ArticleThe International journal on drug policy2020
Impacts of mandated data collection on syringe distribution programs in the United States.
Article in The International journal on drug policy, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Facilitators and barriers to monitoring and evaluation at syringe service programs.Harm reduction journal · 2024Article
- Baseline prevalence and correlates of HIV and HCV infection among people who inject drugs accessing a syringe services program; Miami, FL.Harm reduction journal · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesSyringe Distribution Programs (SDPs) are a well-proven public health response to the spread of HIV and other blood borne illnesses among people who inject drugs. Many SDPs in the United States are required to collect data from service users as a condition of either legal authorization to operate or as a condition of funding. We sought to describe the prevalence of such externally mandated data collection and impact on service delivery at syringe distribution programs (SDPs) in the United States via an online survey.
methodsOnline survey of SDPs in the US.
results63 SDPs participated. 95•2% collected data about individual service users, with 76•7% being mandated to do so by an external entity as a condition of legal authorization, and/or as a condition of funding. Only 21•7% of mandated respondents received any report back on how data was used. 60•0% reported that data collection acted as a barrier to providing syringes to people who use drugs due to service user fears about loss of anonymity and/or law enforcement. 33•3% reported that the computer literacy and language skills required to collect data meant otherwise appropriate members of the community could not he hired as staff or volunteers.
conclusionsData collection at SDPs may act as a barrier to service provision to populations at high risk for HIV and other blood born viruses, and place considerable logistic burdens on often under-resourced public health programs. Further, it is often unclear to SDPs what purpose their data is being put to. We argue that to be ethical, the purpose of data collection should be carefully considered and regularly reviewed to ensure data is being put to meaningful purpose which is commensurate with impacts on service delivery.
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.