The International journal on drug policy · 2015
Encounters with private security guards among people who inject drugs in a Canadian setting.
СтатьяПоддержка NIH: внешняя программаПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Kennedy Mary Clare, Milloy M-J, Markwick Nicole, McNeil Ryan, Dong Huiru, Wood Evan, Kerr Thomas
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: Private security guards are increasingly regulating public space, including areas within urban drug scenes. We examined the prevalence and correlates of encounters with security guards among people who inject drugs (PWID) in Vancouver, Canada.
METHODS: Data were derived from two prospective cohort studies of PWID collected between December 2005 and May 2014. We used multivariable generalized estimating equations to identify factors associated with reporting encounters with private security guards.
RESULTS: Among 1714 participants, 616 (35.9%) reported encounters with security guards over the study period. In multivariable analyses, factors independently and positively associated with security guard encounters included: unstable housing (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] = 1.27); daily non-injection crack use (AOR = 1.35); daily methamphetamine use (AOR = 1.40); street-based income generation (AOR = 1.58); incarceration (AOR = 1.45); experiencing violence (AOR = 1.90); non-fatal overdose (AOR = 1.31); syringe sharing (AOR = 1.45); public injection (AOR = 1.68); and inability to access addiction treatment (AOR = 1.60) (all p < 0.05).
CONCLUSION: Encounters with security guards were independently associated with various measures of vulnerability and drug-related harm. These findings highlight the need for regulatory reforms and broader structural interventions to reduce harm among PWID in this setting.
METHODS: Data were derived from two prospective cohort studies of PWID collected between December 2005 and May 2014. We used multivariable generalized estimating equations to identify factors associated with reporting encounters with private security guards.
RESULTS: Among 1714 participants, 616 (35.9%) reported encounters with security guards over the study period. In multivariable analyses, factors independently and positively associated with security guard encounters included: unstable housing (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] = 1.27); daily non-injection crack use (AOR = 1.35); daily methamphetamine use (AOR = 1.40); street-based income generation (AOR = 1.58); incarceration (AOR = 1.45); experiencing violence (AOR = 1.90); non-fatal overdose (AOR = 1.31); syringe sharing (AOR = 1.45); public injection (AOR = 1.68); and inability to access addiction treatment (AOR = 1.60) (all p < 0.05).
CONCLUSION: Encounters with security guards were independently associated with various measures of vulnerability and drug-related harm. These findings highlight the need for regulatory reforms and broader structural interventions to reduce harm among PWID in this setting.