Author: Trickey, Adam; Semchuk, Nadiya; Saliuk, Tetiana; Sazonova, Yana; Varetska, Olga; Walker, Josephine G; Lim, Aaron G; Stone, Jack; Vickerman, Peter
Title: Has resourcing of nonâ€governmental harmâ€reduction organizations in Ukraine improved HIV prevention and treatment outcomes for people who inject drugs? Findings from multiple bioâ€behavioural surveys Cord-id: jeqd5s3a Document date: 2020_8_26
ID: jeqd5s3a
Snippet: INTRODUCTION: People who inject drugs (PWID) in Ukraine have high prevalences of HIV and hepatitis C (HCV). Since the turn of the century, various organizations have funded nonâ€governmental organizations (NGOs) in Ukraine to provide PWID with needles and syringes, condoms, HIV and HCV testing, and improve linkage to opioid agonist therapy (OAT) and HIV treatment. We investigated whether contact with these NGOs was associated with improved HIV prevention and treatment outcomes among PWID. METHO
Document: INTRODUCTION: People who inject drugs (PWID) in Ukraine have high prevalences of HIV and hepatitis C (HCV). Since the turn of the century, various organizations have funded nonâ€governmental organizations (NGOs) in Ukraine to provide PWID with needles and syringes, condoms, HIV and HCV testing, and improve linkage to opioid agonist therapy (OAT) and HIV treatment. We investigated whether contact with these NGOs was associated with improved HIV prevention and treatment outcomes among PWID. METHODS: Five rounds of respondentâ€driven sampled integrated bioâ€behavioural survey data (2009 [N = 3962], 2011 [N = 9069], 2013 [N = 9502], 2015 [N = 9405], and 2017 [N = 10076]) among PWID in Ukraine (including HIV/HCV testing and questionnaires) were analysed using mixedâ€effect logistic regression models (mixedâ€effects: city, year). These regression models assessed associations between being an NGO client and various behavioural, OAT, HIV testing and HIV treatment outcomes, adjusting for demographic characteristics (age, gender, lifetime imprisonment, registration in a drug abuse clinic, education level). We also assessed associations between being an NGO client and being HIV positive or HCV positive, likewise adjusting for demographic characteristics (as above). RESULTS: NGO clients were more likely to have received HIV testing ever (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 5.37, 95% confidence interval [95% CI]: 4.97 to 5.80) or in the last year (aOR 3.37, 95% CI: 3.20 to 3.54), to have used condoms at last sexual intercourse (aOR 1.37, 95% CI: 1.30 to 1.44) and sterile needles at last injection (aOR 1.37, 95% CI: 1.20 to 1.56), to be currently (aOR 4.19, 95% CI: 3.48 to 5.05) or ever (aOR 2.52, 95% CI: 2.32 to 2.74) on OAT, and to have received syringes (aOR 109.89, 95% CI: 99.26 to 121.66) or condoms (aOR 54.39, 95% CI: 50.17 to 58.96) in the last year. PWID who were HIV positive (aOR 1.40, 95% CI: 1.33 to 1.48) or HCV positive (aOR 1.57, 95% CI: 1.49 to 1.65) were more likely to have contact with NGOs, with HIV positive PWID in contact with NGOs being more likely to be registered at AIDS centres (aOR 2.34, 95% CI: 1.88 to 2.92) and to be on antiretroviral therapy (aOR 1.60, 95% CI: 1.40 to 1.83). CONCLUSIONS: Contact with PWID targeted NGOs in Ukraine is associated with consistently better preventive, HIV testing and HIV treatment outcomes, suggesting a beneficial impact of harm reduction NGO programming.
Search related documents:
Co phrase search for related documents- acquisition risk and logistic regression model: 1
- additional information and logistic regression: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16
- additional information and logistic regression model: 1, 2, 3
- additional information and logistic regression modelling: 1
- adjusted odd and logistic regression: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
- adjusted odd and logistic regression model: 1, 2
- adjusted odd ratio and logistic regression: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
- adjusted odd ratio and logistic regression model: 1, 2
- adjusted unadjusted and logistic regression: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56
- adjusted unadjusted and logistic regression model: 1, 2, 3, 4
- adjusted unadjusted regression analysis and logistic regression: 1, 2, 3, 4
- adjusted unadjusted regression and logistic regression: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
- adjusted unadjusted regression and logistic regression model: 1
Co phrase search for related documents, hyperlinks ordered by date