Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rcrh6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T03:48:51.014Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Gender differences in characteristics of drug users presenting to a Dublin syringe exchange

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 June 2014

Tony Geoghegan ,
Mary O'Shea  and
Gemma Cox
Tony Geoghegan
Affiliation:
Dip Addiction, Drug/HIV Service, 4 Merchant's Quay, Dublin 8, Ireland.
Mary O'Shea
Affiliation:
CQSW, Dip Addiction, Drug/HIV Service, 4 Merchant's Quay, Dublin 8, Ireland.
Gemma Cox
Affiliation:
The Merchant's Quay Project, Drug/HIV Service, 4 Merchant's Quay, Dublin 8, Ireland.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objectives: This study explores the gender difference in patterns of drug use, risk behaviour, health and well-being among 934 new attenders at a Dublin syringe exchange.

Method: Over the period May 1997 to April 1998 data was collected by means of structured interviews with all clients who presented for the first time at Merchant's Quay health promotion unit. All information collected was based on clients' self-reported behaviour.

Results: Of the new clients, 24.3% were female and 75.7% were male. The female clients were significantly younger than their male counterparts (p < 0.0001). The women were significantly more likely to report having a sexual partner who was an injecting drug user (OR 9.04, 95% CI, 5.9-13.9) and to be living with an injecting drug user (OR 1.69, 95% CI, 1.2-2.3). They were also significantly more likely to share injecting equipment with their sexual partner (OR = 3.83, 95% CI, 2.7-5.5) and to report recently sharing injecting paraphernalia (OR = 1.79, 95% CI, 1.3-2.5). However, the interval between initiating intravenous drug use and first presenting at the Merchant's Quay health promotion unit was significantly shorter for female clients (p < 0.0001).

Conclusions: One of the most important concerns with regard to illicit intravenous drug use is that of needle sharing, and the associated risks of infection with human immunodeficiency virus and hepatitis. This study highlights the greater personal involvement of women with other drug users, and its consequences in terms of healthrelated problems and risk behaviour. There is a need to address this issue, by taking advantage of the fact that women present for treatment at a younger age than their male counterparts and at a much earlier stage in their injecting career.

Keywords

GenderDrug useRisk behaviourConsequences of illicit drug use
Type
Original Papers
Information
Irish Journal of Psychological Medicine , Volume 16 , Issue 4 , December 1999 , pp. 131 - 135
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1999

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1.Single, E. Defining harm reduction. Drug Alcohol Rev 1995; 14: 287–90.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
2.Newcombe, R. The reduction of drug related harm: a conceptual framework for theory, practice and research. In: O'Hare, P, Newcombe, R, Matthews, A, Buning, U, Drucker, U (eds). The reduction in drug-related harm. London: Routledge, 1992.Google Scholar
3.O'Connor, J, Stafford-Johnson, S, Kelly, M. A review of the characteristics and treatment progress of 45 pregnant opiate addicts attending the Irish National Drug Advisory and Treatment Centre over a two year period. Irish J Med Sci 1988; 157(5): 146–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4.Keenan, E, Dorman, A, O'Connor, J. Six year follow-up of 45 pregnant opiate addicts. Irish J Med Sci 1993; 162(7): 252–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5.Harrell, A. Validation of self-report: the research record. In: Rouse, B, Kozel, N, Richards, L (eds). Self-report methods of estimating drug use: meeting current challenges to validity. NIDA, Rockville 1985; 12–21.Google Scholar
6.Bradburn, N, Rips, L, Shevell, S. Answering autobiographical questions: the impact of memory and inference on surveys. Science 1987; 236: 157–61.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
7.Siegel, K, Bauman, L. Methodological issues in AIDS-related research. In: Feldman, D, Johnson, T (eds). The social dimensions of AIDS: methods and theory. New York: Praeger 1986; 15–39.Google Scholar
8.McElrath, K, Chitwood, D, Griffin, D, Comerford, M. The consistency of self-reported HIV risk behaviour among injecting drug users. Am J Public Health 1994; 84(12): 1965–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9.Kleun, J, Schwebke, J, Holmes, K. The validity of injecting drug users self-report about sexually transmitted disease: a comparison of survey and serological data. Addiction 1994; 88: 673–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10.Anthony, Jet al.Self-report interview data for a study of HIV-1 infection among intravenous drug users: description of methods and preliminary evidence on validity. J Drug Issues 1991; 21: 739–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11.Ettorre, F. Women and substance use. London: Macmillan, 1992.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
12Ghodse, Aet al.The effect of maternal narcotic addiction on the new born infant. Psychol Med 1977; 7: 667–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
13.Parker, H, Measham, F. Pick ‘n’ mix: changing patterns of illicit drug use amongst 1990s adolescents. Drugs: Education, Prevention and Policy 1994; 1(1) 5–13.Google Scholar
14.Sanchez, J, Johnson, B. Women and the drugs-crime connection: crime rates among drug abusing women at Riker Island. J Psychoactive Drugs 1987; 19: 205–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
15.Hser, Y, Anglin, D, McGlothlin, W. Sex differences in addict careers: 1. Initiation of use. Am J Drug Alcohol Abuse 1987; 13(1,2): 33–57.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
16.Gossop, M, Griffiths, P, Strang, J. Sex differences in patterns of drug taking behaviour. Br. J Psychiat 1994; 164: 101–4.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
17.O'Higgins, K, Duff, P. Treated drug misuse in Ireland: first national report 1995. Dublin: Health Research Board, 1997.Google Scholar
18.Moran, R, O'Brien, M, and Duff, P. Treated drug misuse in Ireland: national report 1996. Dublin: Health Research Board, 1997.Google Scholar
19.Hartnoll, R, Mitcheson, M, Lewis, R, Bryer, S. Estimates of the prevalence of opioid dependence. Lancet 1985; 203–5.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
20.Berridge, V. Drugs research and policy in Britain. Avebury, Aldershot 1990.Google Scholar
21.Paone, U, Des, Jarlais D, Gangloff, R, Milliken, J, Friedman, S. Syringe exchanges: HIV prevention, key findings and future direction. Int J Addict 1995; 30(420): 1647–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
22.Anglin, M, Hser, Y, Booth, M. Sex differences in addict careers. 4. Treatment. Am J Drug Alcohol Abuse 1987; 13: 253–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
23.Hodgins, D, El-Guebaly, N, Addington, J. Treatment of substance abusers: single or mixed gender programs? Addiction 1997; 92(7): 805–12.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
24.Cuskey, W. Female addiction: a review of the literature. Focus on women: J Addict Health 1982; 13(1): 3–33.Google Scholar
25.Reed, B. Developing women-sensitive drug dependence treatment services: why so difficult? J Psychoactive Drugs 1987; 19(2): 151–64.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
26.Comiskey, C. Estimating the prevalence of opiate use in Dublin, Ireland during 1996. Tallaght: Institute of Technology, 1998.Google Scholar
27.Moise, R, Reed, B, and Ryan, V. Issues in the treatment of heroin-addicted women: a comparison of men and women entering two types of drug abuse programs. Int J Addict 1982; 17 (1): 109–39.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
28.Mondanaro, J. Chemically dependent women: assessment and treatment. Massachucsetts: Lexington Books, Lexington, 1989.Google Scholar
29.Rosenbaum, M, Murphy, S. Not the picture of health: women on methadone. J Psychoactive Drugs 1987; 19(2): 217–26.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
30.Cooperstock, R. Sex differences in the use of mood-altering drugs: an explanatory model. J Health Social Behav 1971; 12: 238–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
31.Donoghoe, M, Dolan, K, Scimson, G. Lifestyle factors and social circumstances of syringe sharing in injecting drug users. Br J Add 1992; 87: 993–1003.Google ScholarPubMed
32.Gossop, Met al.Factors predicting outcome among opiate addicts after treatment. Br J Clin Psy 1990; 29: 209–16.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed