Rural People Who Inject Drugs Research Articles

Injection-related hepatitis C serosorting behaviors among people who inject drugs: An urban/rural comparison

ABSTRACTAlthough previous research has focused on injection drug use behaviors in both urban and rural settings, few have drawn direct comparisons between adjacent rural and urban areas. Using data from the National HIV Behavioral Surveillance study as well as original data collected in a similar fashion, we compare the risk behaviors of people who inject drugs (PWID) in San Juan, Puerto Rico, with those of PWID in nearby rural areas. Specifically, we examine whether one’s own hepatitis C (HCV) infection status can be used to predict whether one asked their most recent co-injection partner about their HCV status. Acquiring such information allows injectors to seek out co-injection partners of concordant status as a way to minimize the risk of viral transmission. Results indicate that urban PWID with a known HCV+ status were more likely to know their last co-injector partner’s HCV status than were their peers with a negative or unknown HCV status. However, this relationship was not present in the rural data. These findings suggest that there are different risk norms in rural and urban PWID communities and that interventions successful in one type of community may not be so in others.

Healthcare contact and treatment uptake following hepatitis C virus screening and counseling among rural Appalachian people who use drugs

BackgroundHepatitis C virus (HCV) remains a major contributor to morbidity and mortality worldwide. Since 2009, Kentucky has led the United States in cases of acute HCV, driven largely by injection drug use in rural areas. Improved treatment regimens hold promise of mitigating the impact and transmission of HCV, but numerous barriers obstruct people who inject drugs (PWID) from receiving care, particularly in medically underserved settings. Methods503 rural people who use drugs were recruited using respondent-driven sampling and received HCV screening and post-test counseling. Presence of HCV antibodies was assessed using enzyme immunoassay of dried blood samples. Sociodemographic and behavioral data were collected using computer-based questionnaires. Predictors of contacting a healthcare provider for follow-up following HCV-positive serotest and counseling were determined using discrete-time survival analysis. Results150 (59%) of 254 participants reported contacting a healthcare provider within 18 months of positive serotest and counseling; the highest probability occurred within six months of serotesting. 35 participants (14%) reported they were seeking treatment, and 21 (8%) reported receiving treatment. In multivariate time-dependent modeling, health insurance, internet access, prior substance use treatment, meeting DSM-IV criteria for generalized anxiety disorder, and recent marijuana use increased the odds of making contact for follow-up. Participants meeting criteria for major depressive disorder and reporting prior methadone use, whether legal or illegal, were less likely to contact a provider. ConclusionWhile only 8% received treatment after HCV-positive screening, contacting a healthcare provider was frequent in this sample of rural PWID, suggesting that the major barriers to care are likely further downstream. These findings offer insight into the determinants of engaging the cascade of medical treatment for HCV and ultimately, treatment-as-prevention. Further study and increased resources to support integrated interventions with effectiveness in other settings are recommended to mitigate the impact of HCV in this resource-deprived setting.

Rural people who inject drugs: A cross-sectional survey addressing the dimensions of access to secondary needle and syringe program outlets

To better understand issues related to access to injecting equipment for people who inject drugs (PWID) in a rural area of New South Wales (NSW), Australia. Cross-sectional face-to-face survey using convenience and snowball sampling. Six regional and rural population centres in Northern NSW, within the Hunter New England Local Health District. The sample included 190 PWID who had accessed a needle and syringe program outlet within 4weeks of the survey. Data include demographic information, preferred location for accessing injecting equipment, reasons for that preference, whether they obtained enough equipment, travelling distance to an NSP and self-reported hepatitis C virus status. Sixty percent self-identified as Aboriginal people. The median age of respondents was 32years and 60% were men. A significantly larger proportion (P<0.05) of the Aboriginal respondents were women (27% versus 11.6%) and younger (37.6 versus 12.7%) compared to non-Aboriginal respondents. Most preferred to access injecting equipment at a community health facility (62.6%), as opposed to other secondary outlets, where they gained enough equipment (67.4%). Just over 80% said they were tested for HCV in the past year, with about 37% told they had tested positive. There are complex dimensions affecting how rural PWID access secondary NSP outlets. Although access is similarly limited as other rural health services because of the nature of injecting drug use and sensitivities existing in rural communities, there is potential for application of unique access models, such as, promoting secondary distribution networks.