Skip Navigation

This Article
Right arrow Full Text Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow An erratum has been published
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (9)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Disclaimer
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Safaeian, M.
Right arrow Articles by Strathdee, S. A.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Safaeian, M.
Right arrow Articles by Strathdee, S. A.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

American Journal of Epidemiology Vol. 155, No. 2 : 169-175
Copyright © 2002 by The Johns Hopkins University School of Hygiene and Public Health


PRACTICE OF EPIDEMIOLOGY

Validity of Self-reported Needle Exchange Attendance among Injection Drug Users: Implications for Program Evaluation

Mahboobeh Safaeian1, Ron Brookmeyer2, David Vlahov1,3, Carl Latkin1, Melissa Marx1 and Steffanie A. Strathdee1

1 Department of Epidemiology, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD.
2 Department of Biostatistics, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD.
3 Center for Urban Epidemiologic Studies, The New York Academy of Medicine, New York, NY.

Some studies have indicated that needle exchange programs (NEPs) can be effective in reducing drug-related risks for human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) seroconversion; however, others have reported higher HIV incidence rates among NEP attendees. Since many studies rely on self-reports of NEP attendance, the authors investigated the extent to which differential misreporting of NEP attendance could bias risk estimates. Over a 3-year period from 1994 to 1997, self-reports of NEP attendance from participants in a prospective study in Baltimore, Maryland, were compared with NEP records. Of 1,315 participants, 459 (35%) had registered with the Baltimore NEP. There was 86.7% concordance between self-reported and actual NEP use; 11.0% reported NEP attendance but did not attend (overreported), and 2.2% reported not attending NEP but did attend (underreported). In multivariate analyses using generalized estimating equations, persons who overreported NEP attendance were more likely to have injected frequently (adjusted odds ratio (AOR) = 1.29, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.04, 1.61), denied needle sharing (AOR = 0.69; 95% CI: 0.52, 0.89), and been an HIV seroconverter (AOR = 1.83, 95% CI: 1.11, 3.01). With Poisson regression to model predictors of HIV seroconversion, models that included measures of NEP attendance based on self-reports compared with actual program data underestimated a protective association by 18%. These findings have important implications for evaluations of NEPs.

HIV; needle-exchange programs; program evaluation

Abbreviations: ACASI, audio computer-assisted self-interview; ALIVE, AIDS Link to Intravenous Experience; AOR, adjusted odds ratio; CI, confidence interval; ELISA, enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay; HCV, hepatitis C virus; HIV, human immunodeficiency virus; IDU, injection drug user; NEP, needle exchange program; OR, odds ratio


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Int J EpidemiolHome page
E. Wood, K. Li, C. L Miller, R. S Hogg, J. S G Montaner, M. T Schechter, and T. Kerr
Baseline self-perceived risk of HIV infection independently predicts the rate of HIV seroconversion in a prospective cohort of injection drug users
Int. J. Epidemiol., February 1, 2005; 34(1): 152 - 158.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Am J EpidemiolHome page
Correction for Volume 155, p. 169
Am. J. Epidemiol., March 15, 2002; 155(6): 582 - 582.
[Full Text] [PDF]



Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.