Why Needles Have To Be Sterilized
(Ad display is temporarily paused)
(Ad display is temporarily paused)
Why Needles Have To Be Sterilized
Following an epidemic of hepatitis B and hepatitisC (and HIV as discovered later) among injecting drug users (IDUs) in Edinburgh, Scotland between 1982 and 1984, a pharmacist decided to provide sterile injecting equipment, a decision that was soon set aside by superior authorities .After an outbreak of hepatitisB(inflammation of the liver) among IDUs in Amsterdam in 1983, an organization of IDUs asked municipal health authorities to provide sterile injection equipment .This request was initially rejected but the decision was soon reversed, allowing for the establishment of the first official needle syringe programme in the world. The HIV/AIDS was widespread soon became the fundamental reason for this programme and similar programmes were rapidly established in many other parts of the world. Needle syringe programmes now operate officially in over 40 countries. Evaluation of the effectiveness and safety of these programmes began soon after they were first established and a vast literature was rapidly generated.
The general brief for this report was to evaluate the evidence on the effectiveness of sterile needle and syringe programming (including other injecting paraphernalia)for HIV prevention among IDUs in different settings and parts that surround a word or passage, and to recommend how the evidence can guide public health policy-makers in programming for HIV prevention among IDUs.
The report was to include all of the following subcategories: needle and syringe decontamination strategies; needle and syringe exchange; pharmacy, vending(slot-machine selling small items) and other distribution programmes; needle and syringe disposal; and
injecting paraphernalia laws collectively.
Additional feasibility an dimplementation criteria :
Cost effectiveness:
Although estimated in a number of different ways, authorities pay increasing
attention these days to the magnitude of benefit achieved from assigning or devoting of scarce public resources. Is the introduction of NSPs and other interventions cost-effective in all parts of the world and at different stages of an HIV epidemic?
Absence of negative consequences:
Consideration of possible uni-intentional and in-attentive adverse consequences is an important part of evaluating clinical and public health interventions. The presence of unintended negative consequences has a major impact on adoption or expansion of interventions. Fear that increased availability of sterile needle syringe programmes might make worse unlawful or forbidden drug use has been a major factor delaying adoption and expansion of these programmes.
The effectiveness of needle syringe programmes :
Strength of association
There were 48 studies dating from 1989 to 2002 that were identified with NSP implementation as an intervention and HIV super conversion, HIV seroprevalence or HIV risk behaviours among IDUs examined as outcome variables. Some studies assessed multiple outcomes. Out of 11 studies that evaluated HIV superconversion or seropositivity as outcomes found that NSP use was protective; outcomes in 3 studies were negatively associated with NSP use and 2 studies showed no effect HIV risk behaviour outcomes were examined in 33studies (with some authors reporting on more than one study or outcome). The majority focused on syringe sharing, borrowing, lending or reuse 1 negative and not fixed in extent while 6 studies examined diverse outcomes including ‘injection frequency’ ,‘proportion of syringes exchanged’ ,‘syringe return rate or exchange rate’ and ‘mortality among NSP users versus non-users’.