Risk and blood‐borne virus testing among men who inject image and performance enhancing drugs, Sydney, Australia. (28th February 2017)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Rowe, Rachel; Berger, Israel; Yaseen, Bilal; Copeland, Jan
• Is Part Of: Drug and alcohol review. Volume 36:Number 5(2017)
• Page Start: 658
• Page End: 666
• Publication Date: 2017-02-28
• Subjects: anabolic‐androgenic steroid -- blood‐borne virus -- injecting drug use -- needle‐exchange program -- health inequality; Substance abuse -- Periodicals; Alcoholism -- Periodicals; Drinking of alcoholic beverages -- Periodicals; 616.86
• DOI: 10.1111/dar.12467
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0959-5236

Abstract

Abstract: Introduction and Aims: Needle and syringe program (NSP) workers have highlighted that people who inject image and performance enhancing drugs (IPED) in Australia are a younger and more culturally and linguistically diverse (CALD) group compared with other groups who inject drugs. Previous research has found riskier injecting practices and faster Hepatitis C acquisition rates among people who are new to injecting drugs and self‐identify with CALD backgrounds, compared with their Anglo‐Australian counterparts. Given recent indications of increasing IPED prevalence in Australia and elsewhere, this study sought to update knowledge of infection risk among a large group of IPED injectors, as well as explore sub‐group differences. Design and Methods: A cross‐sectional survey of men who inject IPEDs was conducted from September 2014 to January 2015 at nine NSP sites, across five local health districts in Sydney, Australia. Results: Six hundred and five people participated. Small proportions reported previous 12month needle or syringe sharing (2.3%), sharing vials (4.6%), injecting psychostimulants (5.1%) or personal needle or syringe reuse (5.2%). Participants from CALD backgrounds were more likely to report sharing needles or syringes (P = 0.004), and participants from Middle Eastern and North African backgrounds were less likely to have ever been tested for blood‐borne viruses, compared with Anglo‐Australian participants ( P = 0.04 ). Discussion and Conclusions: The findings show that some groups who inject IPEDs may be more vulnerable to blood‐borne virus transmission and/or less likely to know their blood‐borne virus status. From design to delivery, IPED harm minimisation strategies should pay attention to the needs of CALD groups.