Gaceta Sanitaria (Dec 2004)
Prevalencia de prácticas indirectas de compartir material para inyectarse drogas en Galicia, Madrid, Sevilla y Valencia Prevalence of indirect sharing of drug-injecting paraphernalia in Galicia, Madrid, Seville and Valencia (Spain)
Abstract
Objetivos: Estudiar las prácticas de riesgo de inyección de drogas, en especial compartir indirectamente material de inyección (CIMI), y de las conductas sexuales de riesgo. Métodos: Estudio transversal. Entrevista cara a cara de 1.638 usuarios de programas de intercambio de jeringas (PIJ). Se investigaron varias formas de CIMI (coger droga diluida en una jeringa usada ajena, meter la aguja en el recipiente donde se introdujeron otras usadas y reutilizar el líquido de limpieza de otros). Resultados: El 16% en Galicia, el 4,7% en Madrid, el 17,6% en Sevilla y el 13,2% en Valencia se inyectó con jeringas usadas ajenas (p Objectives: To study drug-injecting practices, particularly indirect sharing of injecting paraphernalia (ISIP), and sexual risk behavior. Methods: We performed a cross-sectional study of 1638 users of needle exchange programs (NEPs). Different types of ISIP were studied: taking diluted drugs in a syringe used by others, placing the needle in a recipient with other used needles, and reusing cleaning liquid previously used by others. Results: The prevalence of injecting with syringes already used by others was 16% in Galicia, 4.7% in Madrid, 17.6% in Seville and 13.2% in Valencia (p < 0.001). With geographical variations, other types of ISIP (Galicia: 32.4%; Madrid: 28.5%; Seville: 42.6%; Valencia: 27.4% -p < 0.001-) were more frequent than injecting with syringes already used by others (Galicia: 32.4%; Madrid: 28.5%; Seville: 42.6%; Valencia: 27.4% -p < 0.001-). The percentage not injecting with syringes used by others but performing ISIP was 21.7%, 25.3%, 28.2% and 18.1% (p < 0.01) respectively. In all geographical areas, sexual risk practices were more prevalent with steady sex partners (68.6%, 72.0%, 77.8%, 72.8% [NS]) than with casual partners (36.6%, 40.9%, 37.9%, 23.9% [NS]). Among injectors with a stable partner, 81.3% in Galicia, 75.9% in Madrid, 86.1% in Seville and 79.7% in Valencia reported that his/her serological status was negative for HIV or was unknown (p < 0.001). Conclusions: ISIP is more prevalent than injection with syringes already used by others. For a substantial percentage of injectors, ISIP is the only risk practice. ISIP and the low use of condoms, particularly with steady partners, could be a contributory factor to the spread of HIV, hepatitis C virus, and hepatitis B virus infection.
