Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23786848›Full record

ArticleHarm reduction journal2013

Establishing the Melbourne Injecting Drug User Cohort Study (MIX): rationale, methods, and baseline and twelve-month follow-up results.

Danielle Horyniak, Peter Higgs, Rebecca Jenkinson, Louisa Degenhardt, Mark Stoové, Thomas Kerr, Matthew Hickman, Campbell Aitken, Paul Dietze

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Harm reduction journal, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 38 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
38citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
5.7field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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

38 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 94 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Observational
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

9 authors at 5 institutions in 3 countries.

Danielle HoryniakCentre for Population Health, Burnet Institute, 85 Commercial Rd, Melbourne, VIC 3004, Australia. danielle@burnet.edu.au
Peter Higgs
Rebecca Jenkinson
Louisa Degenhardt
Mark Stoové
Thomas Kerr
Matthew Hickman
Campbell Aitken
Paul Dietze
Burnet Institute · AUMonash University · AUAIDS Vancouver · CAUniversity of Bristol · GBUNSW Sydney · AU

Funding

Medical Research Council G1000021Medical Research Council MR/J013560/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCohort studies provide an excellent opportunity to monitor changes in behaviour and disease transmission over time. In Australia, cohort studies of people who inject drugs (PWID) have generally focused on older, in-treatment injectors, with only limited outcome measure data collected. In this study we specifically sought to recruit a sample of younger, largely out-of-treatment PWID, in order to study the trajectories of their drug use over time.

methodsRespondent driven sampling, traditional snowball sampling and street outreach methods were used to recruit heroin and amphetamine injectors from one outer-urban and two inner-urban regions of Melbourne, Australia. Information was collected on participants' demographic and social characteristics, drug use characteristics, drug market access patterns, health and social functioning, and health service utilisation. Participants are followed-up on an annual basis.

results688 PWID were recruited into the study. At baseline, the median age of participants was 27.6 years (IQR: 24.4 years - 29.6 years) and two-thirds (67%) were male. Participants reported injecting for a median of 10.2 years (range: 1.5 months - 21.2 years), with 11% having injected for three years or less. Limited education, unemployment and previous incarceration were common. The majority of participants (82%) reported recent heroin injection, and one third reported being enrolled in Opioid Substitution Therapy (OST) at recruitment. At 12 months follow-up 458 participants (71% of eligible participants) were retained in the study. There were few differences in demographic and drug-use characteristics of those lost to follow-up compared with those retained in the study, with attrition significantly associated with recruitment at an inner-urban location, male gender, and providing incomplete contact information at baseline.

conclusionsOur efforts to recruit a sample of largely out-of-treatment PWID were limited by drug market characteristics at the time, where fluctuating heroin availability has led to large numbers of PWID accessing low-threshold OST. Nevertheless, this study of Australian injectors will provide valuable data on the natural history of drug use, along with risk and protective factors for adverse health outcomes associated with injecting drug use. Comprehensive follow-up procedures have led to good participant retention and limited attrition bias.

Indexed as

AdultFemaleHumansLongitudinal StudiesMaleOpiate Substitution TreatmentOpioid-Related DisordersPilot ProjectsSubstance Abuse, IntravenousSurveys and QuestionnairesVictoriaYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID23786848
PMCPMC3691755
OpenAlexW2098768993

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.