Rates of injection in prison in a sample of Australian injecting drug users

Aims: Determine the prevalence and frequency at which injecting drug users (IDU) continue to inject whilst incarcerated and to identify factors associated with in-prison injecting. Design: A nationally coordinated cross-sectional convenience sample. Participants: A total of 355 regular IDUs who had...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Fetherston, James, Carruthers, Susan, Butler, Tony, Wilson, David, Sindicich, Natasha
Format: Journal Article
Published: Informa Healthcare 2013
Subjects:
Online Access:http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11937/47926
_version_ 1848757968633331712
author Fetherston, James
Carruthers, Susan
Butler, Tony
Wilson, David
Sindicich, Natasha
author_facet Fetherston, James
Carruthers, Susan
Butler, Tony
Wilson, David
Sindicich, Natasha
author_sort Fetherston, James
building Curtin Institutional Repository
collection Online Access
description Aims: Determine the prevalence and frequency at which injecting drug users (IDU) continue to inject whilst incarcerated and to identify factors associated with in-prison injecting. Design: A nationally coordinated cross-sectional convenience sample. Participants: A total of 355 regular IDUs who had been imprisoned within the past 10 years. Measurements: Data concerning demographics, drug use history and injection whilst imprisoned were collected by participant self-report. Findings: Almost half, 46% (n = 162), of the participants reported that they had ever injected whilst imprisoned. Most of these (n = 150; 42% of all participants) reported injecting during their last imprisonment. Factors identified as significantly associated with prison injecting were being male, receiving income from criminal activity in the month prior to interview and length of last sentence. Frequency of injection varied from isolated instances to multiple times daily. Half (n = 75) of those who injected during their most recent imprisonment reported injecting at a lower frequency while incarcerated than they did in the month prior to survey. Two individuals reported initiation to injection during their most recent period of imprisonment. Conclusions: Most IDUs who experience imprisonment either suspend injecting whilst incarcerated or reduce the frequency at which they inject. However, injection is still common in Australian prisons, highlighting the need for continued harm-minimisation efforts with this population.
first_indexed 2025-11-14T09:36:31Z
format Journal Article
id curtin-20.500.11937-47926
institution Curtin University Malaysia
institution_category Local University
last_indexed 2025-11-14T09:36:31Z
publishDate 2013
publisher Informa Healthcare
recordtype eprints
repository_type Digital Repository
spelling curtin-20.500.11937-479262017-09-13T14:15:45Z Rates of injection in prison in a sample of Australian injecting drug users Fetherston, James Carruthers, Susan Butler, Tony Wilson, David Sindicich, Natasha prison Australia Injecting drug use Aims: Determine the prevalence and frequency at which injecting drug users (IDU) continue to inject whilst incarcerated and to identify factors associated with in-prison injecting. Design: A nationally coordinated cross-sectional convenience sample. Participants: A total of 355 regular IDUs who had been imprisoned within the past 10 years. Measurements: Data concerning demographics, drug use history and injection whilst imprisoned were collected by participant self-report. Findings: Almost half, 46% (n = 162), of the participants reported that they had ever injected whilst imprisoned. Most of these (n = 150; 42% of all participants) reported injecting during their last imprisonment. Factors identified as significantly associated with prison injecting were being male, receiving income from criminal activity in the month prior to interview and length of last sentence. Frequency of injection varied from isolated instances to multiple times daily. Half (n = 75) of those who injected during their most recent imprisonment reported injecting at a lower frequency while incarcerated than they did in the month prior to survey. Two individuals reported initiation to injection during their most recent period of imprisonment. Conclusions: Most IDUs who experience imprisonment either suspend injecting whilst incarcerated or reduce the frequency at which they inject. However, injection is still common in Australian prisons, highlighting the need for continued harm-minimisation efforts with this population. 2013 Journal Article http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11937/47926 10.3109/14659891.2012.760008 Informa Healthcare restricted
spellingShingle prison
Australia
Injecting drug use
Fetherston, James
Carruthers, Susan
Butler, Tony
Wilson, David
Sindicich, Natasha
Rates of injection in prison in a sample of Australian injecting drug users
title Rates of injection in prison in a sample of Australian injecting drug users
title_full Rates of injection in prison in a sample of Australian injecting drug users
title_fullStr Rates of injection in prison in a sample of Australian injecting drug users
title_full_unstemmed Rates of injection in prison in a sample of Australian injecting drug users
title_short Rates of injection in prison in a sample of Australian injecting drug users
title_sort rates of injection in prison in a sample of australian injecting drug users
topic prison
Australia
Injecting drug use
url http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11937/47926