A Comparison of Syringe Disposal Practices Among Injection Drug Users in a City with Versus a City Without Needle and Syringe Programs

Overview

Journal Drug Alcohol Depend

Publisher Elsevier

Specialty Psychiatry

Date 2012 Jan 3

PMID 22209091

Citations 14

Authors

Hansel E Tookes

Alex H Kral

Lynn D Wenger

Gabriel A Cardenas

Alexis N Martinez

Recinda L Sherman

Margaret Pereyra

David W Forrest

Marlene LaLota

Lisa R Metsch

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Background: The United States (U.S.) approved use of federal funds for needle and syringe programs (NSPs) in December 2009. This study compares syringe disposal practices in a U.S. city with NSPs to a U.S. city without NSPs by examining the prevalence of improperly discarded syringes in public places and the self-reported syringe disposal practices of injection drug users (IDUs) in the two cities.

Methods: We conducted visual inspection walkthroughs in a random sample of the top-quartile of drug-affected neighborhoods in San Francisco, California (a city with NSPs) and Miami, Florida (a city without NSPs). We also conducted quantitative interviews with adult IDUs in San Francisco (N=602) and Miami (N=448).

Results: In the visual inspections, we found 44 syringes/1000 census blocks in San Francisco, and 371 syringes/1000 census blocks in Miami. Survey results showed that in San Francisco 13% of syringes IDUs reported using in the 30 days preceding the study interviews were disposed of improperly versus 95% of syringes by IDUs in Miami. In multivariable logistic regression analysis, IDUs in Miami had over 34 times the adjusted odds of public syringe disposal relative to IDUs in San Francisco (adjusted odds ratio=34.2, 95% CI=21.92, 53.47).

Conclusions: We found eight-fold more improperly disposed syringes on walkthroughs in the city without NSPs compared to the city with NSPs, which was corroborated by survey data. NSPs may help IDUs dispose of their syringes safely in cities with large numbers of IDUs.

Citing Articles

Evaluating public health vending machine rollout and utilization in criminal-legal settings.

Martin R, DaCunha A, Bailey A, Joseph R, Kane K J Subst Use Addict Treat. 2024; 169:209584.

PMID: 39551146 PMC: 11769762. DOI: 10.1016/j.josat.2024.209584.

Use of Syringe Service Programs in Rural vs Urban Maine: A Harm-Reduction Study.

Miller L, Murray K, Branch E, Thakarar K J Maine Med Cent. 2024; 6(1).

PMID: 39118865 PMC: 11309026. DOI: 10.46804/2641-2225.1153.

Were Needles Everywhere?: Differing Views on Syringe Waste and Disposal Associated With Needs-Based Syringe Services Programs Among Community Partners and Persons Who Inject Drugs.

Hershow R, Pieczykolan L, Worthington N, Adams M, McDonald R, Wilson S Subst Use Misuse. 2024; 59(8):1174-1181.

PMID: 38509704 PMC: 11103866. DOI: 10.1080/10826084.2024.2330895.

People with lived and living experience of methamphetamine use and admission to hospital: what harm reduction do they suggest needs to be addressed?.

Forchuk C, Serrato J, Scott L Health Promot Chronic Dis Prev Can. 2023; 43(6):338-347.

PMID: 37466399 PMC: 10414816. DOI: 10.24095/hpcdp.43.7.04.

Examining the spatial risk environment tied to the opioid crisis through a unique public health, EMS, and academic research collaborative: Lowell, Massachusetts, 2008-2018.

Stopka T, Jacque E, Kelley J, Emond L, Vigroux K, Palacios W Prev Med Rep. 2022; 24:101591.

PMID: 34976650 PMC: 8683861. DOI: 10.1016/j.pmedr.2021.101591.

References

Robinson W, Risser J, McGoy S, Becker A, Rehman H, Jefferson M . 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. PMC: 1705501. DOI: 10.1007/s11524-006-9100-3. View

Hagan H, Des Jarlais D, Purchase D, Reid T, Friedman S . The Tacoma Syringe Exchange. J Addict Dis. 1991; 10(4):81-8. DOI: 10.1300/J069v10n04_06. View

Kral A, Malekinejad M, Vaudrey J, Martinez A, Lorvick J, McFarland W . Comparing respondent-driven sampling and targeted sampling methods of recruiting injection drug users in San Francisco. J Urban Health. 2010; 87(5):839-50. PMC: 2937131. DOI: 10.1007/s11524-010-9486-9. View

Wenger L, Martinez A, Carpenter L, Geckeler D, Colfax G, Kral A . Syringe disposal among injection drug users in San Francisco. Am J Public Health. 2010; 101(3):484-6. PMC: 3036677. DOI: 10.2105/AJPH.2009.179531. View

Friedman S, Tempalski B, Cooper H, Perlis T, Keem M, Friedman R . Estimating numbers of injecting drug users in metropolitan areas for structural analyses of community vulnerability and for assessing relative degrees of service provision for injecting drug users. J Urban Health. 2004; 81(3):377-400. PMC: 3455936. DOI: 10.1093/jurban/jth125. View

Hanrahan A, Reutter L . A critical review of the literature on sharps injuries: epidemiology, management of exposures and prevention. J Adv Nurs. 1997; 25(1):144-54. DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-2648.1997.1997025144.x. View

. Syringe exchange programs --- United States, 2008. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2010; 59(45):1488-91. View

Watters J, Estilo M, Clark G, Lorvick J . Syringe and needle exchange as HIV/AIDS prevention for injection drug users. JAMA. 1994; 271(2):115-20. View

Kral A, Anderson R, Flynn N, Bluthenthal R . Injection risk behaviors among clients of syringe exchange programs with different syringe dispensation policies. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2004; 37(2):1307-12. DOI: 10.1097/01.qai.0000127054.60503.9a. View

10.

Nyiri P, Leung T, Zuckerman M . Sharps discarded in inner city parks and playgrounds--risk of bloodborne virus exposure. Commun Dis Public Health. 2005; 7(4):287-8. View

11.

Wodak A, Cooney A . Do needle syringe programs reduce HIV infection among injecting drug users: a comprehensive review of the international evidence. Subst Use Misuse. 2006; 41(6-7):777-813. DOI: 10.1080/10826080600669579. View

12.

Daniels D, Grytdal S, Wasley A . Surveillance for acute viral hepatitis - United States, 2007. MMWR Surveill Summ. 2009; 58(3):1-27. View

13.

de Montigny L, Vernez Moudon A, Leigh B, Kim S, Young K . Assessing a drop box programme: a spatial analysis of discarded needles. Int J Drug Policy. 2009; 21(3):208-14. DOI: 10.1016/j.drugpo.2009.07.003. View

14.

Doherty M, Garfein R, Vlahov D, Junge B, Rathouz P, Galai N . Discarded needles do not increase soon after the opening of a needle exchange program. Am J Epidemiol. 1997; 145(8):730-7. DOI: 10.1093/aje/145.8.730. View

15.

Guydish J, Clark G, Garcia D, Downing M, Case P, Sorensen J . Evaluating needle exchange: do distributed needles come back?. Am J Public Health. 1991; 81(5):617-9. PMC: 1405085. DOI: 10.2105/ajph.81.5.617. View

16.

Khoshnood K, Blankenship K, Pollack H, Roan C, Altice F . Syringe source, use, and discard among injection-drug users in New Haven, Connecticut. AIDS Public Policy J. 2002; 15(3-4):88-94. View

17.

Prejean J, Song R, Hernandez A, Ziebell R, Green T, Walker F . Estimated HIV incidence in the United States, 2006-2009. PLoS One. 2011; 6(8):e17502. PMC: 3149556. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0017502. View

18.

Riley E, Beilenson P, Vlahov D, Smith L, Koenig M, Jones T . Operation Red Box: a pilot project of needle and syringe drop boxes for injection drug users in East Baltimore. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr Hum Retrovirol. 1998; 18 Suppl 1:S120-5. DOI: 10.1097/00042560-199802001-00020. View

19.

Coffin P, Latka M, Latkin C, Wu Y, Purcell D, Metsch L . Safe syringe disposal is related to safe syringe access among HIV-positive injection drug users. AIDS Behav. 2006; 11(5):652-62. DOI: 10.1007/s10461-006-9171-x. View

20.

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. DOI: 10.1097/01.aids.0000172879.20628.e1. View