nach oben

Erschienen in:

01.02.2013

Differing HIV Risks and Prevention Needs among Men and Women Injection Drug Users (IDU) in the District of Columbia

verfasst von: Manya Magnus, Irene Kuo, Gregory Phillips II, Anthony Rawls, James Peterson, Luz Montanez, Tiffany West-Ojo, Yujiang Jia, Jenevieve Opoku, Nnemdi Kamanu-Elias, Flora Hamilton, Angela Wood, Alan E. Greenberg

Erschienen in: Journal of Urban Health | Ausgabe 1/2013

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Washington, DC has among the highest HIV/AIDS rates in the US. Gender differences among injection drug users (IDUs) may be associated with adoption of prevention opportunities including needle exchange programs, HIV testing, psychosocial support, and prevention programming. National HIV Behavioral Surveillance data on current IDUs aged ≥18 were collected from 8/09 to 11/09 via respondent-driven sampling in Washington, DC. HIV status was assessed using oral OraQuick with Western Blot confirmation. Weighted estimates were derived using RDSAT. Stata was used to characterize the sample and differences between male and female IDU, using uni-, bi-, and multivariable methods. Factors associated with HIV risk differed between men and women. Men were more likely than women to have had a history of incarceration (86.6 % vs. 66.8 %, p < 0.01). Women were more likely than men to have depressive symptoms (73.9 % vs. 47.4 %, p < 0.01), to have been physically or emotionally abused (66.1 % vs. 16.1 %, p < 0.0001), to report childhood sexual abuse (42.7 % vs. 4.7 %, p < 0.0001), and pressured or forced to have sex (62.8 % vs. 4.0 %, p < 0.0001); each of these differences was significant in the multivariable analysis. Despite a decreasing HIV/AIDS epidemic among IDU, there remain significant gender differences with women experiencing multiple threats to psychosocial health, which may in turn affect HIV testing, access, care, and drug use. Diverging needs by gender are critical to consider when implementing HIV prevention strategies.

DC Department of Health HIV/AIDS, Hepatitis, STD, and TB Administration. District of Columbia HIV/AIDS, Hepatitis, STD, and TB Epidemiology 2009 Annual Report Update, 2010.

Vlahov D, Des Jarlais DC, Goosby E, et al. The role of epidemiology in needle exchange programs. Am J Public Health. 2000; 90(9): 1390–2.PubMedCrossRef

Holtzman D, Barry V, Ouellet LJ, et al. The influence of needle exchange programs on injection risk behaviors and infection with hepatitis C virus among young injection drug users in select cities in the United States, 1994–2004. Prev Med. 2009; 49(1): 68–73.PubMedCrossRef

Vlahov D, Des Jarlais DC, Goosby E, et al. Needle exchange programs for the prevention of human immunodeficiency virus infection: epidemiology and policy. Am J Epidemiol. 2001; 154(12 Suppl): S70–7.PubMedCrossRef

Vlahov D, Junge B, Brookmeyer R, et al. Reductions in high-risk drug use behaviors among participants in the Baltimore needle exchange program. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr Hum Retrovirol. 1997; 16(5): 400–6.PubMedCrossRef

Absalon J, Fuller CM, Ompad DC, et al. Gender differences in sexual behaviors, sexual partnerships, and HIV among drug users in New York City. AIDS Behav. 2006; 10(6): 707–15.PubMedCrossRef

Riehman KS, Kral AH, Anderson R, Flynn N, Bluthenthal RN. Sexual relationships, secondary syringe exchange, and gender differences in HIV risk among drug injectors. J Urban Health. 2004; 81(2): 249–59.PubMedCrossRef

Garcia de la Hera M, Ferreros I, del Amo J, et al. Gender differences in progression to AIDS and death from HIV seroconversion in a cohort of injecting drug users from 1986 to 2001. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2004; 58(11): 944–50.PubMedCrossRef

Spijkerman IJ, Langendam MW, van Ameijden EJ, Coutinho RA, van den Hoek A. Gender differences in clinical manifestations before AIDS diagnosis among injecting drug users. Eur J Epidemiol. 1998; 14(3): 213–8.PubMedCrossRef

10.

Gollub EL, Rey D, Obadia Y, Moatti JP. Gender differences in risk behaviors among HIV+ persons with an IDU history. The link between partner characteristics and women’s higher drug-sex risks. The Manif 2000 Study Group. Sex Transm Dis. 1998; 25(9): 483–8.PubMedCrossRef

11.

Singh BK, Koman JJ 3rd, Williams JS, Catan VM, Souply KL. Sex differences in self-report of physical health by injection drug users. Int J Addict. 1994; 29(2): 275–83.PubMed

12.

McDonald C, Loxley W, Marsh A. A bridge too near? Injecting drug users’ sexual behaviour. AIDS Care. 1994; 6(3): 317–26.PubMedCrossRef

13.

Dwyer R, Richardson D, Ross MW, Wodak A, Miller ME, Gold J. A comparison of HIV risk between women and men who inject drugs. AIDS Educ Prev. 1994; 6(5): 379–89.PubMed

14.

Montgomery SB, Hyde J, De Rosa CJ, et al. Gender differences in HIV risk behaviors among young injectors and their social network members. Am J Drug Alcohol Abuse. 2002; 28(3): 453–75.PubMedCrossRef

15.

Doherty MC, Garfein RS, Monterroso E, Latkin C, Vlahov D. Gender differences in the initiation of injection drug use among young adults. J Urban Health. 2000; 77(3): 396–414.PubMedCrossRef

16.

Latkin CA, Mandell W, Knowlton AR, et al. Gender differences in injection-related behaviors among injection drug users in Baltimore, Maryland. AIDS Educ Prev. 1998; 10(3): 257–63.PubMed

17.

Evans JL, Hahn JA, Page-Shafer K, et al. Gender differences in sexual and injection risk behavior among active young injection drug users in San Francisco (the UFO Study). J Urban Health. 2003; 80(1): 137–46.PubMedCrossRef

18.

Frears D. House passes bill that lifts ban on using federal money for needle exchanges. Washington Post 2009.

19.

Pershing B. Spending bill spares D.C. needle exchange, Chesapeake cleanup plan. Washington Post 2011.

20.

Opinion EB. Bargaining away the District’s rights. Washington Post 2011.

21.

Dvorak P. End of needle exchange marks loss of a bulwark in D.C.’s AIDS fight. Washington Post 2011;2/24/11.

22.

Magnus M, Kuo I, Phillips G 2nd, et al. Elevated HIV prevalence despite lower rates of sexual risk behaviors among black men in the District of Columbia who have sex with men. AIDS Patient Care STDS. 2010; 24(10): 615–22.PubMedCrossRef

23.

Magnus M, Kuo I, Shelley K, et al. Risk factors driving the emergence of a generalized heterosexual HIV epidemic in Washington, District of Columbia networks at risk. Aids. 2009; 23(10): 1277–84.PubMedCrossRef

24.

Kuo I, Greenberg AE, Magnus M, et al. High prevalence of substance use among heterosexuals living in communities with high rates of AIDS and poverty in Washington, DC. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2011;117:139–44.

25.

Abdul-Quader AS, Heckathorn DD, McKnight C, et al. Effectiveness of respondent-driven sampling for recruiting drug users in New York City: findings from a pilot study. J Urban Health. 2006; 83(3): 459–76.PubMedCrossRef

26.

Abdul-Quader AS, Heckathorn DD, Sabin K, Saidel T. Implementation and analysis of respondent driven sampling: lessons learned from the field. J Urban Health. 2006; 83(6 Suppl): i1–5.PubMedCrossRef

27.

Abdul-Quader AS, Heckathorn DD, Sabin K, Saidel T, Ramirez-Valles J, Heckathorn DD, Vázquez R, Diaz RM, Campbell RT. From networks to populations: the development and application of respondent-driven sampling among IDUs and Latino gay men. AIDS Behav. 2005; 9(4): 387–402.CrossRef

28.

Deiss RG, Brouwer KC, Loza O, Lozada RM, Ramos R, FirestoneCruz MA, Patterson TL, Heckathorn DD, Frost SD, Strathdee SA. High-risk sexual and drug using behaviors among male injection drug users who have sex with men in 2 Mexico–US border cities. Sex Transm Dis. 2008; 35: 243–249.PubMedCrossRef

29.

Heckathorn D. Respondent-driven sampling: a new approach to the study of hidden populations. Social Problems. 1997; 44(2): 174–99.CrossRef

30.

Heckathorn D. Respondent-driven sampling II: deriving valid population estimates from chain-referral samples of hidden populations. Social Problems. 2002; 49(1): 11–34.CrossRef

31.

Heckathorn D. Extensions of respondent-driven sampling: analyzing continuous variables and controlling for differential recruitment. Sociological Methodology 2007;37:151–207.

32.

Magnani R, Sabin K, Saidel T, Heckathorn D. Review of sampling hard-to-reach and hidden populations for HIV surveillance. Aids. 2005; 19(Suppl 2): S67–72.PubMedCrossRef

33.

McKnight C, Des Jarlais D, Bramson H, et al. Respondent-driven sampling in a study of drug users in New York City: notes from the field. J Urban Health. 2006; 83(6 Suppl): i54–9.PubMedCrossRef

34.

Ramirez-Valles J, Heckathorn DD, Vazquez R, Diaz RM, Campbell RT. From networks to populations: the development and application of respondent-driven sampling among IDUs and Latino gay men. AIDS Behav. 2005; 9(4): 387–402.PubMedCrossRef

35.

Semaan S, Santibanez S, Garfein RS, Heckathorn DD, Des Jarlais DC. Ethical and regulatory considerations in HIV prevention studies employing respondent-driven sampling. Int J Drug Policy 2008. Am J Public Health. 2010;100:582–3.

36.

Stormer A, Tun W, Guli L, et al. An analysis of respondent driven sampling with Injection Drug Users (IDU) in Albania and the Russian Federation. J Urban Health. 2006; 83(6 Suppl): i73–82.PubMedCrossRef

37.

Lansky A, Drake A, DiNenno E, Lee CW. HIV behavioral surveillance among the U.S. general population. Public Health Rep. 2007; 122(Suppl 1): 24–31.PubMed

38.

Woods WJ, Lindan CP, Hudes ES, Boscarino JA, Clark WW, Avins AL. HIV infection and risk behaviors in two cross-sectional surveys of heterosexuals in alcoholism treatment. J Stud Alcohol. 2000; 61(2): 262–6.PubMed

39.

Unger JB, Kipke MD, De Rosa CJ, Hyde J, Ritt-Olson A, Montgomery S. Needle-sharing among young IV drug users and their social network members: the influence of the injection partner’s characteristics on HIV risk behavior. Addict Behav. 2006; 31(9): 1607–18.PubMedCrossRef

40.

Bennett GA, Velleman RD, Barter G, Bradbury C. Gender differences in sharing injecting equipment by drug users in England. AIDS Care. 2000; 12(1): 77–87.PubMedCrossRef

41.

Wisniewski AB, Apel S, Selnes OA, Nath A, McArthur JC, Dobs AS. Depressive symptoms, quality of life, and neuropsychological performance in HIV/AIDS: the impact of gender and injection drug use. J Neurovirol. 2005; 11(2): 138–43.PubMedCrossRef

42.

Cruz MF, Mantsios A, Ramos R, et al. A qualitative exploration of gender in the context of injection drug use in two US-Mexico border cities. AIDS Behav. 2007; 11(2): 253–62.PubMedCrossRef

43.

Strathdee SA, Galai N, Safaiean M, et al. Sex differences in risk factors for hiv seroconversion among injection drug users: a 10-year perspective. Arch Intern Med. 2001; 161(10): 1281–8.PubMedCrossRef

44.

Mandell W, Kim J, Latkin C, Suh T. Depressive symptoms, drug network, and their synergistic effect on needle-sharing behavior among street injection drug users. Am J Drug Alcohol Abuse. 1999; 25(1): 117–27.PubMedCrossRef

45.

Latkin CA, Mandell W. Depression as an antecedent of frequency of intravenous drug use in an urban, nontreatment sample. Int J Addict. 1993; 28(14): 1601–12.PubMed

46.

Purcell DW, Mizuno Y, Metsch LR, et al. Unprotected sexual behavior among heterosexual HIV-positive injection drug using men: associations by partner type and partner serostatus. J Urban Health. 2006; 83(4): 656–68.PubMedCrossRef

47.

Burt RD, Hagan H, Sabin K, Thiede H. Evaluating respondent-driven sampling in a major metropolitan area: comparing injection drug users in the 2005 Seattle area national HIV behavioral surveillance system survey with participants in the RAVEN and Kiwi studies. Ann Epidemiol. 2005; 20(2): 159–67.CrossRef

48.

Abramovitz D, Volz EM, Strathdee SA, Patterson TL, Vera A, Frost SD. Using respondent-driven sampling in a hidden population at risk of HIV infection: who do HIV-positive recruiters recruit? Sex Transm Dis. 2009; 36(12): 750–6.PubMedCrossRef

49.

Lansky A, Abdul-Quader AS, Cribbin M, et al. Developing an HIV behavioral surveillance system for injecting drug users: the National HIV Behavioral Surveillance System. Public Health Rep. 2007; 122(Suppl 1): 48–55.PubMed

50.

Platt L, Wall M, Rhodes T, et al. Methods to recruit hard-to-reach groups: comparing two chain referral sampling methods of recruiting injecting drug users across nine studies in Russia and Estonia. J Urban Health. 2006; 83(6 Suppl): i39–53.PubMedCrossRef

51.

Robinson WT, Risser JM, McGoy S, et al. Recruiting injection drug users: a three-site comparison of results and experiences with respondent-driven and targeted sampling procedures. J Urban Health. 2006; 83(6 Suppl): i29–38.PubMedCrossRef

Titel: Differing HIV Risks and Prevention Needs among Men and Women Injection Drug Users (IDU) in the District of Columbia
verfasst von: Manya Magnus
Irene Kuo
Gregory Phillips II
Anthony Rawls
James Peterson
Luz Montanez
Tiffany West-Ojo
Yujiang Jia
Jenevieve Opoku
Nnemdi Kamanu-Elias
Flora Hamilton
Angela Wood
Alan E. Greenberg
Publikationsdatum: 01.02.2013
Verlag: Springer US
Erschienen in: Journal of Urban Health / Ausgabe 1/2013
Print ISSN: 1099-3460
Elektronische ISSN: 1468-2869
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11524-012-9687-5

Springer Medizin

Abstract

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu diesem Inhalt zu erhalten

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 1/2013

Reconsidering the Effects of Poverty and Social Support on Health: A 5-Year Longitudinal Test of the Stress-Buffering Hypothesis

The Association of Neighborhood Characteristics and Domestic Violence in Santiago, Chile

Environmental Influences Associated with Gambling in Young Adulthood

Financial Distress and Depressive Symptoms among African American Women: Identifying Financial Priorities and Needs and why it Matters for Mental Health

2012 Reviewers

Antiretroviral Therapy and Program Retention in Urban Slums