Open Access
Open Peer Review

This article has Open Peer Review reports available.

How does Open Peer Review work?

Elevated HIV risk behaviour among recently incarcerated injection drug users in a Canadian setting: a longitudinal analysis

  • M-J S Milloy1, 2,
  • Jane Buxton2, 3,
  • Evan Wood1, 4,
  • Kathy Li1,
  • Julio SG Montaner1, 4 and
  • Thomas Kerr1, 4Email author
BMC Public Health20099:156

DOI: 10.1186/1471-2458-9-156

Received: 12 November 2008

Accepted: 27 May 2009

Published: 27 May 2009

Abstract

Background

While incarceration has consistently been associated with a higher risk of HIV infection for individuals who use injection drugs (IDU), the effect of incarceration on the post-release risk environment remains poorly described. We sought to assess the impact of incarceration on risk factors for HIV infection after release from prison in a sample of active IDU in Vancouver, Canada.

Methods

Using a prospective cohort of community-recruited IDU followed from May 1, 1996 to November 30, 2005, we examined contingency tables and performed linear growth curve analyses to assess changes in the prevalence of independent risk factors for HIV infection from before to after a period of incarceration among participants reporting incarceration and a matched control group.

Results

Of the 1603 participants followed-up over the study period, 147 (9.2%) were eligible for an analysis of post-incarceration risk behaviours and 742 (46.3%) were used as matched controls. Significant differences were found in one or both groups for the prevalence of frequent cocaine injection, requiring help injecting, binge drug use, residence in the HIV outbreak epicentre, sex-trade participation and syringe sharing (all p < 0.05) after incarceration. In linear growth curve adjusted for age, gender and ethnicity, syringe sharing was significantly more common in those recently released from prison (p = 0.03) than in the control group.

Conclusion

In a sample of Canadian IDU, we did not observe any effect of incarceration on the prevalence of several behaviours that are risk factors for HIV infection, including intensity of drug use or participation in the sex trade. However, those recently released from prison were more likely to report syringe sharing that those in a matched control group.

Background

Incarceration is common among injection drug users (IDU) and has consistently been associated with drug-related harms, especially infection with blood-borne pathogens like hepatitis C and HIV. [13] While many IDU cease drug use upon imprisonment,[4, 5] those that persist do so in environments of elevated risk. In many penal facilities, including those in the United States, Canada, Australia and the United Kingdom, harm reduction measures, such as the distribution of sterile syringes, are unavailable and the possession of injection equipment is outlawed. [6, 7] Epidemiological surveys of prisoners in a variety of settings, including the United Kingdom, [811] Greece[12] and Thailand[13, 14] identified endemic use of contaminated contraband syringes. Contact tracing investigations found this dynamic fuelled prison-based HIV outbreaks in Australia,[15] Russia,[16] Lithuania[17] and Scotland. [1]

Although the link between imprisonment and HIV infection is robust and well described, the possible effects of incarceration on post-release behaviours of IDU and their HIV risk environment remain largely undetermined. [18] Findings from related inquiries into sexual risk factors for ex-prisoners suggest the experience of incarceration, transition to non-correctional settings and reintegration into communities all influence post-release behaviours. [1921] While these studies are primarily concerned with individual-level sexual risks, newly-released prisoners often face difficulties finding employment,[22, 23] securing housing,[22, 24] reestablishing social supports,[25, 26] accessing healthcare,[22, 27] and enduring discrimination,[28] and these factors are known to structure HIV risk. [29, 30] However, very little attention has been paid to the post-release trajectory of IDU or the specific determinants of their risk environment.

We are unaware of any analyses that identify the effect of incarceration on the risk factors for HIV infection following release from prison or analyses that describe the specific individual, social and structural determinants of the post-release risk environment for IDU. Thus, in the current analysis, we sought to determine the possible effect of imprisonment on the post-release risk environment by identifying the prevalence of independent risk factors for HIV infection before and after a period of incarceration as compared to a non-incarcerated matched control group.

Methods

In May 1996, the Vancouver Injection Drug User Study (VIDUS) began recruiting IDU through self-referral and street outreach. This prospective cohort study has been previously been described in detail. [31] In brief, individuals were eligible for recruitment if they had injected drugs at least once in the previous month, resided in greater Vancouver and provided written informed consent. At baseline and every six months, participants provide venous blood samples and complete an interviewer-administered questionnaire. This structured questionnaire elicits demographic data, information about recent drug use patterns, HIV risk behaviours, encounters with the criminal justice system and experiences in addiction treatment and other health-care settings. All participants are given a $20 stipend at each visit. This study has received approval from the Providence Health Care/University of British Columbia Research Ethics Board.

To inform our analysis of HIV risk factors, we first identified all participants who reported being incarcerated in a municipal jail, provincial prison or federal penitentiary overnight or longer since initiating injection drug use, a definition consistent with previous analyses. [32, 33] Among these individuals, only those who had completed a study visit both before and after this incarceration episode were eligible for an analysis of post-release risk behaviour. Using frequency matching, participants who had completed identical follow-up visits and did not report recent incarceration at all during this period were included in the control group. (Controls could have been incarcerated at other times during the follow-up period.)

We then examined if there were significant differences between the two groups with regards to age, gender and ethnicity (Aboriginal vs. non-Aboriginal) using χ2 tests and Wilcoxon rank-sum tests. We repeated these tests to compare individuals included as cases or controls to participants not included in the final analytic sample.

Next, we selected explanatory variables that had previously been identified as implicated in the transmission of HIV in this setting: daily cocaine injection (yes vs. no);[34] daily injection of a mixture of heroin and cocaine ("speedball") (yes vs. no);[35] requiring help injecting (yes vs. no);[36, 37] binge drug use (yes vs. no);[38] unstable housing (yes vs. no);[34] having sought and been denied addiction treatment (yes vs. no);[39] residence in the city's HIV epicenter, the Downtown Eastside (DTES) (yes vs. no);[31] public drug use (yes vs. no);[40] participation in the sex trade (yes vs. no);[36] and syringe sharing (yes vs. no). We also included consistent condom use with regular sexual partners (yes vs. no) and consistent condom use with casual sexual partners (yes vs. no). As in previous work, frequent drug use was defined as once or more per day. [41] Unstable housing was defined as living in a single-room occupancy hotel room, a shelter, or being homeless. [41] All variables referred to the previous six months except unstable housing, which referred to current conditions.

To test for differences between pre- and post-incarceration periods between those incarcerated and the control group, we used McNemar's test to examine the proportion of individuals reporting each risk factor in each group. To test for differences over time and between groups, we constructed linear growth curve models for each risk factor in which a statistically significant trend was observed in one or both groups. Commonly used in longitudinal observational research, the linear growth curve technique enables the identification of changes over time by using an interaction term in the model to determine if those changes are significant. [42, 43] In each linear growth curve model, the slope represents the differences in outcomes by group (incarcerated vs. control) over time (before vs. after); the p-value represents the significance of the interaction term. In addition, to control for potential confounding, an a priori model fitting approach was used in which each model was adjusted for age, gender and ethnicity (Aboriginal vs. non-Aboriginal). All p-values were two-sided.

Results

Between May 1, 1996 and November 30, 2005, 1,603 participants were recruited, including 584 (36.4%) women and 435 (27.1%) people who reported Aboriginal ancestry. At baseline, the median age of the participants was 33.0 (IQR = 26.0–40.0). The proportion of respondents at baseline and each follow-up period who reported incarceration in the previous six months is presented in Fig 1. Among the study participants, 147 (9.2%) individuals reported an incarceration event and completed a follow-up survey both before and after the event. Of the remainder, 742 (46.3%) did not report an incarceration event at identical follow-up periods; they were included in the matched control group. Participants in the matched control group had a median age of 35.5 (IQR: 28.8 – 41.3), significantly older than the incarceration group (median age: 33.4, IQR: 26.3 – 39.0, p-value < 0.01). The groups did not differ significantly with respect to gender or ethnicity. In tests comparing individuals included as cases or controls to cohort participants not included in the analyses, we found those individuals not included were significantly younger (median age at baseline of 30.0, IQR = 23.9 – 37.7 compared to median age at baseline of 35.1, IQR = 28.0 – 41.1, p < 0.001) and more likely to be female (39.2% compared to 32.9%, p = 0.01). The observed difference in the proportions of individuals reporting aboriginal ancestry (24.6% among non-included compared to 29.1%) was not statistically significant (p = 0.051).
https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1186%2F1471-2458-9-156/MediaObjects/12889_2008_Article_1559_Fig1_HTML.jpg
Figure 1

"Prevalence of individuals reporting incarceration in the previous six months at baseline and each follow-up period in VIDUS".

The proportion of each group reporting HIV risk factors in each period, as well as the result of McNemar's test assessing whether the proportions within groups were equal, is reported in Table 1. No significant differences between the before and after period were observed for either the incarcerated or control group in the prevalence of frequent speedball injection, living in unstable housing, being denied addiction treatment, public drug use or consistent condom use with regular or casual sexual partners (all p > 0.05). Thus, these factors were not included in the linear growth curve analyses. For frequent cocaine injection, a significant decrease was observed in the control group (p < 0.001); the decrease among the incarcerated group was not statistically significant. A statistically significant decrease in needing help injecting was observed in both the incarcerated and control group (both p < 0.001). For binge drug use, a statistically significant decrease was observed in both the incarcerated (p < 0.005) and control (p < 0.001) groups. Fewer individuals in both the incarcerated (p = 0.016) and control (p = 0.011) groups reported living in the DTES. A significantly lower proportion of individuals reported participating in the sex trade in the incarcerated (p = 0.012) and matched (p < 0.001) groups. A statistically significant decrease in the prevalence of syringe sharing was observed in the non-incarcerated group (p < 0.001); the decrease in the incarcerated group was not statistically significant (p = 0.398).
Table 1

Risk factors for HIV infection among incarcerated cases (n = 147) before and after a period of incarceration compared to matched controls (n = 742)

Risk factor

Before

After

p-value*

 

n

%

n

%

 

Frequent cocaine injection

     

   Incarcerated

46

31.3

37

25.2

0.170

   Matched control

205

27.6

150

20.2

< 0.001

Frequent speedball injection

     

   Incarcerated group

12

8.2

17

11.6

0.297

   Matched control

70

9.4

67

9.0

0.748

Need help injecting

     

   Incarcerated group

46

31.3

27

18.4

0.001

   Matched control

202

27.2

142

19.1

< 0.001

Binge drug use

     

   Incarcerated group

66

44.9

45

30.6

0.005

   Matched control

271

36.5

210

28.3

< 0.001

Unstable housing

     

   Incarcerated group

100

68.0

101

68.7

0.889

   Matched control

418

56.3

414

55.8

0.806

Denied addiction treatment

     

   Incarcerated group

24

16.3

19

12.9

0.411

   Matched control

95

12.8

81

10.9

0.230

Resident in the DTES

     

   Incarcerated group

96

65.3

78

53.1

0.016

   Matched control

377

50.8

343

46.2

0.011

Public drug use

     

   Incarcerated group

32

21.8

22

15.0

0.114

   Matched control

116

15.6

110

14.8

0.602

Sex trade participation

     

   Incarcerated group

36

24.5

25

17.0

0.012

   Matched control

154

20.8

116

15.6

< 0.001

Syringe sharing

     

   Incarcerated

38

25.9

33

22.5

0.398

   Matched control

231

31.3

133

17.9

< 0.001

Condoms w/casual partners

     

   Incarcerated

27

18.4

23

15.7

0.505

   Matched control

116

15.6

103

13.9

0.312

Condoms w/regular partners

     

   Incarcerated

30

20.4

28

19.1

0.739

   Matched control

133

17.9

113

15.2

0.121

* p-value associated with McNemar's test of equality

The results of the linear growth curve analyses are presented in Table 2. In models adjusted for age, gender and Aboriginal ethnicity, no significant differences were found in the prevalence of frequent cocaine injection (p = 0.737); needing help injecting (p = 0.201); binge drug use (p = 0.273); living in the DTES (p = 0.105) or participation in the sex trade (p = 0.623) before and after a period of incarceration compared to a matched control group. However, in the linear growth curve analysis of syringe sharing, a significant difference (p = 0.033) was observed between the slopes for the incarcerated and control groups, indicating a significant decrease in prevalence in the control group but no significant decrease in the incarcerated group.
Table 2

Linear growth curve analyses of HIV risk factors modelled as outcome, adjusted for age, gender and ethnicity (Aboriginal vs. non-Aboriginal)

Risk factor

Slope (95% Confidence Interval)

p-value

Frequent cocaine injection

  

   Incarcerated

-0.342 (-0.792, 0.107)

0.737

   Matched control

-0.403 (-0.595, -0.212)

 

Need help injecting

  

   Incarcerated

-0.777 (-1.218, -0.335)

0.201

   Matched control

-0.467 (-0.665, -0.269)

 

Binge drug use

  

   Incarcerated

-0.630 (-1.047, -0.212)

0.273

   Matched control

-0.373 (-0.584, -0.162)

 

Resident in the DTES

  

   Incarcerated

-0.574 (-1.007, -0.142)

0.105

   Matched control

-0.185 (-0.328, -0.042)

 

Sex trade participation

  

   Incarcerated

-0.575 (-1.041, -0.109)

0.623

   Matched control

-0.398 (-0.609, -0.186)

 

Syringe sharing

  

   Incarcerated

-0.217 (-0.657, 0.224)

0.033

   Matched control

-0.722 (-0.933, -0.512)

 

Discussion

In this analysis, we found individual, social and structural risk factors for HIV infection were common among active IDU both before and after periods of incarceration. In a linear growth curve analysis, individuals recently released from prison were significantly more likely to report sharing contaminated sharing syringes as compared to individuals who did not report incarceration.

This finding sheds further light on the relationship between incarceration and the ongoing HIV epidemic among IDU in this setting. Both qualitative[44] and quantitative [3234] findings from two prospective cohorts of IDU in Vancouver have confirmed the link between incarceration and an elevated risk of infection. [31, 34] In a longitudinal analysis of incident cases, individuals reporting incarceration were more than twice as likely to become infected with HIV;[34] incarceration was also independently associated with syringe sharing. [32, 33] As a result of these risks and the high prevalence of incarceration among local IDU,[32] 21% of HIV cases in the Vancouver outbreak are estimated to be the result of imprisonment. [45]

Although we were unable to determine the exact nature of the relationship, these findings suggest that some aspect of the environment or experience of incarceration leads to a greater risk of syringe sharing once individuals are released from custody. Many previous analyses from this setting and others have identified a greater risk of syringe sharing among imprisoned individuals compared with analagous samples of IDU, especially in correctional environments where access to sterile syringes is forbidden. [10, 32] In the current analysis, perhaps individuals exposed to correctional environments are normalized to the practice while incarcerated and continue once released. [44] It is also possible that the uncertainty and instability that characterizes the immediate post-release period interrupts access to or use of harm reduction services. Among non-incarcerated individuals, the decreased level of syringe sharing observed might be related to the expansion of opioid substitution therapies and other harm reduction services in this setting, including the opening of a supervised injection facility. [46] Given the observational nature of our analyses, our current findings are exploratory and should spur further research to evaluate these hypotheses pertaining to post-release sharing.

To our knowledge, this is the first analysis to evaluate the effect of incarceration on post-release rates of syringe sharing. Two previous studies measured the prevalence of syringe sharing following release from prison in Bangkok, Thailand[2] and New South Wales, Australia. [47] In Thailand, HIV-positive cases were significantly more likely (AOR = 2.9, 95% Confidence Interval: 1.7 – 5.0) to report borrowing syringes in the month following incarceration compared to HIV-negative controls. In Australia, a larger proportion of HIV-positive cases (20%) than HIV-negative controls (15%) reported syringe sharing after discharge from prison. However, in neither study could the effect of incarceration be determined as a non-incarcerated control group was not included; the comparison group was constructed by serostatus. In our study, the use of a non-incarcerated control group allowed the identification of the independent effect of imprisonment.

We did not observe an effect of imprisonment on any of the risk factors also classified as crimes in our setting, including participation in the sex trade and illicit drug use. This is in line with previous analyses that found many IDU resume drug use following release[48] and that there is no empirical evidence to support the use of enforcement to reduce the population prevalence of drug use. [49]

These findings suggest a need for a number of policy reforms. As urged by other authors, we suggest that political and criminal justice interventions that seek to reduce drug use through law enforcement should be considered in light of our findings and others linking imprisonment and a greater likelihood of HIV risk behaviours. [4, 32, 33, 44] On a practical level, federal and provincial prison authorities should expand the in-prison availability of methadone maintenance therapy, recently shown in a randomised control trial to improve treatment and drug-use outcomes for recently-released prisoners,[50] and promote post-release support and referral to harm reduction opportunities, including needle exchange, addictions treatment and the city's supervised injection facility.

This study has methodological limitations to consider when evaluating the findings. First, VIDUS is not a random sample, although it is believed to be representative of the local population of IDU. Second, although several of the surveyed behaviours may be under- or over-reported due to social desirability, we do not believe they were differentially reported by incarceration history. Although information on HIV serostatus is available for all participants, the number of incident infections during the study period among individuals included as cases or controls is too low to allow for a valid statistical analysis; thus, we have used measures of HIV risk to evalute the possible effects of incarceration on post-release transmission patterns. Most importantly, there may be differences between recently incarcerated and non-incarcerated IDU that we were unable to account for in multivariate analyses. Finally, we were not able to include the length or location (i.e., municipal, provincial or federal) of incarceration events, nor the number of incarceration events lifetime or during the study period, in these analyses.

Conclusion

To conclude, we evaluated the prevalence of independent risk factors for HIV infection before and after incarceration among active IDU, and, after comparison with a matched control group, observed a statistically significant relationship between syringe sharing and the post-release period. We did not find any association between incarceration and the frequency of other individual, social and structural factors, including those also defined as crimes. These findings point to the need for the ongoing development of programs both within and following prison that aim to reduce risk behaviour among IDU exposed to correctional environments.

Declarations

Acknowledgements

We would particularly like to thank the VIDUS participants for their willingness to be included in the study, as well as current and past VIDUS investigators and staff. We would specifically like to thank Deborah Graham, Tricia Collingham, Leslie Rae, Caitlin Johnston, Steve Kain, and Calvin Lai for their research and administrative assistance.

The study was supported by the US National Institutes of Health and the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. Thomas Kerr is supported by the Michael Smith Foundation for Health Research and the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR). M-J Milloy is supported by a Canadian Graduate Scholarship doctoral research award from CIHR. These funding bodies played no role in study design; the collection, analysis and interpretation of data; the writing of the manuscript or the decision to submit the manuscript for publication.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
British Columbia Centre for Excellence in HIV/AIDS, St. Paul's Hospital
(2)
School of Population and Public Health, University of British Columbia
(3)
Department of Epidemiology, British Columbia Centre for Disease Control
(4)
Department of Medicine, University of British Columbia

References

  1. Taylor A, Goldberg D, Emslie J, Wrench J, Gruer L, Cameron S, Black J, Davis B, McGregor J, Follett E: Outbreak of HIV infection in a Scottish prison. BMJ (Clinical research ed). 1995, 310 (6975): 289-292.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  2. Buavirat A, Page-Shafer K, van Griensven GJ, Mandel JS, Evans J, Chuaratanaphong J, Chiamwongpat S, Sacks R, Moss A: Risk of prevalent HIV infection associated with incarceration among injecting drug users in Bangkok, Thailand: case-control study. BMJ (Clinical research ed). 2003, 326 (7384): 308-10.1136/bmj.326.7384.308.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  3. Werb D, Kerr T, Small W, Li K, Montaner J, Wood E: HIV risks associated with incarceration among injection drug users: implications for prison-based public health strategies. Journal of public health (Oxford, England). 2008, 30 (2): 126-132. 10.1093/pubmed/fdn021.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  4. Calzavara LM, Burchell AN, Schlossberg J, Myers T, Escobar M, Wallace E, Major C, Strike C, Millson M: Prior opiate injection and incarceration history predict injection drug use among inmates. Addiction (Abingdon, England). 2003, 98 (9): 1257-1265.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  5. Shewan D, Gemmell M, Davies JB: Behavioural change amongst drug injectors in Scottish prisons. Social science & medicine (1982). 1994, 39 (11): 1585-1586.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  6. HIV in prisons: A reader with particular relevance to the newly independent states. Edited by: Bollini P. 2001, Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization
  7. Jürgens R: Interventions to address HIV in prisons: Needle and syringe programmes and decontamination strategies. 2007, Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization/UNODC/UNAIDSGoogle Scholar
  8. Carvell AL, Hart GJ: Risk behaviours for HIV infection among drug users in prison. BMJ (Clinical research ed). 1990, 300 (6736): 1383-1384. 10.1136/bmj.300.6736.1383.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  9. Covell RG, Frischer M, Taylor A, Goldberg D, Green S, McKeganey N, Bloor M: Prison experience of injecting drug users in Glasgow. Drug and alcohol dependence. 1993, 32 (1): 9-14. 10.1016/0376-8716(93)90017-K.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Strang J, Gossop M, Heuston J, Green J, Whiteley C, Maden A: Persistence of drug use during imprisonment: relationship of drug type, recency of use and severity of dependence to use of heroin, cocaine and amphetamine in prison. Addiction (Abingdon, England). 2006, 101 (8): 1125-1132.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  11. Weild AR, Gill ON, Bennett D, Livingstone SJ, Parry JV, Curran L: Prevalence of HIV, hepatitis B, and hepatitis C antibodies in prisoners in England and Wales: a national survey. Communicable disease and public health/PHLS. 2000, 3 (2): 121-126.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Koulierakis G, Gnardellis C, Agrafiotis D, Power KG: HIV risk behaviour correlates among injecting drug users in Greek prisons. Addiction (Abingdon, England). 2000, 95 (8): 1207-1216.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  13. Choopanya K, Des Jarlais DC, Vanichseni S, Kitayaporn D, Mock PA, Raktham S, Hireanras K, Heyward WL, Sujarita S, Mastro TD: Incarceration and risk for HIV infection among injection drug users in Bangkok. Journal of acquired immune deficiency syndromes (1999). 2002, 29 (1): 86-94.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  14. Thaisri H, Lerwitworapong J, Vongsheree S, Sawanpanyalert P, Chadbanchachai C, Rojanawiwat A, Kongpromsook W, Paungtubtim W, Sri-ngam P, Jaisue R: HIV infection and risk factors among Bangkok prisoners, Thailand: a prospective cohort study. BMC infectious diseases. 2003, 3: 25-10.1186/1471-2334-3-25.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  15. Dolan K, Hall W, Wodak A, Gaughwin M: Evidence of HIV transmission in an Australian prison. The Medical journal of Australia. 1994, 160 (11): 734-PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Bobrik A, Danishevski K, Eroshina K, McKee M: Prison health in Russia: the larger picture. Journal of public health policy. 2005, 26 (1): 30-59. 10.1057/palgrave.jphp.3200002.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. MacDonald M: A study of health care provision, existing drug services and strategies operating in prisons in ten countries from central and eastern Europe. 2005, Helsinki, Finland: Heuni PublishersGoogle Scholar
  18. Maru DS, Basu S, Altice FL: HIV control efforts should directly address incarceration. The Lancet infectious diseases. 2007, 7 (9): 568-569. 10.1016/S1473-3099(07)70190-1.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Grinstead OA, Faigeles B, Comfort M, Seal D, Nealey-Moore J, Belcher L, Morrow K: HIV, STD, and hepatitis risk to primary female partners of men being released from prison. Women & health. 2005, 41 (2): 63-80. 10.1300/J013v41n02_05.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  20. Khan MR, Wohl DA, Weir SS, Adimora AA, Moseley C, Norcott K, Duncan J, Kaufman JS, Miller WC: Incarceration and risky sexual partnerships in a southern US city. J Urban Health. 2008, 85 (1): 100-113. 10.1007/s11524-007-9237-8.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Seal DW, Eldrige GD, Kacanek D, Binson D, Macgowan RJ: A longitudinal, qualitative analysis of the context of substance use and sexual behavior among 18- to 29-year-old men after their release from prison. Social science & medicine (1982). 2007, 65 (11): 2394-2406.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  22. Reducing re-offending by ex-prisoners. 2002, London, England: Social Exclusion Unit, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister
  23. Bloom D: Employment-focused programs for ex-prisoners: What have we learned, what are we learning, and where should we go from here?. 2006, Ann Arbor, Michigan, United States: Gerald R. Ford School of Public Policy, University of MichiganGoogle Scholar
  24. Baldry E, McDonnell D, Mapleston P, Peeters M: Ex-prisoners and accomodation: What bearing do different forms of housing have on social reintegration of ex-prisoners?. Housing, crime and stronger communities conference: 2002; Melbourne, Australia. 2002Google Scholar
  25. Travis J, Solomon AL, Waul M: From prison to home: The dimensions and consequences of prisoner reentry. 2001, New York City, New York, United States: The Urban InstituteGoogle Scholar
  26. Visher C, Travis J: Transitions from prison to community: Understanding the individual pathways. Annual reviews in sociology. 2003, 29: 89-113. 10.1146/annurev.soc.29.010202.095931.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  27. Visher C, Kachnowski V, La Vigne N, Travis J: Baltimore prisoners' experiences returning home. 2004, Washington, DC, United States: The Urban InstituteView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  28. After prison: Roadblocks to reentry. 2007, New York City, New York, United States: Legal Action Center
  29. Rhodes T: The 'risk environment': a framework for understanding and reducing drug-related harm. International Journal of Drug Policy. 2002, 13: 85-94. 10.1016/S0955-3959(02)00007-5.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  30. Rhodes T, Singer M, Bourgois P, Friedman SR, Strathdee SA: The social structural production of HIV risk among injecting drug users. Social science & medicine (1982). 2005, 61 (5): 1026-1044.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  31. Strathdee SA, Patrick DM, Currie SL, Cornelisse PG, Rekart ML, Montaner JS, Schechter MT, O'Shaughnessy MV: Needle exchange is not enough: lessons from the Vancouver injecting drug use study. AIDS (London, England). 1997, 11 (8): F59-65.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  32. Milloy M-J, Wood E, Small W, Tyndall MW, Lai C, Montaner JS, Kerr T: Incarceration experiences in a cohort of active injection drug users. Drug and alcohol review. 2008, 27 (6): 693-699. 10.1080/09595230801956157.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Wood E, Li K, Small W, Montaner JS, Schechter MT, Kerr T: Recent incarceration independently associated with syringe sharing by injection drug users. Public Health Rep. 2005, 120 (2): 150-156.PubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  34. Tyndall MW, Currie S, Spittal P, Li K, Wood E, O'Shaughnessy MV, Schechter MT: Intensive injection cocaine use as the primary risk factor in the Vancouver HIV-1 epidemic. AIDS (London, England). 2003, 17 (6): 887-893.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  35. Craib KJ, Spittal PM, Wood E, Laliberte N, Hogg RS, Li K, Heath K, Tyndall MW, O'Shaughnessy MV, Schechter MT: Risk factors for elevated HIV incidence among Aboriginal injection drug users in Vancouver. Cmaj. 2003, 168 (1): 19-24.PubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  36. Spittal PM, Craib KJ, Wood E, Laliberte N, Li K, Tyndall MW, O'Shaughnessy MV, Schechter MT: Risk factors for elevated HIV incidence rates among female injection drug users in Vancouver. Cmaj. 2002, 166 (7): 894-899.PubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  37. Wood E, Spittal PM, Kerr T, Small W, Tyndall MW, O'Shaughnessy MV, Schechter MT: Requiring help injecting as a risk factor for HIV infection in the Vancouver epidemic: implications for HIV prevention. Canadian journal of public health. 2003, 94 (5): 355-359.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Miller CL, Kerr T, Frankish JC, Spittal PM, Li K, Schechter MT, Wood E: Binge drug use independently predicts HIV seroconversion among injection drug users: implications for public health strategies. Substance use & misuse. 2006, 41 (2): 199-210. 10.1080/10826080500391795.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  39. Wood E, Spittal P, Li K, Kerr T, Miller CL, Hogg RS, Montaner JS, Schechter MT: Inability to access addiction treatment and risk of HIV infection among injection drug users. Journal of acquired immune deficiency syndromes (1999). 2004, 36 (2): 750-754. 10.1097/00126334-200406010-00013.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  40. McKnight I, Maas B, Wood E, Tyndall MW, Small W, Lai C, Montaner JS, Kerr T: Factors associated with public injecting among users of Vancouver's supervised injection facility. The American journal of drug and alcohol abuse. 2007, 33 (2): 319-325. 10.1080/00952990601175102.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. Wood E, Tyndall MW, Spittal PM, Li K, Kerr T, Hogg RS, Montaner JS, O'Shaughnessy MV, Schechter MT: Unsafe injection practices in a cohort of injection drug users in Vancouver: could safer injecting rooms help?. Cmaj. 2001, 165 (4): 405-410.PubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  42. Hoffmann JP, Su SS, Pach A: Changes in network characteristics and HIV risk behavior among injection drug users. Drug and alcohol dependence. 1997, 46 (1–2): 41-51. 10.1016/S0376-8716(97)00038-0.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. Vlahov D, Safaien M, Lai S, Strathdee SA, Johnson L, Sterling T, Celentano DD: Sexual and drug risk-related behaviours after initiating highly active antiretroviral therapy among injection drug users. AIDS (London, England). 2001, 15 (17): 2311-2316.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  44. Small W, Kain S, Laliberte N, Schechter MT, O'Shaughnessy MV, Spittal PM: Incarceration, addiction and harm reduction: inmates experience injecting drugs in prison. Substance use & misuse. 2005, 40 (6): 831-843. 10.1081/JA-200030795.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  45. Hagan H: The relevance of attributable risk measures to HIV prevention planning. AIDS (London, England). 2003, 17 (6): 911-913.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  46. Kerr T, Tyndall M, Li K, Montaner J, Wood E: Safer injection facility use and syringe sharing in injection drug users. Lancet. 2005, 366 (9482): 316-318. 10.1016/S0140-6736(05)66475-6.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. Dolan K, Wodak A, Hall W, Gaughwin M, Rae F: HIV risk behavour of IDUs before, during and after imprisonment in New South Wales. Addiction research. 1996, 4: 151-160. 10.3109/16066359609010754.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  48. Springer SA, Pesanti E, Hodges J, Macura T, Doros G, Altice FL: Effectiveness of antiretroviral therapy among HIV-infected prisoners: reincarceration and the lack of sustained benefit after release to the community. Clin Infect Dis. 2004, 38 (12): 1754-1760. 10.1086/421392.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. Reuter P, Pollack H: How much can treatment reduce national drug problems?. Addiction (Abingdon, England). 2006, 101 (3): 341-347.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  50. Kinlock TW, Gordon MS, Schwartz RP, O'Grady K, Fitzgerald TT, Wilson M: A randomized clinical trial of methadone maintenance for prisoners: results at 1-month post-release. Drug and alcohol dependence. 2007, 91 (2–3): 220-227. 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2007.05.022.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  51. Pre-publication history

    1. The pre-publication history for this paper can be accessed here:http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2458/9/156/prepub

Copyright

© Milloy et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2009

This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Advertisement