Unsafe Injection and Sexual Risk Behavior among Injecting Drug Users in Georgia
Tóm tắt
Injection drug users (IDUs) are at risk for acquiring human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) through parenteral and sexual transmission. In this paper, we describe the prevalence and correlates of unsafe drug injecting and sexual behaviors among IDUs recruited across five cities in Georgia in 2009. IDUs were administered a questionnaire collecting information on demographics, drug use, sexual behaviors, and HIV testing behaviors. Correlates of risky injecting and sexual behaviors were determined using logistic regression. Of 1,127 IDUs, the majority (98.7%) were men, and the median duration of injecting drugs was 7 years. Unsafe injecting behavior at last injection was reported by 51.9% of IDUs, while 16.8% reported both unsafe injecting behavior and not using condoms with last occasional and/or commercial partner. In the multivariate analysis, independent correlates of unsafe injecting behavior at last injection were types of drugs injected [p = 0.0096; (for ephedrine, adjusted odds ratio (aOR) = 7.38; 95% CI, 1.50–36.26)] and not using condoms at last commercial sex (aOR = 2.29, 1.22–4.32). The following variables were significantly associated with unsafe injecting behavior at last injection and not using condoms at last sex with commercial and/or occasional partners in the multivariate analysis: marital status [p = 0.0002; (for divorced, widowed, and separated aOR = 2.62, 1.62–4.25; for single aOR = 1.61, 1.08–2.39)], being a member of a regular injecting group (aOR = 0.62, 0.44–0.88), types of drugs injected in the past month [p = 0.0024; (for buprenorphine aOR = 0.34, 0.18–0.63)], city of residence (p = 0.0083), and not receiving information on HIV (aOR = 1.82, 1.07–3.09). Though only ephedrine was injected by a smaller number of IDUs (9.1%), the vast majority of these (81.4%) reported unsafe injecting practices at last injection. High prevalence of unsafe injecting behaviors and diverse and at-risk sexual partnerships highlight the need to implement complex and targeted HIV interventions among IDUs in Georgia.
Tài liệu tham khảo
AIDS Epidemic Update. Geneva, Switzerland: joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS and World Health Organization; 2009.
Des Jarlais DC, Arasteh K, Semaan S, Wood E. HIV among injecting drug users: current epidemiology, biologic markers, respondent-driven sampling, and supervised-injection facilities. Curr Opin HIV AIDS. 2009; 4: 308–13.
Sarang A, Stuikyte R, Bykov R. Implementation of harm reduction in Central and Eastern Europe and Central Asia. Int J Drug Policy. 2007; 18: 129–35.
United Nations General Assembly Special Session on HIV/AIDS. Monitoring the declaration of commitment on HIV/AIDS. Georgia Country Progress Report. Reporting period 2008–2009. http://data.unaids.org/pub/Report/2010/georgia_2010_country_progress_report_en.pdf. Accessed December 9, 2010.
Dershem L, Tabatadze M, Sirbiladze T, Tavzarashvili L, Todadze K, Tsagareli T. Characteristics, high-risk behaviors and knowledge of STI/HIV/AIDS, and prevalence of HIV, syphilis and hepatitis among injecting drug users in Tbilisi, Georgia: 2002–2006. Tbilisi, Georgia: United States Agency for International Development; 2007. http://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PNADK404.pdf. Accessed December 9, 2010.
Dershem L, Tabatadze M, Sirbiladze T, Tavzarashvili L, Tsagareli T, Todadze K. Characteristics, high-risk behaviors and knowledge of STI/HIV/AIDS, and prevalence of HIV, syphilis and hepatitis among injecting drug users in Batumi, Georgia: 2004–2006. Tbilisi, Georgia: United States Agency for International Development; 2007. http://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PNADK406.pdf Accessed December 9, 2010.
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: 459–76.
Heckathorn DD. Respondent driven sampling: a new approach to the study of hidden populations. Soc Probl. 1997; 44: 174–99.
Iguchi MY, Ober AJ, Berry SH, et al. Simultaneous recruitment of drug users and men who have sex with men in the United States and Russia using respondent-driven sampling: sampling methods and implications. J Urban Health. 2009;86(Suppl 1):5–31.
STATA. Statistical software: release 8.0. College Station, TX: STATA Corporation; 2003.
Degenhardt L, Mathers B, Guarinieri M, et al. Meth/amphetamine use and associated HIV: implications for global policy and public health. Int J Drug Policy. 2010; 21: 347–58.
Fairbairn N, Kerr T, Buxton JA, Li K, Montaner JS, Wood E. Increasing use and associated harms of crystal methamphetamine injection in a Canadian setting. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2007; 88: 313–6.
Kozlov AP, Shaboltas AV, Toussova OV, et al. HIV incidence and factors associated with HIV acquisition among injection drug users in St. Petersburg, Russia. AIDS. 2006; 20: 901–6.
Booth RE, Lehman WE, Kwiatkowski CF, Brewster JT, Sinitsyna L, Dvoryak S. Stimulant injectors in Ukraine: the next wave of the epidemic? AIDS Behav. 2008; 14: 652–61.
Kruse GR, Barbour R, Heimer R, et al. Drug choice, spatial distribution, HIV risk, and HIV prevalence among injection drug users in St. Petersburg, Russia. Harm Reduct J. 2009; 6: 22–9.
Lau J, Cheng F, Tsui H, et al. Clustering of syringe sharing and unprotected sex risk behaviors in male injecting drug users in China. Sex Transm Dis. 2007; 34: 574–82.
Kapadia F, Latka MH, Hudson SM, et al. Correlates of consistent condom use with main partners by partnership patterns among young adult male injection drug users from five US cities. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2007; 91: S56–63.
Somlai AM, Kelly JA, McAuliffe TL, Ksobiech K, Hackl KL. Predictors of HIV sexual risk behaviors in a community sample of injection drug-using men and women. AIDS Behav. 2003; 7: 383–93.
Stark K, Sieroslawski J, Müller R, Wirth D, Godwod-Sikorska C, Bienzle U. Determinants of current HIV risk behaviour among injecting drug users in Warsaw, Poland. Eur J Epidemiol. 1996; 12: 315–7.
Obadia Y, Perrin V, Feroni I, Vlahov D, Moatti JP. Injecting misuse of buprenorphine among French drug users. Addiction. 2001; 96: 267–72.
Valenciano M, Emmanuelli J, Lert F. Unsafe injecting practices among attendees of syringe exchange programmes in France. Addiction. 2001; 96: 597–606.
Otiashvili D, Zabransky T, Kirtadze I, Piralishvili G, Chavchanidze M, Miovsky M. Why do the clients of Georgian needle exchange programmes inject buprenorphine? Eur Addict Res. 2010; 16: 1–8.
Javakhishvili JD, Sturua L, Todadze K, et al. National report to The European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction: Georgia drug situation. Tbilisi, Georgia: United Nations Development Programme; 2009.
Latkin CA, Donnell D, Metzger D, et al. The efficacy of a network intervention to reduce HIV risk behaviors among drug users and risk partners in Chiang Mai, Thailand and Philadelphia, USA. Soc Sci Med. 2009; 68: 740–8.
Booth RE, Lehman WE, Latkin CA, et al. Individual and network interventions with injection drug users in 5 Ukraine cities. Am J Public Health. 2011; 101: 336–43.
Merkinaite S, Grund JP, Frimpong A. Young people and drugs: next generation of harm reduction. Int J Drug Policy. 2010; 21: 112–4.
De P, Cox J, Boivin JF, Platt RW, Jolly AM. The importance of social networks in their association to drug equipment sharing among injection drug users: a review. Addiction. 2007; 102: 1730–9.
Latkin C, Mandell W, Vlahov D, Oziemkowska M, Celentano D. People and places: behavioral settings and personal network characteristics as correlates of needle sharing. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr Hum Retrovirol. 1996; 13: 273–80.
Latkin CA. Outreach in natural settings: the use of peer leaders for HIV prevention among injecting drug users’ networks. Public Health Rep. 1998; 113: 151–9.