Evidence map›Paper›PMID 12930884›Full record

ArticleJournal of urban health : bulletin of the New York Academy of Medicine2003

Preventing HIV in injection drug users: choosing the best mix of interventions for the population.

Amy R Wilson, James G Kahn

Open access · bronzeAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of urban health : bulletin of the New York Academy of Medicine, 2003. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.6field-weighted citation impact, top 16% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 18 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. S4HARA: System for HIV/AIDS resource allocation.Cost effectiveness and resource allocation : C/E · 2008
    Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Amy R WilsonDivision of Health Services Research and Policy, School of Public Health, University of Minnesota, Twin Cities, MN, USA. arwilson@umn.edu
James G Kahn
University of Minnesota · US

Funding

Making Better Decisions: Policy Modeling for AIDS and Drug AbuseR01DA015612 · NIDA · STANFORD UNIVERSITY · PI OWENS, DOUGLAS K · 2002 to 2017
$9.4M
PUBLIC HLTH IMPACT AND COST EFFECTIVENESS OF HIV INTERVR01DA009531 · NIDA · YALE UNIVERSITY · PI KAPLAN, EDWARD H · 1996 to 2000
$753k
NIDA NIH HHS R01 DA09531NIDA NIH HHS R01 DA15612
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Injection drug users (IDUs) transmit the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) via both needle sharing and sex. This analysis explores the effects of population risk behaviors, intervention effectiveness, intervention costs, and budget and capacity constraints when allocating funds between two prevention programs to maximize effectiveness. The two interventions, methadone maintenance and street outreach, address different types of risk behavior. We developed a model of the spread of HIV and divided IDUs into susceptible (uninfected) persons and infective persons and separately portrayed sex and injection risk. We simulated the epidemic in San Francisco, California, and New York City for periods from the mid-1980s to the mid-1990s and incorporated the behavioral effects of the two interventions. We used the simulation to find the allocation of a fixed budget to the two interventions that averted the greatest number of infections in the IDUs and their noninjecting sex partners. We assumed that interventions have increasing marginal costs. In the epidemic scenarios, our analysis found that the best allocation nearly always involves spending as much as possible on street outreach. This result is largely insensitive to variations in epidemic scenario, intervention efficacy, and cost. However, the absolute and relative benefits of the best allocation varied. In mid-1990s San Francisco, maximizing spending on outreach averted 3.5% of total HIV infections expected and 10 times the 0.3% from maximizing spending on treatment. In late 1980s New York City, the difference is five-fold (2.6% vs. 0.44%, respectively). Our analyses suggest that, even though prevention works better in higher risk scenarios, the choice of intervention mix is more important in the lower risk scenarios. Models and analyses such as those presented here may help decision makers adapt individual prevention programs to their own communities and to reallocate resources among programs to reflect the evolution of their own epidemics.

Indexed as

FemaleHIV InfectionsHIV SeroprevalenceHumansMaleModels, EconometricNeedle SharingNew York CityPreventive Health ServicesQuality-Adjusted Life YearsResource AllocationRisk-TakingSan FranciscoSensitivity and SpecificitySubstance Abuse, Intravenous

Identifiers

PMID12930884
PMCPMC3455970
OpenAlexW2092380681

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.