| Title |
The Washington Needle Depot: fitting healthcare to injection drug users rather than injection drug users to healthcare: moving from a syringe exchange to syringe distribution model
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Harm Reduction Journal, January 2010
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1477-7517-7-1 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Dan Small, Andrea Glickman, Galen Rigter, Thia Walter |
| Abstract |
Needle exchange programs chase political as well as epidemiological dragons, carrying within them both implicit moral and political goals. In the exchange model of syringe distribution, injection drug users (IDUs) must provide used needles in order to receive new needles. Distribution and retrieval are co-existent in the exchange model. Likewise, limitations on how many needles can be received at a time compel addicts to have multiple points of contact with professionals where the virtues of treatment and detox are impressed upon them. The centre of gravity for syringe distribution programs needs to shift from needle exchange to needle distribution, which provides unlimited access to syringes. This paper provides a case study of the Washington Needle Depot, a program operating under the syringe distribution model, showing that the distribution and retrieval of syringes can be separated with effective results. Further, the experience of IDUs is utilized, through paid employment, to provide a vulnerable population of people with clean syringes to prevent HIV and HCV. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 44 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Netherlands | 1 | 2% |
| Portugal | 1 | 2% |
| Canada | 1 | 2% |
| Australia | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 40 | 91% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 10 | 23% |
| Student > Master | 9 | 20% |
| Student > Bachelor | 5 | 11% |
| Other | 4 | 9% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 3 | 7% |
| Other | 8 | 18% |
| Unknown | 5 | 11% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 15 | 34% |
| Social Sciences | 12 | 27% |
| Psychology | 2 | 5% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 5% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 4 | 9% |
| Unknown | 8 | 18% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 26 March 2012.
All research outputs
#8,534,976
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Harm Reduction Journal
#793
of 1,119 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#51,379
of 173,200 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Harm Reduction Journal
#4
of 5 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,119 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 28.8. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 173,200 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 5 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.