Evaluation of Needle Exchange Programs

Research Note: Drug Consumption Rooms and Needle and Syringe Exchange Programs

Drug consumption rooms and needle and syringe exchange programs have existed in some shape or form in different parts of the world for many years now. This Research Note reviews some of their advantages and disadvantages and considers possible advancements.

The case of a needle exchange policy debate in Fresno, California

Needle exchange is one of the most effective public health interventions to prevent the transmission of infectious disease by injecting drug users. Despite the preponderance of scientific evidence, US federal funding for needle exchange programmes has been banned since 1988. This prohibition has resulted in the lack of a centralised policy on needle exchange and has given birth to a patchwork of diverse practices and regulations throughout the nation. This article focuses on how various local players interpreted the meaning of needle exchange through the debate on an unauthorised site in Fresno, California. In exploring a specific context, this study delineates the narratives used to outline competing views about needle exchange and to offer a snapshot of how the issue of widespread injecting drug use was handled in an impoverished and socially conservative region of the United States.

Problem recognition, intention to stop use, and treatment use among regular heroin injectors

This study investigated frequency of recent use as an explanatory variable in problem recognition and intention to stop use among regular injection heroin users. Data from the NEURO-HIV Epidemiologic Study, an investigation of neuropsychological and social-behavioral risk factors for HIV and hepatitis A, B, and C among injection and noninjection drug users, were used in the analyses. Participants (N = 337) consisted of those who reported injecting heroin daily or nearly daily for a period of 3 months. Multiple linear regression analysis revealed that frequency of recent injection drug use predicted problem recognition (β = .17), but not intention to stop use; although marginal, being female (β = .15), and homeless (β = .14) contributed to intention to stop use. Past 6-month treatment participation was 48%, and current treatment enrollment was 26% among study participants. This study highlights the importance of capitalizing on injection drug users' recent use as a mechanism for treatment interventions.

Evidence for the effectiveness of sterile injecting equipment provision in preventing hepatitis C and human immunodeficiency virus transmission among injecting drug users: a review of reviews

AIMS

To review the evidence on the effectiveness of harm reduction interventions involving the provision of sterile injecting equipment in the prevention of hepatitis C virus (HCV) and human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) transmission among injecting drug users (IDUs). The interventions assessed were needle and syringe programmes (NSP), alternative modes of needle/syringe provision (pharmacies, vending machines and outreach) and the provision of injecting equipment other than needles/syringes.

METHODS

Systematic searches of the English language literature to March 2007 were undertaken to identify systematic, narrative or meta-analytical reviews (also known as a review of reviews) of the impact of interventions on HCV transmission, HIV transmission or injecting risk behaviour (IRB). Critical appraisal criteria classified the reviews as either high quality ('core') or supplementary: a framework based on the quality of reviews, the reviewers' conclusions and the designs/findings of the primary studies was used to derive evidence statements.

RESULTS

Three core and two supplementary reviews of injecting equipment interventions were identified. According to the proposed framework, this study found (a) insufficient evidence to conclude that any of the interventions are effective in preventing HCV transmission; (b) tentative evidence to support the effectiveness of NSP in preventing HIV transmission; (c) sufficient evidence to support the effectiveness of NSP (and tentative evidence of an additional impact of pharmacy NSP) in reducing self-reported IRB; and (d) little to no evidence on vending machines, outreach or providing other injecting equipment in relation to any of the outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

The evidence is weaker than given credit for in the literature. The lack of evidence for effectiveness of NSP vis-à-vis biological outcomes (HCV and HIV incidence/prevalence) reflects the limitations of studies that have been undertaken to investigate these associations. Particularly for HCV, low levels of IRB may be insufficient to reduce high levels of transmission. New studies are required to identify the intervention coverage necessary to achieve sustained changes in blood-borne virus transmission.