Bluthenthal Ricky N, Ridgeway Greg, Schell Terry, Anderson Rachel, Flynn Neil M, Kral Alex H
Health Program and Drug Policy Research Center, RAND Corporation, 1776 Main Street, Santa Monica, CA 90407, USA.
Addiction. 2007 Apr;102(4):638-46. doi: 10.1111/j.1360-0443.2006.01741.x. Epub 2007 Feb 6.
To determine whether syringe exchange programs' (SEPs) dispensation policy is associated with syringe coverage among SEP clients.
Cross-sectional samples of SEPs and their clients.
SEPs in California, USA.
Twenty-four SEPs and their injection drug using (IDU) clients (n = 1576).
Clients were classified as having adequate syringe coverage if they received at least as many syringes from the SEP as their self-reported injections in the last 30 days. SEPs were classified based on their syringe dispensation policy. Dispensation schemes ranging from least restrictive to most are: unlimited needs-based distribution; unlimited one-for-one exchange plus a few additional syringes; per visit limited one-for-one plus a few additional syringes; unlimited one-for-one exchange; and per visit limited one-for-one exchange.
Adequate syringe coverage among SEP clients by dispensation policy is as follows: unlimited needs-based distribution = 61%; unlimited one-for-one plus = 50%; limited one-for-one plus = 41%; unlimited one-for-one = 42%; and limited one-for-one = 26%. In multivariate analysis, adequate syringe coverage was significantly higher for all dispensation policies compared to per visit limited one-for-one exchange. Using propensity scoring methods, we compared syringe coverage by dispensation policies while controlling for client-level differences. Providing additional syringes above one-for-one exchange (50% versus 38%, P = 0.009) and unlimited exchange (42% versus 27%, P = 0.05) generally resulted in more clients having adequate syringe coverage compared to one-for-one exchange and per visit limits.
Providing less restrictive syringe dispensation is associated with increased prevalence of adequate syringe coverage among clients. SEPs should adopt syringe dispensation policies that provide IDUs sufficient syringes to attain adequate syringe coverage.
确定注射器交换项目(SEP)的配给政策是否与SEP客户的注射器覆盖率相关。
SEP及其客户的横断面样本。
美国加利福尼亚州的SEP。
24个SEP及其注射吸毒(IDU)客户(n = 1576)。
如果客户从SEP获得的注射器数量至少与他们在过去30天内自我报告的注射次数相同,则被归类为拥有足够的注射器覆盖率。SEP根据其注射器配给政策进行分类。从限制最少到最多的配给方案依次为:基于需求的无限制分发;无限制的一对一交换外加一些额外注射器;每次就诊有限的一对一交换外加一些额外注射器;无限制的一对一交换;以及每次就诊有限的一对一交换。
按配给政策划分的SEP客户中足够的注射器覆盖率如下:基于需求的无限制分发 = 61%;无限制的一对一外加 = 50%;有限的一对一外加 = 41%;无限制的一对一 = 42%;以及有限的一对一 = 26%。在多变量分析中,与每次就诊有限的一对一交换相比,所有配给政策下足够的注射器覆盖率均显著更高。使用倾向评分方法,我们在控制客户层面差异的同时比较了不同配给政策下的注射器覆盖率。与一对一交换和每次就诊限制相比,在一对一交换之上提供额外注射器(50%对38%,P = 0.009)和无限制交换(42%对27%,P = 0.05)通常会使更多客户拥有足够的注射器覆盖率。
提供限制较少的注射器配给与客户中足够注射器覆盖率的患病率增加相关。SEP应采用能为注射吸毒者提供足够注射器以实现足够注射器覆盖率的注射器配给政策。