ArticleCritical social policy2016
The case of a needle exchange policy debate in Fresno, California.
Article in Critical social policy, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Dealing with low access to harm reduction: a qualitative study of the strategies and risk environments of people who use drugs in a small Swedish city.Harm reduction journal · 2022Article
- Assessing pharmacy student experience with, knowledge of and attitudes towards harm reduction: illuminating barriers to pharmacist-led harm reduction.Harm reduction journal · 2018Article
- Pharmacists' role in harm reduction: a survey assessment of Kentucky community pharmacists' willingness to participate in syringe/needle exchange.Harm reduction journal · 2018Article
- Qualitative case study of needle exchange programs in the Central Appalachian region of the United States.PloS one · 2018Article
- The Significance of Harm Reduction as a Social and Health Care Intervention for Injecting Drug Users: An Exploratory Study of a Needle Exchange Program in Fresno, California.Social work in public healthArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
Abstract
Needle exchange is one of the most effective public health interventions to prevent the transmission of infectious disease by injecting drug users. Despite the preponderance of scientific evidence, US federal funding for needle exchange programmes has been banned since 1988. This prohibition has resulted in the lack of a centralised policy on needle exchange and has given birth to a patchwork of diverse practices and regulations throughout the nation. This article focuses on how various local players interpreted the meaning of needle exchange through the debate on an unauthorised site in Fresno, California. In exploring a specific context, this study delineates the narratives used to outline competing views about needle exchange and to offer a snapshot of how the issue of widespread injecting drug use was handled in an impoverished and socially conservative region of the United States.
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.