Abstract
People who inject drugs (PWID) play a critical role in injection-naïve individuals transitioning to injection drug use. We investigated factors associated with future likelihood of initiating injection-naïve individuals using multivariable logistic regression among 418 PWID in rural Appalachia (Cabell County, West Virginia). Less than 10% reported they were likely to initiate someone in the future. Acquiring syringes from a syringe services program was associated with decreased odds of being likely to initiate someone in the future (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0.46, 95% CI 0.23, 0.95), while having previously initiated someone into injection drug use was associated with increased odds (aOR 8.65, 95% CI 4.07, 18.41). Among our sample of PWID in Appalachia, a small proportion reported that they would be likely to initiate an injection-naïve individual in the future. Efforts to reduce injection initiation assistance should focus on this subpopulation of PWID who indicate a willingness to engage in this behavior.
Similar content being viewed by others
Introduction
There are an estimated 15.6 million people who inject drugs (PWID) globally (3.2 million women and 12.5 million men). Among these persons, an estimated 17.8% are living with HIV, 52.3% are Hepatitis C (HCV)-antibody positive, and 9.1% are Hepatitis B (HBV) surface antigen positive [1]. PWID are also at high risk for skin and soft tissue infections and infective endocarditis [2,3,4,5]. In addition, injection drug use increases risks for fatal and nonfatal overdose [6,7,8,9]. Global estimates suggest that 82.9% of PWID primarily inject opioids, underscoring the urgency of implementing evidence-based response strategies to mitigate the range of adverse consequences associated with the opioid crisis [1]. In North America, there is an epidemic of opioid-involved overdose fatalities and concomitant increases in community-level risks for infectious disease outbreaks among PWID, driven in part by the over-prescription of opioid analgesics, widespread contamination of drug supplies with highly potent synthetic opioids, and low access to medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD) [10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17]. Averting injection-related morbidity and mortality may require the implementation of interventions designed to prevent persons who use drugs from transitioning to injection drug use.
Existing, predominantly urban-based research has shown that people who use drugs transitioning to injection drug use is associated with a myriad of sociodemographic and substance use-related factors, including to achieve stronger drug effects, out of curiosity, and social network influences [18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26]. Low educational attainment, exposure to violence, homelessness, poverty, and polysubstance use have also been shown to be associated with transitions to injection drug use [19, 27,28,29,30,31,32,33]. While the drivers of transitions to injection drug use are diverse and interconnected, studies have consistently demonstrated that PWID are of central importance to injection initiation processes as persons who are injection-naïve may require assistance during their first injection (e.g., preparing and injecting drugs) [19, 23, 34,35,36].
Studies have found that PWID are routinely sought out by people who use drugs to facilitate their transitions to injection drug use and that most injection-naïve individuals are injected for the first time by PWID in their social and sexual networks [19, 20, 22, 23, 25, 26, 31, 35, 37,38,39,40,41]. The prevalence and degree to which injection-naïve persons receive injection initiation assistance from PWID varies [35, 42]; for example, a study among recent injection initiates found that 76% and 79% reported their PWID initiators prepared their first injection and injected them for the first time, respectively [43]. Existing injection initiation literature has also found that the prevalence of PWID facilitating injection initiation varies geographically; for instance, a study in Tijuana, Mexico found that 14% of PWID reported having ever injected an injection-naïve person and only 4% reported having done so in the past 6 months [27]. By contrast, in samples of PWID in California, USA, 38% reported having ever initiated others into injection drug use [44] and 7% reported this behavior in the past year [28].
Qualitative research has found that many PWID are reluctant to facilitate injection initiation among injection-naïve individuals because they perceive the process as crossing a “moral boundary” [41, 45,46,47]. However, altruistic desires to protect others from harms associated with improper injection may lead PWID to facilitate injection initiation, given their experience and knowledge of how to more safely inject drugs and avoid overdose and skin and soft tissue infections [37, 41, 45, 48]. A study conducted among PWID in California, for instance, found that nearly two-thirds of participants reported having facilitated injection initiation to prevent injury [48]. Studies have identified a multitude of other factors associated with PWID facilitating injection initiation; for example, a study conducted in Tijuana, Mexico found that male PWID were more than twice as likely to have facilitated injection initiation than their female counterparts [49]. Other studies have found that daily injection drug use, public injection, interactions with law enforcement, and the use of non-injection cocaine, heroin, and methamphetamine were associated with injection initiation [27, 50, 51]. Research has also found that PWID may facilitate injection initiation of injection-naïve persons in exchange for money, drugs, or a place to stay [41, 48, 52]. Further, a 2019 study in Vancouver found that PWID who reported active MOUD enrollment had significantly lower odds of recently providing injection initiation assistance [53].
Existing literature surrounding the role of PWID in injection initiation processes is informative, yet most studies reflect research conducted among PWID populations in urban centers. Little comparable work has been conducted among PWID residing in rural communities. This represents a significant deficit in our public health understanding of injection initiation processes given that the opioid crisis has had devastating consequences throughout rural America. In addition, many rural communities lack essential evidence-based policies and programs to respond effectively to injection drug use-associated consequences, setting the stage for worsening epidemics of overdose and bloodborne infectious diseases. The purpose of this study is to examine the future likelihood of PWID residing in a rural community in West Virginia (WV), USA injecting persons for their first time.
Methods
Study Context, Design, and Recruitment
This analysis used cross-sectional data collected in June–July 2018 as part of a PWID population estimation study in Cabell County, WV [54,55,56]. Cabell County is located in southwestern WV and borders Kentucky and Ohio. Cabell County has been deeply affected by the overdose crisis; in 2018, Cabell County had the highest count of opioid-involved overdose fatalities in the state [57].
Detailed methodological descriptions are reported in related publications [54,55,56]; briefly, the study used the capture–recapture method for population estimation, which has been widely used in public health among a variety of populations [58,59,60,61,62,63,64,65]. It involves two rounds of data collection in which members of the target population are surveyed [63]. During the capture phase, PWID were recruited at the harm reduction program at the Cabell-Huntington Health Department. This is the only harm reduction program in Cabell County and offers PWID access to sterile injection equipment and a variety of other essential health and human services including HIV/STI testing, overdose prevention resources, drug treatment referrals, and vaccinations. During the recapture phase, study staff visited locations throughout Cabell County that were identified as locations where drug use activities may take place. We identified these venues via geospatial analyses of secondary data sources (e.g., overdose fatality data, locations of improper syringe disposal) and interviews with local stakeholders who had lived or professional experience related to drug use.
Due to the stigma associated with injection drug use, the study had broad eligibility criteria: at least 18 years old and to have ever used drugs. Data were collected anonymously via audio computer-assisted self-interviewing (ACASI) survey, and participants received either a $10 grocery gift card or a small snack bag as an incentive. To avoid duplicate data generated by persons who may have participated multiple times, the survey included items that asked participants to report if they had previously completed the survey during either phase and resulting duplicates were excluded.
In total, 797 surveys were completed during the study. Given our interest in the likelihood of PWID injecting others in the future, this analysis uses a subsample of n = 418 persons who reported having injected drugs in the past 6 months and who answered the question about our primary outcome. The Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health Institutional Review Board approved this study. All participants provided oral consent.
Measures
Outcome Variable
Our primary outcome was how likely it is that PWID would inject someone for their first time in the future which was ascertained via, “How likely is it that you would inject someone for their very first hit in the future?” Participants selected from a four-point scale: “definitely would not,” “probably would not,” “probably would,” and “definitely would.” We collapsed the scale into a dichotomized variable reflecting whether persons “definitely would not/probably would not” versus “probably would/definitely would” inject someone for the first time in the future.
Demographic Characteristics
Demographic characteristics included age (continuous variable), gender (male/female), race and ethnicity, highest education completed (less than high school diploma; high school diploma or equivalent; some college or more), and sexual minority status (gay, lesbian, bisexual, or other versus heterosexual or straight). All participants were asked about their race (White, Black or African American, Asian, Pacific Islander, American Indian or Alaskan Native, Multiracial, and other) and ethnicity (Hispanic vs. non-Hispanic), but responses had low variability. Therefore, we dichotomized these data to a single measure: non-Hispanic, White vs. other.
Socioeconomic/Structural Vulnerabilities
Measures of socioeconomic vulnerability included homelessness, food insecurity, recent arrest (arrest in the past 6 months), and engaging in transactional sex work (sold or traded sex) in the past 6 months. Homelessness was defined as whether participants considered themselves homeless (yes/no). Food insecurity was a dichotomous measure that reflected if the participant reported going to bed hungry at least once a week during the past 6 months [66].
Drug Use
Drug use variables included years since first injection, frequency of injection on a typical day, types of drugs injected, injection in public places, receptive injection equipment sharing, and using drugs with other people. Years since first injection, defined continuously, was calculated by subtracting the reported age of first injection from current age. Participants self-reported the number of times they injected on a typical day. We recoded anomalous counts of daily injections (≥ 50 injections per day; n = 2) as missing. Participants also reported the drugs that they had injected in the last 6 months, including: fentanyl, heroin, buprenorphine or Suboxone, prescription pain relievers, crystal methamphetamine, speedball (co-injection of heroin and cocaine), and cocaine. Using these data, we created a count variable (range 1–7) for the number of drugs participants reported injecting in the past 6 months. To assess public injection, participants were asked, “In the past 6 months, where did you typically use drugs?” We categorized the following responses as public locations, creating a binary variable: on the street, at a park, a stairwell in a building or business, an abandoned building, a public bathroom, on a bus or train, in a car, truck or other vehicle. Typically injecting at their or someone else’s home were considered to be private locations [67]. Individuals who selected “other” location as their primary injection location or refused to answer were recoded as missing (n = 12). We also constructed a binary variable that reflected if participants reported having engaged in receptive injection equipment (i.e., syringes, cottons, cookers, and/or rinse water) sharing in the past 6 months. Participants reported the number of people they usually met with to use drugs in the past 6 months (none, use alone; one person; 2 + people).
Service Utilization
We included a binary indicator of having obtained syringes from a syringe services program (SSP) in the past 6 months. We also included three binary indicators of past 6-month drug treatment utilization: any drug treatment, buprenorphine/Suboxone treatment, and receiving outpatient counseling (either individual or group-based).
Previous Initiation of Others into Injection Drug Use
Participants reported if they had injected someone for their first injection in the past 6 months (yes/no). This measure was included as related research has found associations between persons having previously provided injection initiation assistance and perceptions that they would assist others in the future [68].
Analysis
We used Chi Square, Fisher’s exact, and Mann–Whitney tests to assess relationships between each variable and likelihood of initiating someone in the future. Based on these results, we carried forward all variables that were significantly associated (p < 0.05) with likelihood of initiating someone in the future to logistic regression analyses. We estimated bivariate models for likelihood of initiating someone in the future for each correlate. We then estimated a multivariable logistic regression model of likelihood of initiating someone in the future, which included all significant bivariate correlates from the Chi Square and Mann–Whitney tests, and number of drugs injected as it bordered on statistical significance. We also conducted sensitivity analyses using penalized maximum likelihood logistic regression models to account for the relative rareness of our outcome [69, 70]. There were no qualitative differences in the interpretation of the sensitivity and main analyses, so the results of the sensitivity analyses are not further reported. Statistical analyses were performed using Stata 14 (StataCorp, College Station, TX).
Results
The majority of our sample identified as male (61.0%) and non-Hispanic, White (83.7%). Median age was 35 years old (range 19–63). Approximately one in four (27.3%) reported having not completed high school. A small proportion (17.5%) of our sample identified as a sexual minority. In terms of socioeconomic and structural factors, a majority reported being homeless (56.0%) and going to bed hungry at least once per week (64.8%). Sixty-one percent reported having engaged in receptive injection equipment sharing in the past 6 months. A median of 8 years (interquartile range [IQR] 4–15 years) had passed since participants’ first injection, and the median number of injections on a typical day was 3 (IQR 2–6). Sixty-five percent reported acquiring syringes from an SSP in the last 6 months. Seventeen percent reported that they had previously injected someone for their first hit. Less than one in ten (9.8%) reported being likely to initiate someone into injection drug use in the future (Table 1).
In the unadjusted logistic regression models (Table 2), homelessness (odds ratio [OR] 3.08, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.43, 6.63), number of drugs injected (OR 1.22, 95% CI 1.01, 1.46), receptive injection equipment sharing (OR 4.16, 95% CI 1.71, 10.14), and previously initiating someone into injection drug use (OR 11.24, 95% CI 5.59, 22.62) were associated with increased odds of being likely to initiate someone in the future. Conversely, obtaining syringes from a SSP was associated with decreased odds of being likely to injection someone in the future (OR 0.42, 95% CI 0.22, 0.81). In the adjusted logistic regression model, obtaining syringes from a SSP in the past 6 months remained associated with lower odds of being likely to initiate someone in the future (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0.46, 95% CI 0.23, 0.95) and having previously initiated someone into injection drug use (aOR 8.65, 95% CI 4.07, 18.41) was associated with increased odds of being likely to initiate someone in the future.
Discussion
Our study examined factors associated with being likely to initiate injection-naïve individuals in the future among PWID residing in a rural community. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study to examine likelihood of initiating someone into injection drug use in the future among a sample of PWID in a rural area. Overall, we found that less than 10% of PWID in our sample reported they would be likely to initiate others in the future. PWID having recently initiated an injection-naïve individual was correlated with persons reporting they would be likely to inject someone in the future as has been reported in other research [28]. We also found that persons utilizing SSPs had lower odds of helping others initiate injection drug use in the future than persons who did not use SSPs.
Existing literature has found that the prevalence of PWID assisting with injection initiation varies across populations and by recency. For instance, studies have found that the proportion of PWID reporting having ever injected a non-injector ranges from 14 to 47% [18, 19, 27, 28, 35, 44, 48, 53, 71,72,73,74]. Similar studies found that recent (e.g., past 6 or 12 months) injection initiation of non-injectors ranges from approximately 4 to 19% [27, 28, 35, 53, 72, 74]. Our finding that 17% of PWID in our sample reported having provided injection initiation assistance in the past 6 months aligns with existing research; however, among persons who reported having recently initiated a non-injector, more than 35% reported they would be likely to do so again in the future. This proportion is significantly greater than rates found among PWID residing in more urban areas; for example, a recent study found that among PWID who had ever provided injection initiation assistance in Tijuana (Mexico), Vancouver (Canada), and San Diego (USA), 26.1%, 16.8%, and 14.7%, respectively, reported they would likely initiate someone in the future [68]. In contrast, a study in Los Angeles and San Francisco (USA) found that 66% of PWID who provided injection initiation assistance in the past year reported being likely to initiate others in the future [28]. While methodological differences limit our ability to draw direct comparisons to studies conducted among other PWID populations, the prevalence of likelihood of future injection initiation among our sample remains concerning given the escalation of the opioid overdose crisis and increasing risks for infectious disease outbreaks among rural PWID. Future study should be conducted to better understand how to tailor interventions (e.g., “Break the Cycle” and “Change the Cycle”) designed to reduce engagement in injection initiation behaviors [75].
Our findings add to the existing scientific literature that demonstrates the need for multipronged interventions tailored to local contexts to reduce the burden of injection drug use [76,77,78]. For example, our finding that PWID having previously injected someone for their first hit was associated with likely future injection initiation underscores the need for individual-level interventions that focus on supporting behavior changes (i.e., reducing injection-related risks) among initiators and initiates. In addition, communities should explore expanding access to SSPs as they are an essential component of a robust and evidence-based public health strategy for addressing injection drug use-associated morbidity and mortality [79]. Research has shown that the implementation of SSPs can be complicated by a number of factors, including community-level opposition and policies that obstruct programs from following best practices [80,81,82,83,84]. The results of our analysis suggest that people who use SSPs have lower odds of reporting they would be likely to help others initiate injection drug use in the future than their counterparts who do not access SSPs. Communities should review all policies and operational practices to ensure services are delivered in alignment with established best practices, including making service delivery as widely accessible as possible to the PWID population [85].
Contrasting with existing literature, we did not find an association between drug treatment engagement and likelihood of future injection initiation among rural PWID [44, 53, 86]. This finding may be reflective of the more limited access to MOUD in rural contexts relative to urban areas. In West Virginia, for example, many drug treatment programs employ abstinence-based approaches. Limited access to MOUD in rural areas may also explain why only approximately 11% of our sample reported having recently engaged in buprenorphine/Suboxone-based drug treatment. Notably, only one participant who reported being likely to initiate someone into injection drug use in the future reported having recently engaged in buprenorphine/Suboxone-based drug treatment. Future work should be conducted to better understand the role of drug treatment experiences with PWID providing injection initiation assistance in rural contexts.
The results of this study should be interpreted with careful consideration of the contextual factors that PWID may have perceived as relevant when they reported their likelihood of future injection initiation. Research has found that there is a diversity of reasons for PWID providing injection initiation assistance, including altruism (i.e., to prevent the initiate from immediate harms, such as overdose) [37, 41, 48, 52]. PWID deciding whether to provide injection assistance to a novice injector may occur in contexts where the initiate is at risk of incurring direct harm if they inject alone or without guidance from a more experienced PWID. As a result, willingness to initiate injection-naïve individuals should not necessarily be viewed as an adverse behavior that public health should work to suppress; rather, interventions are needed that educate PWID about how to balance their personal beliefs surrounding injection initiation with consideration for the relevant public health implications [37]. Future work should be conducted to better understand how to develop interventions that support PWID in their decision-making processes surrounding injection initiation and encourage persons to provide evidence-based support, in whatever form is most appropriate, to the injection-naïve individual. Further, interventions that ensure PWID are knowledgeable about available resources (e.g., drug treatment, harm reduction services) and are able to refer individuals seeking to transition to injection drug use to appropriate systems of care may result in additional public health gains.
Study limitations include a cross-sectional study design that does not permit establishment of causality. Data are also self-reported and subject to social desirability and recall bias; however, our use of anonymous data collection methods may have reduced the effects of social desirability bias. In addition, our data were collected in 2018, preceding the identification of an injection drug use-associated HIV cluster in Cabell County and the coronavirus pandemic [87]. As a result, our findings may not reflect the current lived experiences of PWID. Another limitation is that we cannot infer the details of the decision-making processes PWID in our study may have employed when reporting their likelihood of future injection initiation. As described previously, there are many overlapping and interconnected factors that affect injection initiation behaviors. Future work is needed to better understand what factors are most salient in PWID deciding to provide injection initiation assistance and how to empower PWID who initiate others to disseminate evidence-based risk reduction strategies to persons who are novices. Last, our study reflects findings from PWID sampled in a single county in rural Appalachia; as such, our findings may not be generalizable to other rural communities.
Preventing the transition of people who use drugs to injection drug use should be a public health priority given escalations in overdose and infectious disease among PWID. Our analysis demonstrated that PWID having previously injected an injection-naïve individual was associated with increased odds of persons reporting they would be likely to facilitate injection initiation in the future. In contrast, PWID having acquired syringes at a SSP was associated with lower odds of persons reporting they would be likely to help others initiate injection drug use in the future than their counterparts who do not access SSPs. Our findings underscore the importance of communities using combination approaches to reduce the consequences of injection drug use. Future research is needed to better understand the balance between PWID protecting novice injectors from immediate harms via providing initiation assistance and supporting efforts to prevent non-injectors to transitioning to injection drug use.
Data Availability
Data is not publicly available due to privacy concerns.
References
Degenhardt L, Peacock A, Colledge S, Leung J, Grebely J, Vickerman P, et al. Global prevalence of injecting drug use and sociodemographic characteristics and prevalence of HIV, HBV, and HCV in people who inject drugs: a multistage systematic review. Lancet Glob Health. 2017;5(12):e1192–207.
Binswanger IA, Takahashi TA, Bradley K, Dellit TH, Benton KL, Merrill JO. Drug users seeking emergency care for soft tissue infection at high risk for subsequent hospitalization and death. J Stud Alcohol Drugs. 2008;69(6):924–32.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Infectious diseases, opioids and injection drug use. Atlanta, GA: CDC. https://www.cdc.gov/pwid/opioid-use.html (2018). Accessed 13 Apr 2020
Hartnett KP, Jackson KA, Felsen C, McDonald R, Bardossy AC, Gokhale RH, et al. Bacterial and fungal infections in persons who inject drugs—Western New York, 2017. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2019;68(26):583–6.
Wurcel AG, Anderson JE, Chui KK, Skinner S, Knox TA, Snydman DR, et al. Increasing infectious endocarditis admissions among young people who inject drugs. Open Forum Infect Dis. 2016;3(3):ofw157.
Bazazi AR, Zelenev A, Fu JJ, Yee I, Kamarulzaman A, Altice FL. High prevalence of non-fatal overdose among people who inject drugs in Malaysia: correlates of overdose and implications for overdose prevention from a cross-sectional study. Int J Drug Policy. 2015;26(7):675–81.
Caudarella A, Dong H, Milloy MJ, Kerr T, Wood E, Hayashi K. Non-fatal overdose as a risk factor for subsequent fatal overdose among people who inject drugs. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2016;162:51–5.
Colledge S, Peacock A, Leung J, Larney S, Grebely J, Hickman M, et al. The prevalence of non-fatal overdose among people who inject drugs: a multi-stage systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Drug Policy. 2019;73:172–84.
Mathers BM, Degenhardt L, Bucello C, Lemon J, Wiessing L, Hickman M. Mortality among people who inject drugs: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Bull World Health Organ. 2013;91(2):102–23.
Andrilla CHA, Moore TE, Patterson DG, Larson EH. Geographic distribution of providers with a DEA waiver to prescribe buprenorphine for the treatment of opioid use disorder: a 5-year update. J Rural Health. 2019;35(1):108–12.
Ciccarone D. Fentanyl in the US heroin supply: a rapidly changing risk environment. Int J Drug Policy. 2017;46:107–11.
Ciccarone D. The triple wave epidemic: supply and demand drivers of the US opioid overdose crisis. Int J Drug Policy. 2019;71:183–8.
Cicero TJ, Ellis MS, Harney J. Shifting patterns of prescription opioid and heroin abuse in the United States. N Engl J Med. 2015;373(18):1789–90.
Compton WM, Jones CM, Baldwin GT. Relationship between nonmedical prescription-opioid use and heroin use. N Engl J Med. 2016;374(2):154–63.
Jones CM, Einstein EB, Compton WM. Changes in synthetic opioid involvement in drug overdose deaths in the United States, 2010–2016. JAMA. 2018;319(17):1819–21.
Lambdin BH, Bluthenthal RN, Zibbell JE, Wenger L, Simpson K, Kral AH. Associations between perceived illicit fentanyl use and infectious disease risks among people who inject drugs. Int J Drug Policy. 2019;74:299–304.
Mack KA, Jones CM, Ballesteros MF. Illicit drug use, illicit drug use disorders, and drug overdose deaths in Metropolitan and Nonmetropolitan areas—United States. MMWR Surveill Summ. 2017;66(19):1–12.
Bryant J, Treloar C. Initiators: an examination of young injecting drug users who initiate others to injecting. AIDS Behav. 2008;12(6):885–90.
Crofts N, Louie R, Rosenthal D, Jolley D. The first hit: circumstances surrounding initiation into injecting. Addiction. 1996;91(8):1187–96.
Draus PJ, Carlson RG. Needles in the haystacks: the social context of initiation to heroin injection in rural Ohio. Subst Use Misuse. 2006;41(8):1111–24.
Fitzgerald JL, Louie R, Rosenthal D, Crofts N. The meaning of the rush for initiates to injecting drug use. Contemp Drug Probl. 1999;26(3):481–504.
Frajzyngier V, Neaigus A, Gyarmathy VA, Miller M, Friedman SR. Gender differences in injection risk behaviors at the first injection episode. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2007;89(2–3):145–52.
Harocopos A, Goldsamt LA, Kobrak P, Jost JJ, Clatts MC. New injectors and the social context of injection initiation. Int J Drug Policy. 2009;20(4):317–23.
Khobzi N, Strike C, Cavalieri W, Bright R, Myers T, Calzavara L, et al. A qualitative study on the initiation into injection drug use: Necessary and background processes. Addict Res Theory. 2009;17(5):546–59.
Mars SG, Bourgois P, Karandinos G, Montero F, Ciccarone D. “Every ‘never’ I ever said came true”: transitions from opioid pills to heroin injecting. Int J Drug Policy. 2014;25(2):257–66.
Sherman SG, Smith L, Laney G, Strathdee SA. Social influences on the transition to injection drug use among young heroin sniffers: a qualitative analysis. Int J Drug Policy. 2002;13(2):113–20.
Ben Hamida A, Rafful C, Jain S, Sun S, Gonzalez-Zuniga P, Rangel G, et al. Non-injection drug use and injection initiation assistance among people who inject drugs in Tijuana, Mexico. J Urban Health. 2018;95(1):83–90.
Bluthenthal RN, Wenger L, Chu D, Quinn B, Thing J, Kral AH. Factors associated with initiating someone into illicit drug injection. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2014;144:186–92.
Carlson RG, Nahhas RW, Martins SS, Daniulaityte R. Predictors of transition to heroin use among initially non-opioid dependent illicit pharmaceutical opioid users: a natural history study. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2016;160:127–34.
Fuller CM, Vlahov D, Ompad DC, Shah N, Arria A, Strathdee SA. High-risk behaviors associated with transition from illicit non-injection to injection drug use among adolescent and young adult drug users: a case-control study. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2002;66(2):189–98.
Roy E, Haley N, Leclerc P, Cedras L, Boivin JF. Drug injection among street youth: the first time. Addiction. 2002;97(8):1003–9.
Roy E, Boivin JF, Leclerc P. Initiation to drug injection among street youth: a gender-based analysis. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2011;114(1):49–54.
Young AM, Havens JR. Transition from first illicit drug use to first injection drug use among rural Appalachian drug users: a cross-sectional comparison and retrospective survival analysis. Addiction. 2012;107(3):587–96.
Goldsamt LA, Harocopos A, Kobrak P, Jost JJ, Clatts MC. Circumstances, pedagogy and rationales for injection initiation among new drug injectors. J Community Health. 2010;35(3):258–67.
Rotondi NK, Strike C, Kolla G, Rotondi MA, Rudzinski K, Guimond T, et al. Transition to injection drug use: the role of initiators. AIDS Behav. 2014;18(3):486–94.
Small W, Fast D, Krusi A, Wood E, Kerr T. Social influences upon injection initiation among street-involved youth in Vancouver, Canada: a qualitative study. Subst Abuse Treat Prev Policy. 2009;4:8.
Barnes DM, Des Jarlais DC, Wolff M, Feelemyer J, Tross S. A qualitative study of persons who inject drugs but who have never helped others with first injections: how their views on helping contrast with the views of persons who have helped with first injections, and implications for interventions. Harm Reduct J. 2018;15(1):43.
Kolla G, Strike C, Roy E, Altenberg J, Balian R, Silver R, et al. Initiation stories: an examination of the narratives of people who assist with a first injection. Subst Use Misuse. 2015;50(13):1619–27.
Simmons J, Rajan S, McMahon JM. Retrospective accounts of injection initiation in intimate partnerships. Int J Drug Policy. 2012;23(4):303–11.
Tuchman E. Women’s injection drug practices in their own words: a qualitative study. Harm Reduct J. 2015;12:6.
Wenger LD, Lopez AM, Kral AH, Bluthenthal RN. Moral ambivalence and the decision to initiate others into injection drug use: a qualitative study in two California cities. Int J Drug Policy. 2016;37:42–51.
Bouck Z, Jain S, Sun X, Milloy MJ, Werb D, Hayashi K. Recent incarceration and risk of first-time injection initiation assistance: a prospective cohort study of persons who inject drugs. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2020;212:107983.
Vidal-Trecan GM, Varescon-Pousson I, Boissonnas A. Injection risk behaviors at the first and at the most recent injections among drug users. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2002;66(2):107–9.
Mittal ML, Vashishtha D, Sun S, Jain S, Cuevas-Mota J, Garfein R, et al. History of medication-assisted treatment and its association with initiating others into injection drug use in San Diego, CA. Subst Abuse Treat Prev Policy. 2017;12(1):42.
Guise A, Melo J, Mittal ML, Rafful C, Cuevas-Mota J, Davidson P, et al. A fragmented code: the moral and structural context for providing assistance with injection drug use initiation in San Diego, USA. Int J Drug Policy. 2018;55:51–60.
Olding M, Werb D, Guise A, Small W, McNeil R. Navigating social norms of injection initiation assistance during an overdose crisis: a qualitative study of the perspectives of people who inject drugs (PWID) in Vancouver, Canada. Int J Drug Policy. 2019;69:24–33.
Rhodes T, Bivol S, Scutelniciuc O, Hunt N, Bernays S, Busza J. Narrating the social relations of initiating injecting drug use: transitions in self and society. Int J Drug Policy. 2011;22(6):445–54.
Simpson KA, Kral AH, Goldshear JL, Wenger L, Strike CS, Bluthenthal RN. Reasons for assisting with injection initiation: results from a large survey of people who inject drugs in Los Angeles and San Francisco, California. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2020;209:107885.
Meyers SA, Scheim A, Jain S, Sun X, Milloy MJ, DeBeck K, et al. Gender differences in the provision of injection initiation assistance: a comparison of three North American settings. Harm Reduct J. 2018;15(1):59.
Bluthenthal RN, Wenger L, Chu D, Lorvick J, Quinn B, Thing JP, et al. Factors associated with being asked to initiate someone into injection drug use. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2015;149:252–8.
Melo JS, Garfein RS, Hayashi K, Milloy MJ, DeBeck K, Sun S, et al. Do law enforcement interactions reduce the initiation of injection drug use? An investigation in three North American settings. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2018;182:67–73.
Guise A, Horyniak D, Melo J, McNeil R, Werb D. The experience of initiating injection drug use and its social context: a qualitative systematic review and thematic synthesis. Addiction. 2017;112(12):2098–111.
Mittal ML, Jain S, Sun S, DeBeck K, Milloy MJ, Hayashi K, et al. Opioid agonist treatment and the process of injection drug use initiation. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2019;197:354–60.
Allen ST, O'Rourke A, White RH, Schneider KE, Hazelett T, Kilkenny M, et al. Applying population estimation methods in rural America. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. https://americanhealth.jhu.edu/themes/bahi_stable/assets/pdfs/Opioid_Services_Toolkit_012419.pdf (2019). Accessed 24 Jan 2019
Allen ST, O’Rourke A, White RH, Schneider KE, Kilkenny M, Sherman SG. Estimating the number of people who inject drugs in a rural county in Appalachia. Am J Public Health. 2019;109(3):445–50.
Allen ST, O'Rourke A, White RH, Schneider KE, Hazelett T, Kilkenny M, et al. Rural communities in crisis: a critical count to save lives during the opioid epidemic. Bloomberg American Health Initiative. https://americanhealth.jhu.edu/RuralOpioidsCount (2019). Accessed 22 Apr 2019
West Virginia Department of Health and Human Resources. Fatal overdoses in West Viriginia –overview. Charleston, WV. https://dhhr.wv.gov/office-of-drug-control-policy/datadashboard/Pages/default.aspx (2020). Accessed 25 Aug 2020
Hay G. Capture-recapture estimates of drug misuse in urban and non-urban settings in the north east of Scotland. Addiction. 2000;95(12):1795–803.
Holland CE, Kouanda S, Lougue M, Pitche VP, Schwartz S, Anato S, et al. Using population-size estimation and cross-sectional survey methods to evaluate HIV service coverage among key populations in Burkina Faso and Togo. Public Health Rep. 2016;131(6):773–82.
Mutagoma M, Kayitesi C, Gwiza A, Ruton H, Koleros A, Gupta N, et al. Estimation of the size of the female sex worker population in Rwanda using three different methods. Int J STD AIDS. 2015;26(11):810–4.
Roberts B, Morgan OW, Sultani MG, Nyasulu P, Rwebangila S, Myatt M, et al. A new method to estimate mortality in crisis-affected and resource-poor settings: validation study. Int J Epidemiol. 2010;39(6):1584–96.
Ruiz MS, O’Rourke A, Allen ST. Using capture-recapture methods to estimate the population of people who inject drugs in Washington, DC. AIDS Behav. 2016;20(2):363–8.
UNAIDS/WHO Working Group on Global HIV/AIDS and STI Survelliance. Guidelines on estimating the size of populations most at risk to HIV. 51. http://www.who.int/hiv/pub/surveillance/estimating_populations_HIV_risk/en/ (2010). Accessed 19 Mar 2021
VanDerNagel JE, Kiewik M, Postel MG, van Dijk M, Didden R, Buitelaar JK, et al. Capture recapture estimation of the prevalence of mild intellectual disability and substance use disorder. Res Dev Disabil. 2014;35(4):808–13.
Vuylsteke B, Vandenhoudt H, Langat L, Semde G, Menten J, Odongo F, et al. Capture-recapture for estimating the size of the female sex worker population in three cities in Cote d’Ivoire and in Kisumu, western Kenya. Trop Med Int Health. 2010;15(12):1537–43.
Allen ST, White RH, O’Rourke A, Ahmad NJ, Hazelett T, Kilkenny ME, et al. Correlates of transactional sex among a rural population of people who inject drugs. AIDS Behav. 2019;24:775.
Hunter K, Park JN, Allen ST, Chaulk P, Frost T, Weir BW, et al. Safe and unsafe spaces: non-fatal overdose, arrest, and receptive syringe sharing among people who inject drugs in public and semi-public spaces in Baltimore City. Int J Drug Policy. 2018;57:25–31.
Bloom BE, Jain S, Sun X, Garfein RS, Strathdee SA, Milloy MJ, et al. Self-perception of assisting with future injection drug initiation: the influence of relationships in the process of drug injecting initiation. Drug Alcohol Rev. 2020;40:109.
Firth D. Bias reduction of maximum likelihood estimates. Biometrika. 1993;80:27–38.
Heinze G, Schemper M. A solution to the problem of separation in logistic regression. Stat Med. 2002;21(16):2409–19.
Rafful C, Melo J, Medina-Mora ME, et al. Cross-border migration and initiation of others into drug injecting in Tijuana, Mexico. Drug Alcohol Rev. 2018;37:S277–84.
Uusküla A, Barnes DM, Raag M, Talu A, Tross S, Des Jarlais DC. Frequency and factors associated with providing injection initiation assistance in Tallinn, Estonia. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2018;188:64–70.
Hunt N, Stillwell G, Taylor C, Griffiths P. Evaluation of a brief intervention to prevent initiation into injecting. Drugs (Abingdon Engl). 1998;5(2):185–94.
Navarro S, Kral AH, Strike CS, Simpson K, Wenger L, Bluthenthal RN. Factors associated with frequency of recent initiation of others into injection drug use among people who inject drugs in Los Angeles and San Francisco, CA, USA, 2016–17. Subst Use Misuse. 2019;54(10):1715–24.
Werb D, Bluthenthal RN, Kolla G, et al. Preventing injection drug use initiation: state of the evidence and opportunities for the future. J Urban Health. 2018;95(1):91–8.
Reddon H, Marshall BDL, Milloy MJ. Elimination of HIV transmission through novel and established prevention strategies among people who inject drugs. Lancet HIV. 2019;6(2):e128–36.
Shoptaw S, Montgomery B, Williams CT, El-Bassel N, Aramrattana A, Metsch L, et al. Not just the needle: the state of HIV-prevention science among substance users and future directions. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2013;63(Suppl 2):S174–8.
Strathdee SA, Shoptaw S, Dyer TP, Quan VM, Aramrattana A. Towards combination HIV prevention for injection drug users: addressing addictophobia, apathy and inattention. Curr Opin HIV AIDS. 2012;7(4):320–5.
CDC. Syringe Services Programs (SSPs). https://www.cdc.gov/ssp/index.html. (2019) Accessed 5 Apr 2021
Allen ST, Grieb SM, O’Rourke A, Yoder R, Planchet E, White RH, et al. Understanding the public health consequences of suspending a rural syringe services program: a qualitative study of the experiences of people who inject drugs. Harm Reduct J. 2019;16(1):33.
Allen ST, Ruiz MS, O’Rourke A. The evidence does not speak for itself: the role of research evidence in shaping policy change for the implementation of publicly funded syringe exchange programs in three US cities. Int J Drug Policy. 2015;26(7):688–95.
Hyshka E, Anderson-Baron J, Karekezi K, Belle-Isle L, Elliott R, Pauly B, et al. Harm reduction in name, but not substance: a comparative analysis of current Canadian provincial and territorial policy frameworks. Harm Reduct J. 2017;14(1):50.
Hyshka E, Anderson-Baron J, Pugh A, Belle-Isle L, Hathaway A, Pauly B, et al. Principles, practice, and policy vacuums: policy actor views on provincial/territorial harm reduction policy in Canada. Int J Drug Policy. 2019;71:142–9.
Nadelmann E, LaSalle L. Two steps forward, one step back: current harm reduction policy and politics in the United States. Harm Reduct J. 2017;14(1):37.
Recommended Best Practices for Effective Syringe Exchange Programs in the United States. NYC Department of Health and Mental Hygiene. https://harmreduction.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/NYC-SAP-Consensus-Statement.pdf (2010). Accessed 24 Jan 2019
Marks C, Borquez A, Jain S, Sun X, Strathdee SA, Garfein RS, et al. Opioid agonist treatment scale-up and the initiation of injection drug use: a dynamic modeling analysis. PLoS Med. 2019;16(11):e1002973.
Atkins A, McClung RP, Kilkenny M, Bernstein K, Willenburg K, Edwards A, et al. Notes from the field: outbreak of human immunodeficiency virus infection among persons who inject drugs—Cabell County, West Virginia, 2018–2019. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2020;69(16):499–500.
Acknowledgements
We are grateful to the collaboration of the Cabell-Huntington Health Department, without whom, this project would not have been possible. We are also grateful for the hard work of the West Virginia COUNTS! research team. Most importantly, we are grateful to our study participants.
Funding
This research was supported by a Grant from the Bloomberg American Health Initiative at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health to Dr. Sean T. Allen. This research has been facilitated by the infrastructure and resources provided by the Johns Hopkins University Center for AIDS Research (P30AI094189) and the District of Columbia Center for AIDS Research (AI117970). STA is also supported by the National Institutes of Health (K01DA046234). The funders had no role in study design, data collection, or in analysis and interpretation of the results, and this paper does not necessarily reflect views or opinions of the funders.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
STA secured funding. STA conceived this research question. STA, RHW, and AO oversaw the study implementation and data collection. STA, KES, and AM conducted the analyses. RHW independently confirmed results. All authors were involved in the interpretation of the findings and manuscript development.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
Nothing to declare.
Ethical Approval
Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health Institutional Review Board reviewed and approved this study.
Consent to Participate
All participants gave verbal informed consent to participate.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Allen, S.T., Schneider, K.E., Mazhnaya, A. et al. Factors Associated with Likelihood of Initiating Others into Injection Drug Use Among People Who Inject Drugs in West Virginia. AIDS Behav 26, 47–56 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10461-021-03325-6
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10461-021-03325-6