RTI uses cookies to offer you the best experience online. By clicking “accept” on this website, you opt in and you agree to the use of cookies. If you would like to know more about how RTI uses cookies and how to manage them please view our Privacy Policy here. You can “opt out” or change your mind by visiting: http://optout.aboutads.info/. Click “accept” to agree.
Examination of the association between syringe exchange program (SEP) dispensation policy and SEP client-level syringe coverage among injection drug users
Bluthenthal, RN., Ridgeway, G., Schell, T., Anderson, R., Flynn, NM., & Kral, A. (2007). Examination of the association between syringe exchange program (SEP) dispensation policy and SEP client-level syringe coverage among injection drug users. Addiction, 102(4), 638-646. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1360-0443.2006.01741.x
Aim To determine whether syringe exchange programs' (SEPs) dispensation policy is associated with syringe coverage among SEP clients.
Design Cross-sectional samples of SEPs and their clients.
Setting SEPs in California, USA.
Participants Twenty-four SEPs and their injection drug using (IDU) clients (n = 1576).
Measurements Clients were classified as having adequate syringe coverage if they received at least as many syringes from the SEP as their self-reported injections in the last 30 days. SEPs were classified based on their syringe dispensation policy. Dispensation schemes ranging from least restrictive to most are: unlimited needs-based distribution; unlimited one-for-one exchange plus a few additional syringes; per visit limited one-for-one plus a few additional syringes; unlimited one-for-one exchange; and per visit limited one-for-one exchange.
Findings Adequate syringe coverage among SEP clients by dispensation policy is as follows: unlimited needs-based distribution = 61%; unlimited one-for-one plus = 50%; limited one-for-one plus = 41%; unlimited one-for-one = 42%; and limited one-for-one = 26%. In multivariate analysis, adequate syringe coverage was significantly higher for all dispensation policies compared to per visit limited one-for-one exchange. Using propensity scoring methods, we compared syringe coverage by dispensation policies while controlling for client-level differences. Providing additional syringes above one-for-one exchange (50% versus 38%, P = 0.009) and unlimited exchange (42% versus 27%, P = 0.05) generally resulted in more clients having adequate syringe coverage compared to one-for-one exchange and per visit limits.
Conclusion Providing less restrictive syringe dispensation is associated with increased prevalence of adequate syringe coverage among clients. SEPs should adopt syringe dispensation policies that provide IDUs sufficient syringes to attain adequate syringe coverage.
