National Center for HIV/AIDS, Viral Hepatitis, STD, and TB Prevention, Division of Viral Hepatitis, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Mailstop G37, 1600 Clifton Road, NE, 30329, Atlanta, GA, Georgia.
Division of Global Public Health, School of Medicine, University of California, San Diego, CA, USA.
J Urban Health. 2017 Aug;94(4):587-591. doi: 10.1007/s11524-017-0158-x.
Persons who inject drugs (PWID) are at risk for adverse health outcomes as a result of their drug use, and the resulting social stigma makes this a difficult population to reach for interventions aimed at reducing morbidity and mortality. During our study of adult PWID aged ≤40 years living in San Diego during 2009 and 2010, we compared three different sampling methods: respondent-driven sampling (RDS), venue-based sampling at one syringe exchange program (SEP), and street-based outreach. We compared demographic, socioeconomic, health, and behavioral factors and tested participants for HIV, hepatitis B virus (HBV), and hepatitis C virus (HCV) and compared across the three methods. Overall, 561 (74.8%) of the targeted 750 PWID were enrolled. Venue-based convenience sampling enrolled 96% (242/250) of the targeted participants, followed closely by street-based outreach with 92% (232/250) recruited. While RDS yielded the fewest recruits, producing only 35% (87/250) of the expected participants, those recruited through RDS were more likely to be female, more racially diverse, and younger.
注射吸毒者（PWID）由于吸毒而面临不良健康后果的风险，由此产生的社会耻辱感使得这一人群难以接受旨在降低发病率和死亡率的干预措施。在我们对 2009 年至 2010 年期间居住在圣地亚哥的≤40 岁成年 PWID 的研究中，我们比较了三种不同的抽样方法：应答者驱动抽样（RDS）、一个注射器交换计划（SEP）的基于场所的抽样和街头外展。我们比较了人口统计学、社会经济、健康和行为因素，并对参与者进行了 HIV、乙型肝炎病毒（HBV）和丙型肝炎病毒（HCV）检测，并在三种方法之间进行了比较。总体而言，目标 750 名 PWID 中有 561 名（74.8%）入组。基于场所的便利抽样招募了 96%（242/250）的目标参与者，其次是街头外展，招募了 92%（232/250）的参与者。虽然 RDS 招募的人数最少，仅产生了 35%（87/250）的预期参与者，但通过 RDS 招募的参与者更有可能是女性，种族更加多样化，年龄更小。
