↓ Skip to main content

Individual-level needle and syringe coverage in Melbourne, Australia: a longitudinal, descriptive analysis

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Health Services Research, August 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (75th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (57th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
7 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
11 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
17 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Individual-level needle and syringe coverage in Melbourne, Australia: a longitudinal, descriptive analysis
Published in
BMC Health Services Research, August 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12913-016-1668-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Daniel O’Keefe, Nick Scott, Campbell Aitken, Paul Dietze

Abstract

Coverage is used as one indicator of needle and syringe program (NSP) effectiveness. At the individual level, coverage is typically defined as an estimate of the proportion of a person who injects drugs' (PWID) injecting episodes that utilise a sterile syringe. In this paper, we explore levels of individual syringe coverage and its changes over time. Data were extracted from 1889 interviews involving 502 participants drawn from the Melbourne drug user cohort study (MIX). We asked questions relating to participants syringe acquisition, distribution and injecting frequency within the two weeks before interview. We created a dichotomous coverage variable that classified participants as sufficiently (≥100 %) covered if all their injecting episodes utilised at least one sterile syringe, and insufficiently (<100 %) covered if not. We categorised participants as "consistently covered" if they were sufficiently covered across interviews; as "consistently uncovered" if they were insufficiently covered across interviews; and "inconsistently covered" if they oscillated between coverage states. Chi-square statistics tested proportions of insufficient coverage across sub-groups using broad demographic, drug use and service utilisation domains. Logistic regression tested predictors of insufficient coverage and inconsistently covered categorisation. Across the sample, levels of insufficient coverage were substantial (between 22-36 % at each interview wave). The majority (50 %) were consistently covered across interviews, though many (45 %) were inconsistently covered. We found strong statistical associations between insufficient coverage and current hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection (RNA+). Current prescription of opioid substitution therapy (OST) and using NSPs as the main source of syringe acquisition were protective against insufficient coverage. Insufficient coverage across the sample was substantial and mainly driven by those who oscillated between states of coverage, suggesting the presence of temporal factors. We recommend a general expansion of NSP services and OST prescription to encourage increases in syringe coverage.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 17 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 17 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 18%
Librarian 3 18%
Other 2 12%
Student > Master 2 12%
Researcher 2 12%
Other 3 18%
Unknown 2 12%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 4 24%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 18%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 6%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 1 6%
Social Sciences 1 6%
Other 1 6%
Unknown 6 35%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 01 September 2019.
All research outputs
#2,753,640
of 14,594,728 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#1,331
of 5,049 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#63,155
of 262,406 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#3
of 7 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 14,594,728 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 81st percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,049 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% of its peers.
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 262,406 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 7 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 4 of them.