ArticleAustralian and New Zealand journal of public health2014
Hepatitis C testing and status among opioid substitution treatment clients in New South Wales.
Article in Australian and New Zealand journal of public health, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Investigating hepatitis C screening among people receiving opioid agonist treatment: A retrospective audit study.Journal of infection prevention · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 6 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundIn Australia about half of the people who inject drugs (PWID) are hepatitis C (HCV) antibody positive (anti-HCV+). The prevalence among opioid substitution treatment (OST) clients specifically is unclear, despite OST clinics being a potential setting for HCV care. This study aimed to report the prevalence of HCV among a large sample of NSW OST clients, understand whether HCV testing is translating into knowledge of status, and identify the correlates of inaccurate self-reporting of HCV status.
methodsParticipants completed an interview that included self-reported HCV status. Participants also provided a blood sample that was tested for HCV IgG antibodies, and for viral load using a quantitative real-time reverse-transcriptase polymerase chain reaction. Valid interviews and viable blood sample were provided by 1,484 participants. Logistic regression modelling was used to identify independent predictors of knowledge of HCV antibody status.
resultsOverall, 84% of participants were anti-HCV+. Of these, 65% were RNA+. Four per cent of anti-HCV negative participants were RNA+. One-quarter of anti-HCV+ participants did not know their status or reported it incorrectly, compared with 14.5% of anti-HCV negative participants.
conclusionThe prevalence of HCV in this sample was higher than that found among other samples of people who inject drugs, suggesting the need for greater prevention efforts with OST clients. Anti-HCV+ individuals are less accurate at reporting their HCV status than those who are anti-HCV-. Inaccurate knowledge is associated with different variables for anti-HCV+ vs. anti-HCV- individuals. There are opportunities to improve knowledge of HCV status and to therefore improve health outcomes and reduce transmission among this at-risk population.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.