The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Skin-cleaning among hospitalized people who inject drugs: a randomized controlled trial
Abstract
Aims: To test the hypothesis that among hospitalized people who inject drugs (PWID), a brief intervention in skin‐cleaning would result in greater reductions in follow‐up emergency department (ED) or hospitalization rates compared with a usual care condition. Design: Randomized, two‐group (intervention, n = 128; usual care, n = 124), single‐site clinical trial with12‐month follow‐up. Setting: Hospital inpatient services in Boston, Massachusetts, United States. Participants: People who injected drugs on at least 3 days each week prior to hospital admission (n = 252). Participants averaged 37.9 (± 10.7) years of age; 58.5% were male, 59.3% were white and 61.1% had a diagnosis related to skin infection at enrollment. Intervention and comparator: Intervention was a skin hygiene education and skills‐training behavioral intervention [short‐term efficacy data on a behavioral intervention (SKIN)] consisting of two education‐ and skills‐based skin‐cleaning sessions, one during hospitalization and another 4 weeks later. The comparator was treatment as usual: an informational brochure about substance use treatment options and needle exchange programs in the area and follow‐up clinical appointments as arranged by the inpatient medical staff. Measurements: Electronic medical records were reviewed and discharge diagnoses for each ED visit and hospital admission were categorized into injection‐related bacterial events (e.g. cellulitis) and non‐injection‐related events. Negative binomial regression was used to test the intervention effects for the primary outcome and total ED visits, as well as the secondary outcomes, total number of hospitalizations, injection drug use‐related (IDU‐related) ED visits and IDU‐related hospitalizations. We also tested whether the outcomes were moderated by whether the initial hospitalization was IDU‐related. Findings: Of people assigned to SKIN, 66 completed two sessions, 55 completed one session and seven completed zero sessions. Adjusting for baseline covariates, the mean rate of total ED visits in the next 12 months was non‐significantly higher [incidence rate ratio (IRR) = 1.13, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.96, 1.33, P = 0.152] compared with usual treatment. The intervention did not significantly reduce total hospitalizations or IDU‐related hospitalizations. Adjusting for baseline covariates, the mean rate of injection drug use‐related ED visits in the next 12 months was lower (IRR = 0.57, 95% CI = 0.35, 0.91, P = 0.019) compared with treatment as usual. Conclusions: A skin‐cleaning intervention for people who inject drugs delivered during a hospitalization did not significantly reduce either overall emergency department use or hospitalization. There was some evidence that it may have reduced injection drug use‐related emergency department visits.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“Prevention efforts to date have focused on individual-level behavior change interventions to promote more sterile drug preparation and safer drug injecting techniques. Unfortunately, these have shown mixed results [18–20] and have had limited impact on a population level [1].”
Citations
Cites
Psychostimulant drugs for cocaine dependence
Castells, X., Cunill, R., Pérez-Mañá, C., Vidal, X., & Capellà, D. (2016) · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd007380.pub4 · Cited by 110
Research works printed but not linked: 42
- 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2016.04.009 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2016.11.029 · DOI · Paper page
- Vlahov D., 1992, Bacterial infections and skin cleaning prior to injection among intravenous drug users, Public Health Rep, 107, 595
- 10.1111/j.1365-2648.2007.04251.x · DOI · Paper page
- 10.7326/M18-2124 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2008.08.016 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.15585/mmwr.mm6622a1 · DOI
- 10.1377/hlthaff.2015.1424 · DOI
- 10.1093/cid/ciy632 · DOI
- 10.1186/s12879-018-3408-y · DOI
- 10.1093/ofid/ofw157 · DOI
- 10.1001/jamacardio.2018.1602 · DOI
- 10.1371/journal.pone.0129360 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1007/s11606-010-1311-3 · DOI
- 10.1001/jamainternmed.2014.2556 · DOI
- 10.12788/jhm.2736 · DOI
- 10.1007/s11606-016-3919-4 · DOI
- 10.7326/M17-1812 · DOI
- ChanB. KondoK. AyersC. FreemanM. MontgomeryJ.Pharmacotherapy for Stimulant Use Disorders: A Systematic Review. Washington DC:Department of Veterans Affairs; 2018.
- 10.1016/j.ypmed.2015.04.004 · DOI
- 10.1136/bmj.e5945 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1097/QAI.0000000000000165 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2013.06.024 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.drugpo.2012.07.006 · DOI
- 10.1007/s10461-013-0593-y · DOI
- 10.1186/s12954-017-0139-0 · DOI
- 10.3109/10826084.2012.722159 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.jsat.2012.01.003 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2017.11.019 · DOI
- Miller T. M., 2012, Motivational Interviewing, 3rd edn. Helping People Change
- Access Harm Reduction Overdose Prevention and Education (AHOPE), 2017, Harm Reduction Participant Guide
- Harm Reduction Coalition, Getting Off Right: A Safety Manual for Injection Drug Users
- 10.1097/00005053-199202000-00007 · DOI
- 10.1016/0740-5472(92)90062-S · DOI
- Commonwealth of Massachussetts Health Policy Commission, 2016, Opioid Use Disorder in Massachusetts: An Analysis of its Impact on the Health Care System, Availability of Pharmacologic Treatment, and Recommendations for Payment and Care Delivery Reform
- 10.1016/j.amjmed.2015.09.024 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1081/ADA-100103117 · DOI
- 10.1056/NEJMp1402780 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.mcna.2018.03.001 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.jsat.2017.05.007 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2017.12.043 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2019.107695 · DOI
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Brothers, T. D., Lewer, D., Jones, N., Colledge-Frisby, S., Farrell, M., Hickman, M., Webster, D., Hayward, A., & Degenhardt, L. (2022) · PLOS Medicine · doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1004049 · Cited by 25
Metadata
- Authors
- Stein, M. D., Phillips, K. T., Herman, D. S., Keosaian, J., Stewart, C., Anderson, B. J., Weinstein, Z., & Liebschutz, J.
- Affiliations
- Behavioral Medicine and Addictions Research Butler Hospital Providence RI USA
- Center for Integrated Health Care Research Kaiser Permanente Hawaii Honolulu HI USA
- Boston University School of Public Health Boston MA, USA
- Section of General Internal Medicine Boston University School of Medicine Boston MA USA
- Division of General Internal Medicine, Center for Research on Health Care University of Pittsburgh Pittsburgh PA USA
- Venue
- Addiction
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2020-09-21
- Volume
- 116
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 1122-1130
- ISSN
- 0965-2140
- 1360-0443
- Cited by
- 23
- References
- 1
- Language
- en
- Funders
- National Institute on Drug Abuse (R01DA034957)
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review