Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30550588›Full record

ArticlePloS one2018

Geo-spatial analysis of individual-level needle and syringe coverage in Melbourne, Australia.

Daniel O'Keefe, Anna Wilkinson, Campbell Aitken, Paul Dietze

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
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

4 authors.

Daniel O'KeefeBehaviours and Health Risks, Burnet Institute, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-6799-2372
Anna WilkinsonBehaviours and Health Risks, Burnet Institute, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Campbell AitkenBehaviours and Health Risks, Burnet Institute, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Paul DietzeBehaviours and Health Risks, Burnet Institute, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Distance to health services is known to be negatively associated with usage and needle and syringe programs (NSPs) for people who inject drugs (PWID) are no different. Australia has a mixture of NSP modalities (primary or secondary fixed-site NSPs), which may present unique barriers to access. In this study, we explore 1) the effect of distance to NSPs on individual-level needle and syringe coverage, and 2) differences in coverage dependent on NSP modality. Using data from 219 PWID in an ongoing cohort study in Melbourne, Australia, we measured the straight-line distance from participants' residence to their nearest primary or secondary fixed-site NSP. We analysed the relationship between geographical distance and coverage via regression analysis. The median distance to any type of NSP was 1872 metres. Regardless of service type, 52% of participants lived within 2 kms of a fixed-site NSP and 87% lived within 5 kms. We found no association between distance to NSPs and syringe coverage or a significant difference in coverage by nearest service type. Our findings suggest that the number and distribution of NSPs in Melbourne, Australia caters adequately for the population of PWID.

Indexed as

Needle-Exchange ProgramsAdultAustraliaCohort StudiesFemaleHealth Services AccessibilityHumansMaleNeedlesProgram EvaluationSpatial AnalysisSubstance Abuse, IntravenousSyringes

Identifiers

PMID30550588
PMCPMC6294429

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.