4.4 Article

Crystal methamphetamine use among female street-based sex workers: Moving beyond individual-focused interventions

期刊

DRUG AND ALCOHOL DEPENDENCE
卷 113, 期 1, 页码 76-81

出版社

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2010.07.011

关键词

Methamphetamine use; Gender inequities; Street-based sex workers; Risk environment; Safer environment interventions

资金

  1. Canadian Institutes of Health Research
  2. NATIONAL INSTITUTE ON DRUG ABUSE [R01DA028648] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Given growing concern of the sexual risks associated with crystal methamphetamine use and the dearth of research characterizing the use of methamphetamine among street-based sex workers (FSWs), this study aimed to characterize the prevalence and individual, social, and structural contexts of crystal methamphetamine use among FSWs in a Canadian setting. Drawing on data from a prospective cohort, we constructed multivariate logistic models to examine independent correlates of crystal methamphetamine among FSWs over a two-year follow-up period using generalized estimating equations. Of a total of 255 street-based FSWs, 78 (32%) reported lifetime crystal methamphetamine use and 24% used crystal methamphetamine during the two-year follow-up period, with no significant associations between methamphetamine use and sexual risk patterns. In a final multivariate GEE model, FSWs who used crystal methamphetamine had a higher proportional odds of dual heroin injection (adjOR = 2.98, 95%Cl: 1.35-5.22), having a primary male sex partner who procures drugs for them (adjOR = 1.79, 95%Cl: 1.02-3.14), and working (adjOR = 1.62, 95%Cl: 1.04-2.65) and living (adjOR = 1.41, 95%Cl: 1.07-1.99) in marginalized public spaces. The findings highlight the crucial need to move beyond the individual to gender-focused safer environment interventions that mediate the physical and social risk environment of crystal methamphetamine use among FSWs. (C) 2010 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据