Peer-to-peer injection: Demographic, drug use, and injection-related risk factors.

Shona Lamb, Alex H Kral, Karina Dominguez-Gonzalez, Lynn D Wenger, Ricky N Bluthenthal
Author Information
  1. Shona Lamb: Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, 1975 Zonal Ave, Los Angeles, CA 90033, United States.
  2. Alex H Kral: Behavioral and Urban Health Program, RTI International, 351 California Street, Suite 500, San Francisco, CA 94104, United States.
  3. Karina Dominguez-Gonzalez: Department of Preventive Medicine, Institute for Prevention Research, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, 2001 N Soto St, 3rd floor, Los Angeles, CA 90033, United States.
  4. Lynn D Wenger: Behavioral and Urban Health Program, RTI International, 351 California Street, Suite 500, San Francisco, CA 94104, United States.
  5. Ricky N Bluthenthal: Department of Preventive Medicine, Institute for Prevention Research, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, 2001 N Soto St, 3rd floor, Los Angeles, CA 90033, United States. Electronic address: rbluthen@usc.edu.

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Peer-to-peer injection (either providing or receiving an injection to/from a person who injects drugs [PWID]) is common (19%-50%) among PWID. Most studies of peer-to-peer injection have focused on receiving injection assistance, with fewer examining providing injection assistance and none considering characteristics of PWID who do both. We examined characteristics of PWID by peer-to-peer injection categories (receiving, providing, both, and neither) and determined if these behaviors were associated with receptive and distributive syringe sharing.
METHODS: Los Angeles and San Francisco PWID (N = 777) were recruited using targeted sampling methods and interviewed during 2011-2013. Multinomial logistic regression was used to determine characteristics associated with peer-to-peer injection categories and logistic regression was used to examine if peer-to-peer categories were independently associated with distributive and receptive syringe sharing.
RESULTS: Recent peer-to-peer injection was reported by 42% of PWID (18% provider; 14% recipient; 10% both). In multinomial regression analysis, PWID reporting any peer-to-peer injection were more likely to inject with others than those who did neither. Injection providers and those who did both were associated with more frequent injection, illegal income source, and methamphetamine injection while injection recipients were associated with fewer years of injection. Injection providers were younger, had more years of injecting, and were more likely to inject heroin than PWID who did neither. In multivariate analyses, we found that providers and PWID who did both were significantly more likely to report receptive and distributive syringe sharing than PWID who did neither.
CONCLUSION: Peer-to-peer injection is associated with HIV/HCV risk. Current prevention strategies may not sufficiently address these behaviors. Modification of existing interventions and development of new interventions to better respond to peer-to-peer injection is urgently needed.

Keywords

References

  1. Harm Reduct J. 2008 Oct 29;5:32 [PMID: 18957139]
  2. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2006 Mar 15;82(1):41-6 [PMID: 16150556]
  3. Addiction. 2012 Jul;107(7):1318-27 [PMID: 22248184]
  4. J Urban Health. 2010 Sep;87(5):839-50 [PMID: 20582573]
  5. Harm Reduct J. 2010 Aug 31;7:20 [PMID: 20807442]
  6. CMAJ. 2017 Aug 28;189(34):E1083-E1084 [PMID: 28847779]
  7. J Psychoactive Drugs. 2002 Oct-Dec;34(4):363-9 [PMID: 12562104]
  8. Int J Drug Policy. 2013 Mar;24(2):101-9 [PMID: 23312109]
  9. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2005 Sep 1;40(1):83-8 [PMID: 16123687]
  10. Harm Reduct J. 2016 Jan 27;13:2 [PMID: 26817687]
  11. Lancet. 2011 Aug 13;378(9791):571-83 [PMID: 21802134]
  12. Addiction. 1999 May;94(5):675-83 [PMID: 10563032]
  13. Lancet. 2008 Nov 15;372(9651):1733-45 [PMID: 18817968]
  14. Am J Public Health. 1998 Jan;88(1):108-13 [PMID: 9584014]
  15. J Urban Health. 2003 Sep;80(3):455-64 [PMID: 12930883]
  16. AIDS Behav. 2015 Apr;19(4):684-93 [PMID: 25249392]
  17. Bull World Health Organ. 2013 Feb 1;91(2):102-23 [PMID: 23554523]
  18. Prev Sci. 2015 Feb;16(2):313-20 [PMID: 24599484]
  19. CMAJ. 2002 Apr 2;166(7):894-9 [PMID: 11949985]
  20. Infect Dis Clin North Am. 2002 Sep;16(3):697-712 [PMID: 12371123]
  21. Int J Drug Policy. 2007 Oct;18(5):352-8 [PMID: 17854722]
  22. Drug Alcohol Rev. 2005 Jan;24(1):21-4 [PMID: 16191717]
  23. Can J Public Health. 2003 Sep-Oct;94(5):355-9 [PMID: 14577743]
  24. Addiction. 2006 Oct;101(10):1384-93 [PMID: 16968336]
  25. Health Place. 2009 Dec;15(4):981-9 [PMID: 19427256]
  26. Drug Alcohol Rev. 2008 Jul;27(4):442-6 [PMID: 18584397]
  27. AIDS Behav. 2016 Feb;20(2):377-84 [PMID: 26040989]
  28. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2013 Oct 1;132(3):617-23 [PMID: 23664125]
  29. JAMA. 1995 Oct 18;274(15):1226-31 [PMID: 7563513]
  30. Subst Use Misuse. 2012 Apr;47(5):491-501 [PMID: 22428817]
  31. AIDS Care. 2016 Oct;28(10):1312-5 [PMID: 27178119]
  32. Subst Abuse Treat Prev Policy. 2013 Sep 10;8:32 [PMID: 24020370]
  33. Harm Reduct J. 2013 Mar 06;10:4 [PMID: 23497293]
  34. Med Anthropol Q. 2003 Dec;17(4):423-41 [PMID: 14716917]
  35. Int J Drug Policy. 2008 Jun;19(3):183-8 [PMID: 18367389]
  36. Hepatology. 2002 Sep;36(3):737-42 [PMID: 12198668]
  37. J AIDS Clin Res. 2012 Jun 4;S1(10): [PMID: 23493796]
  38. Addiction. 2007 Sep;102(9):1454-62 [PMID: 17697278]
  39. Am J Public Health. 2018 Feb;108(2):175-181 [PMID: 29267061]
  40. Int J Drug Policy. 2018 Mar;53:37-44 [PMID: 29278831]
  41. AIDS Behav. 2013 Mar;17(3):1185-94 [PMID: 22890684]
  42. CMAJ. 2001 Aug 21;165(4):405-10 [PMID: 11531048]
  43. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2015 May 8;64(17):453-8 [PMID: 25950251]
  44. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2015 Jun 19;64(23):631-5 [PMID: 26086633]
  45. Harm Reduct J. 2017 May 18;14(1):28 [PMID: 28521829]
  46. NIDA Res Monogr. 1995;157:212-30 [PMID: 8684438]
  47. J Urban Health. 2005 Jun;82(2):267-75 [PMID: 15872193]
  48. Subst Use Misuse. 2011;46(2-3):131-9 [PMID: 21303233]
  49. Annu Rev Public Health. 2010;31:385-98 [PMID: 20070191]
  50. AIDS Behav. 2013 Oct;17(8):2604-14 [PMID: 23754613]
  51. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2015 May 1;69(1):e40-2 [PMID: 25942468]
  52. Lancet Glob Health. 2017 Dec;5(12):e1192-e1207 [PMID: 29074409]
  53. Am J Addict. 2010 Jul-Aug;19(4):357-63 [PMID: 20653644]
  54. Drug Alcohol Rev. 2015 Nov;34(6):630-6 [PMID: 25867795]
  55. PLoS One. 2016 Jun 13;11(6):e0157062 [PMID: 27294271]
  56. AIDS. 2004 Nov 19;18(17):2295-303 [PMID: 15577542]
  57. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2012 Jul 1;124(1-2):70-8 [PMID: 22226707]
  58. BMC Public Health. 2008 Dec 09;8:405 [PMID: 19068133]

Grants

  1. R01 DA027689/NIDA NIH HHS
  2. R01 DA038965/NIDA NIH HHS

MeSH Term

Adult
Aged
Cross-Sectional Studies
Female
Humans
Male
Middle Aged
Multivariate Analysis
Needle Sharing
Risk-Taking
San Francisco
Substance Abuse, Intravenous
Young Adult

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0injectionPWIDpeer-to-peerassociatedneitherPeer-to-peerprovidingreceivingcharacteristicscategoriesreceptivedistributivesyringesharingregressionlikelyprovidersriskassistancefewerbehaviorslogisticusedinjectothersInjectionyearsHIV/HCVinterventionsBACKGROUND:eitherto/frompersoninjectsdrugs[PWID]common19%-50%amongstudiesfocusedexaminingnoneconsideringexamineddeterminedMETHODS:LosAngelesSanFranciscoN = 777recruitedusingtargetedsamplingmethodsinterviewed2011-2013MultinomialdetermineexamineindependentlyRESULTS:Recentreported42%18%provider14%recipient10%multinomialanalysisreportingfrequentillegalincomesourcemethamphetaminerecipientsyoungerinjectingheroinmultivariateanalysesfoundsignificantlyreportCONCLUSION:CurrentpreventionstrategiesmaysufficientlyaddressModificationexistingdevelopmentnewbetterrespondurgentlyneededinjection:Demographicdruguseinjection-relatedfactorsInjectingReceivinginjections

Similar Articles

Cited By