Faculty Bibliography

OBJECTIVES/OBJECTIVE:We analyzed the relations of two 1990 dimensions of racial residential segregation (isolation and concentration) with 1998 injection drug use prevalence among Black adult residents of 93 large US metropolitan statistical areas (MSAs). METHODS:We estimated injection drug use prevalence among Black adults in each MSA by analyzing 3 databases documenting injection drug users' encounters with the health care system. Multiple linear regression methods were used to investigate the relationship of isolation and concentration to the natural logarithm of Black adult injection drug use prevalence, controlling for possible confounders. RESULTS:The median injection drug use prevalence was 1983 per 100000 Black adults (interquartile range: 1422 to 2759 per 100000). The median isolation index was 0.48 (range: 0.05 to 0.84): in half the MSAs studied, the average Black resident inhabited a census tract where 48% or more of the residents were Black. The multiple regression model indicates that an increase of 0.50 in the isolation index was associated with a 23% increase in injection drug use prevalence among Black adults. Concentration was unrelated to the outcome. CONCLUSIONS:Residential isolation is positively related to Black injection drug use prevalence in MSAs. Research into the pathways linking isolation to injection drug use is needed.

OBJECTIVE: To compare HIV prevalence among injecting and non-injecting heroin and cocaine users in New York City. As HIV is efficiently transmitted through the sharing of drug-injecting equipment, HIV infection has historically been higher among injecting drug users. DESIGN: Two separate cross-sectional surveys, both with HIV counseling and testing and drug use and HIV risk behavior questionnaires. METHODS: Injecting and non-injecting heroin and cocaine users recruited at detoxification and methadone maintenance treatment from 2001-2004 (n = 2121) and recruited through respondent-driven sampling from a research storefront in 2004 (n = 448). RESULTS: In both studies, HIV prevalence was nearly identical among current injectors (injected in the last 6 months) and heroin and cocaine users who had never injected: 13% [95% confidence interval (CI), 12-15%] among current injectors and 12% (95% CI, 9-16%) among never-injectors in the drug treatment program study, and 15% (95% CI, 11-19%) among current injectors and 17% (95% CI, 12-21%) among never injectors in the respondent driven sampling storefront study. The 95% CIs overlapped in all gender and race/ethnicity subgroup comparisons of HIV prevalence in both studies. CONCLUSIONS: The very large HIV epidemic among drug users in New York City appears to be entering a new phase, in which sexual transmission is of increasing importance. Additional prevention programs are needed to address this transition.

In this oral history, 23 injection drug users (IDUs) were interviewed about the mid-1970s to mid-1980s when they could not legally purchase or possess syringes, and the threat of AIDS began to loom large. Several themes emerged, including: abrupt changes in syringe-sharing patterns; the effects of illnesses or deaths of others on their understanding of AIDS; and, racial/ethnic differences in responses to the threat of AIDS. Settings, such as "shooting galleries," helped HIV spread rapidly in the earliest stages of the city's AIDS epidemic. HIV entered the drug scene in the mid-1970s, just when IDUs were shifting from sharing homemade "works" (consisting of steel needles and syringes devised from rubber baby pacifiers and similar sources) among many IDUs to mass produced and distributed plastic, disposable needle and syringe sets. IDUs remember when they first became aware of AIDS and began to adjust their behaviors and social assumptions.

We examined the diffusion of the D.A.R.E program to reduce use of illicit drugs among school-aged children and youths and the diffusion of syringe exchange programs to reduce HIV transmission among injection drug users. The D.A.R.E program was diffused widely in the United States despite a lack of evidence for its effectiveness; there has been limited diffusion of syringe exchange in the United States, despite extensive scientific evidence for its effectiveness. Multiple possible associations between diffusion and evidence of effectiveness exist, from widespread diffusion without evidence of effectiveness to limited diffusion with strong evidence of effectiveness. The decision theory concepts of framing and loss aversion may be useful for further research on the diffusion of public health innovations.

OBJECTIVE:To present and update available national and subnational estimates of injecting drug users (IDUs) in developing/transitional countries, and provide indicative estimates of gender and age distribution. METHODS:Literature review of both grey and published literature including updates from previously reported estimates on estimates of IDU population and data sources giving age and gender breakdowns. The scope area was developing/transitional countries and the reference period was 1998-2005. RESULTS:Estimates of IDU numbers were available in 105 countries and 243 subnational areas. The largest IDU populations were reported from Brazil, China, India, and Russia (0.8 m, 1.9 m, 1.1 m, and 1.6 m respectively). Subnational areas with the largest IDU populations (35,000-79,000) are: Warsaw (Poland); Barnadul, Irtkustk, Nizhny-Novgorod, Penza, Voronez, St Petersburg, and Volgograd (Russia); New Delhi and Mumbai (India); Jakarta (Indonesia), and Bangkok (Thailand). By region, Eastern Europe and Central Asia have the largest IDU prevalence (median 0.65%) (min 0.3%; max 2.2%; Q1 0.39%; Q3 1.32%) [corrected] followed by Asia and Pacific: 0.24% (min 0.004%; max 1.47%; Q1 0.14%; Q3 1.47%) [corrected] In the Middle East and Africa the median value equals 0.2% (min 0.0003%; max 0.35%; Q1 0.11%; Q3 0.23%) [corrected] and in Latin America and the Caribbean: 0.12% (min 0.11%; max 0.69%; Q1 0.04%; Q3 0.13%) [corrected] Subnational areas with the highest IDU prevalence among adults (8-14.9%) were Shymkent (Kazakhstan), Balti (Moldova), Astrakhan, Barnadul, Irtkustk, Khabarovsk, Kaliningrad, Naberezhnyje Chelny, Penza, Togliatti, Volgograd, Voronez, and Yaroslavl (Russia), Dushanbe (Tajikistan), Ashgabad (Turkmenistan), Ivano-Frankivsk and Pavlograd (Ukraine) and Imphal, Manipur (India). 66% (297/447) of the IDU estimates were reported without technical information. Data on the IDU age/gender distributions are also scarce or unavailable for many countries. In 11 Eastern European and Central Asian countries the age group <or=20-29 represented >50% of the total. The proportion of IDU men was 70%-90% in Eastern Europe and Central Asia, and there was a marked absence of data on women outside this region. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Unfortunately data on IDU prevalence available to national and international policymakers is of an unknown and probably yet to be tested quality. This study provide baseline figures but steps need to be taken now to improve the reporting and assessment of these critical data.

OBJECTIVES/OBJECTIVE:To determine the incidence/predictors of transitions to injecting among noninjecting heroin users (NIUs). METHODS:Street-recruited NIUs in New York City, March/1996-March/2003, were interviewed for a prospective cohort study about social network influence (communication promoting injecting; exposure to injectors) and individual susceptibility. A transition to injecting was the first drug injection following baseline. Hazards ratios (HRs) (P < 0.05) were estimated by Cox proportional hazards regression, stratified by baseline injecting history. RESULTS:Of 369 (64% of 579) followed, former-injectors were more likely to transition to injecting (33% or 53/160 vs. 12% or 25/209; 16.0/100 person-years-at-risk [pyar] vs. 4.6/100 pyar; HR = 3.25). Independent predictors among never-injectors included using > or =2 bags of heroin daily (HR = 7.0); social network influence (communication) and homelessness (HR = 6.3); shorter-term heroin use (HR = 5.3); social network influence (exposure) and physically abused (HR = 4.7); friends approve/condone drug injecting (HR = 3.5); lower perceived social distance from injectors (HR = 2.9); and younger age at first heroin use (HR = 1.2). Independent predictors among former-injectors were social network influence (communication) and lower perceived social distance from injectors (HR = 3.4); white race/ethnicity (HR = 2.0); not very afraid of needles (HR = 1.8); and younger age (HR = 1.1). CONCLUSIONS:The risk of initiating injecting was lower than the risk of resuming injecting. Social network influence facilitates transitioning to injecting among those susceptible. Interventions to prevent injecting should address both social network influence and individual susceptibility.