to: BMC Public Health 22, 257 (2022)
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-022-12604-3
During the publication process of the original article several citation errors were introduced. The correct and incorrect information is shown below. The original article has been updated. The publisher apologizes to the authors & readers for the inconvenience caused.
Incorrect | Correct |
We found evidence of marked engagement in drug and alcohol treatment, but possible suboptimal use of MAT. We documented high levels of ART prescription and viral suppression was higher than the overall rate in Massachusetts (65%), but lower than the state’s rate of viral suppression among patients retained in care (88%) [23]. | We found evidence of marked engagement in drug and alcohol treatment, but possible suboptimal use of MAT. We documented high levels of ART prescription and viral suppression was higher than the overall rate in Massachusetts (65%), but lower than the state’s rate of viral suppression among patients retained in care (88%) [22]. |
The effectiveness of SSPs can be enhanced through provision of testing for HIV and other infections as well as other prevention services such as vaccinations and HIV PrEP [24]. | The effectiveness of SSPs can be enhanced through provision of testing for HIV and other infections as well as other prevention services such as vaccinations and HIV PrEP [23]. |
Our findings demonstrate that medical record review in the context of an outbreak investigation can benefit health jurisdictions without integrated infectious disease management systems by providing data on co-occurring conditions or clinical indications of early diagnosis. Medical records data can also suggest structural barriers to accessing services, missed opportunities for public health intervention and can facilitate exchange of information between surveillance and field staff needed to identify possible factors for transmission [22, 25]. | Our findings demonstrate that medical record review in the context of an outbreak investigation can benefit health jurisdictions without integrated infectious disease management systems by providing data on co-occurring conditions or clinical indications of early diagnosis. Medical records data can also suggest structural barriers to accessing services, missed opportunities for public health intervention and can facilitate exchange of information between surveillance and field staff needed to identify possible factors for transmission [24, 25]. |
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
About this article
Cite this article
Randall, L.M., Dasgupta, S., Day, J. et al. Correction to: An outbreak of HIV infection among people who inject drugs in northeastern Massachusetts: findings and lessons learned from a medical record review. BMC Public Health 22, 412 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-022-12808-7
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-022-12808-7