Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2007 Apr;102(4):638-46.
doi: 10.1111/j.1360-0443.2006.01741.x. Epub 2007 Feb 6.

Examination of the association between syringe exchange program (SEP) dispensation policy and SEP client-level syringe coverage among injection drug users

Affiliations

Examination of the association between syringe exchange program (SEP) dispensation policy and SEP client-level syringe coverage among injection drug users

Ricky N Bluthenthal et al. Addiction. 2007 Apr.

Abstract

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.

PubMed Disclaimer

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources