Needle exchange programme

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Needle-exchange programme)
Jump to: navigation, search
Contents of a needle-exchange kit

A needle and syringe programme (NSP) or syringe-exchange programme (SEP) is a service model based on the philosophy of harm reduction, whereby injecting drug users (IDUs) can obtain hypodermic needles and associated equipment at little or no cost to reduce the risk factors for diseases such as HIV/AIDS and hepatitis. While NSPs provide most or all types of equipment free of charge, exchange programmes require service users to return used syringes to receive an equal number of new syringes.[1] The aim of these services is to reduce the harms associated with the use of unsterile or contaminated injecting equipment.

A comprehensive study by the World Health Organization (WHO) in 2004 stated that there is a "compelling case that NSPs substantially and cost effectively reduce the spread of HIV among IDUs and do so without evidence of exacerbating injecting drug use at either the individual or societal level."[2] The WHO's findings have also been supported by the American Medical Association (AMA), which in 2000 adopted a position strongly supporting NSPs when combined with addiction counseling.[3][4]

History and development

"Sharps" container (for safe disposal of hypodermic needles)

Needle-exchange programmes can be traced back to informal activities undertaken during the 1970s, however the idea is likely to have been discovered a number of times in different locations. The first government-approved initiative was undertaken in the early to mid-1980s, with other initiatives following closely. While the initial Dutch programme was motivated by concerns regarding an outbreak of hepatitis B, the AIDS pandemic motivated the rapid adoption of these programmes around the world.[5] This reflects the pragmatic response to the pandemic undertaken by some governments, and encapsulated in the harm reduction / minimization philosophy.


In addition to sterile needles, syringe-exchange programmes typically offer other services such as: HIV and Hepatitis C testing; alcohol swabs; bleach water and normal saline (often as rinse eye drops); aluminium "cookers"; citric acid powder (an imperative agent: enables heroin to dissolve in water); containers for needles and many other items.[6] There was a survey conducted by Beth Israel Medical Center in New York city and the North American Syringe Exchange Network, which showed among the 126 SEPs surveyed, 77% provided to material abuse therapy, 72% provided voluntary counselling and HIV testing, and more than two-thirds provided supplies such as bleach, alcohol pads, and male and female condoms.

According to the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), in the United States around 1/5 of all new HIV infections and the vast majority of Hepatitis C infections are the result of injection drug use.[7]

Needle-exchange programmes are supported by the CDC and the National Institute of Health.[7][8] The NIH estimates that in the United States, between fifteen and twenty percent of injection drug users have HIV and at least seventy percent have hepatitis C.[8]

Proponents of harm reduction argue that the provision of a needle exchange provides a social benefit in reducing health costs and also provides a means to dispose of used needles in a safe manner. For example, in the United Kingdom, as the keystone prevention method, proponents of SEPs assert that, along with other programs, they have reduced the spread of HIV among intravenous drug users. The most extensive review of research into their effectiveness backs this claim.[9] As a developed country, especially for medical care, the UK has been seen as a pioneer in establishing SEPs. These supposed benefits have led to an expansion of these programmes in most jurisdictions that have introduced them, aiming to increase geographical coverage, but also the availability of these services out of hours. Vending machines which automatically dispense injecting equipment "pack" have been successfully introduced in a number of locations.[10][11][12]

Another advantage cited by supporters of these programmes are that SEPs can not only protect attenders themselves, but also provide a safe environment for their social network such as sexual partners, children or neighbours. If people among injecting drug users (IDU) did not attend SEP or share injection equipment with programme attenders, SEPs can also have an indirect influence to control transmission risks. In fact, in those SEPs, nurses are very important in terms of spreading knowledge about HIV among IDUs. These programmes not only provide physical protection from HIV, they also facilitate education by teaching IDUs about blood-borne pathogens as well as how to protect themselves and others.

Other promoted benefits of these programmes include being a first point of contact for formal drug treatment,[13] access to health and counselling service referrals, the provision of up-to-date information about safe injecting practices, access to contraception and sexual health services, and as a means for data collection from injecting drug users about their behaviour and/or drug use patterns. SEP outlets in some settings offer basic primary health care. These are known as 'targeted primary health care outlet'- as these outlets primarily target people who inject drugs and/or 'low-threshold health care outlet'- as these reduce common barriers clients often face when they try to access health care from the conventional health care outlets,.[14][15] For accessing sterile injecting equipment clients frequently visit SEP outlets, and these frequent visit are used opportunistically to offer much needed health care.[16][17]

A clinical trial of needle exchange found that needle exchange did not cause an increase in drug injection [18] These findings were endorsed by then United States Surgeon General Davis Satcher, then Director of the National Institutes of Health Harold Varmus, and then Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services, Donna Shalala.[19][20]

These services can take on a wide range of configurations:

  • Primary needle and syringe programme ("stand alone" service)
  • Secondary needle and syringe programme (such as incorporated within a pharmacy or health service)
  • Mobile or on-call Service
  • Dispensing machine distribution ("vending machine")
  • Peer service: distribution networks
  • Peer service: "flooding" or mass distribution
  • Peer service: underground
  • Prison-based facilities
  • Distribution of bleach or other cleaning equipment (rather than needles and syringes)
  • Ad hoc or informal distribution

Countries where these programmes exist include: Australia, Brazil, Canada, the Czech Republic, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Switzerland, United Kingdom, Ireland, Iran and the United States. In the United States such programmes may not receive federal funding, but this ban was briefly lifted in 2009 before being re-instated in 2010.[21]

The Melbourne, Australia inner-city suburbs of Richmond and Abbotsford are locations in which the use and dealing of heroin has been concentrated for a protracted time period. Research organisation the Burnet Institute completed the 2013 'North Richmond Public Injecting Impact Study' in collaboration with the Yarra Drug and Health Forum, City of Yarra and North Richmond Community Health Centre and recommended 24-hour access to sterile injecting equipment due to the ongoing "widespread, frequent and highly visible" nature of illicit drug use in the areas. During the period between 2010 and 2012 a four-fold increase in the levels of inappropriately discarded injecting equipment was documented for the two suburbs. In the local government area the City of Yarra, of which Richmond and Abbotsford are parts of, 1550 syringes were collected each month from public syringe disposal bins in 2012. Burnet Institute's Professor Paul Dietze stated, "We have tried different measures and the problem persists, so it's time to change our approach" in response to the ongoing risk of disease transmission in the areas.[22]

On 28 May 2013, the Burnet Institute stated in the media that it recommends 24-hour access to sterile injecting equipment in the Melbourne suburb of Footscray after the area's drug culture continues to grow after more than ten years of intense law enforcement efforts. The Institute's research concluded that public injecting behaviour is frequent in the area and inappropriately discarding injecting paraphernalia has been found in carparks, parks, footpaths and drives. Furthermore, people who inject drugs have broken open syringe disposal bins to reuse discarded injecting equipment.[23]


Two 2010 ‘reviews of reviews’ by a team originally led by Norah Palmateer which examined systematic reviews and meta-analyses on the topic concluded that there is insufficient evidence that NSP prevents transmission of the Hepatitis C virus, tentative evidence that it prevents transmission of HIV and sufficient evidence that it reduces self-reported injecting risk behaviour.[24] In a comment Palmateer warned politicians not to use her team's review of reviews as a justification to close existing programs or to hinder the introduction of new needle-exchange schemes. The weak evidence on the programs' effectiveness in preventing disease is due to inherent limitations in the designs of the reviewed primary studies and should not be interpreted as the programs lacking preventative effects.[25]

The second of the Palmateer team 'review of reviews' scrutinised 10 previous formal reviews of needle exchange studies,[26] and after critical appraisal only four reviews were considered rigorous enough to meet the inclusion criteria, those done by the teams of Gibson (2001),[27] Wodak and Cooney (2004),[2] Tilson (2007)[9] and Käll (2007).[28] Regarding the Gibson et al. review, the Palmateer team judged that their conclusion in favour of NSP effectiveness was not consistent with the results from the HIV studies they reviewed.

The Wodak and Cooney review had, from 11 studies of what they determined as demonstrating acceptable rigour, found 6 that were positive regarding the effectiveness of NSPs in preventing HIV, 3 that were negative and 2 inconclusive.[2] However a review by Käll et al. disagreed with the Wodak and Cooney review, reclassifying the studies on NSP effectiveness to 3 positive, 3 negative and 5 inconclusive.[28] The US Institute of Medicine heard the conflicting evidence of both Drs Wodak[29] and Käll[30] in their Geneva session,[31] concluding that although multicomponent HIV prevention programs that include needle and syringe exchange reduced intermediate HIV risk behavior, evidence regarding the effect of needle and syringe exchange alone on HIV incidence was limited and inconclusive, given "myriad design and methodological issues noted in the majority of studies."[9] Four studies that associated implementation or expansion of HIV prevention programs that included needle exchange with reduced prevalence of HIV could not be regarded as having established a causal link, due to their design as ecological studies monitoring populations rather than individuals.[9]

Lemon and Shah presented a paper at the International Congress of Psychiatrists (Edinburgh, June 2013) which highlighted a severe lack of training offered to needle exchange workers, and also showed the workers needing to take on a range of tasks beyond contractual obligations, for which they had little support. It also showed how needle exchange workers were a common first point of call for drug users in distress. Perhaps the most concerning finding was workers were not legally allowed to provide Naloxone should it be needed.[32]

U.K. programs

The British public body, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE), introduced a new recommendation in early April 2014 due to an increase in the presentation of the number of young people who inject steroids at UK needle exchanges. NICE previously published needle exchange guidelines in 2009, in which needle and syringe services are not advised for people under the age of 18 years, but the organisation's director Professor Mike Kelly explained that a "completely different group" of people were presenting at programs. In the updated guidance, NICE recommended the provision of specialist services for “rapidly increasing numbers of steroid users”, and that needles should be provided to people under the age of 18—a first for NICE—following reports of 15-year-old steroid injectors seeking to develop their muscles.[33]

U.S. programs

General characteristics

As of 2011, there were at least 221 programs in the US.[34] Most of these programs (91%) were legally authorized to operate; 38.2% were managed by their local health authorities.[34][35] More than 36 million syringes were distributed annually, mostly through large, legal urban programs operating a stationary site.[34] More generally, US NEPs are also distributing syringes to drug users through a variety of methods including mobile vans, delivery services, and backpack or walked routes [35] that include secondary (peer-to-peer) exchange.


The use of federal funds for needle-exchange programs was banned in the United States of America in 1988, but this ban was overturned in 2009.[36] In the time before the federal funding ban was re-instated by the US Congress in 2011, at least three programs were able to obtain federal funds and two thirds reported planning to pursue such funding.[34] As advocacy continues to lift the ban on federal funding, US NEPs continue to be funded through a mixture of state and local government funds, supplemented by private donations.[35]

Legal aspects

In the past, many U.S. states criminalized the possession of needles without a prescription, even going so far as to arrest people as they left private needle exchange facilities.[37] In jurisdictions where syringe-prescription status presented a legal barrier to access, physician prescription programs showed promise in addressing risky injection behaviors.[38] Epidemiological research demonstrating that syringe access programs are both effective and cost-effective helped to change state and local NEP-operation laws, as well as the status of syringe possession more broadly.[39] As of 2006, 48 states in the U.S. authorized needle exchange in some form, or allowed the purchase of sterile syringes without a prescription at pharmacies.[40]

By 2012, legal syringe exchange programs existed in at least 35 U.S. states.[34] In some settings, syringe possession and purchase is totally decriminalized, while in others, card-carrying NEP clients are exempt from certain drug paraphernalia laws.[41] However, despite the legal changes, gaps between the formal law and the street-level environment mean that many programs continue to face law enforcement interference (see law enforcement section below),[42] and covert programs continue to exist within the U.S.[43]

Colorado is a U.S. state in which covert syringe exchange programs operate. Current laws in Colorado leave room for interpretation in regard to the requirement of a prescription to purchase syringes. Based on such laws, the majority of pharmacies will not sell syringes without a prescription and police will arrest people who are in possession of syringes without a prescription.[44] Volunteer-run groups such as The Works (Boulder) and The Underground Syringe Exchange of Denver (the USED) operate covertly in Colorado to avoid legal prosecution and are entirely funded by donations. Due to the illegal nature of the organization, the USED website specifies that new clients must be referred in order to exchange syringes. According to The Works website, between January 2012 and March 2012, the group received over 45,000 dirty needles and distributed around 45,200 sterile syringes.[45]

Law enforcement

Interference with NEP, regardless of the law

Removal of legal barriers to the operation of NEPs and other syringe access initiatives has been identified as an important part of a comprehensive approach to reducing HIV transmission among IDUs.[39] Legal barriers include both "law on the books" and "law on the streets," i.e., the actual practices of law enforcement officers,[42][46] which may or may not reflect the formal law. Changes in syringe and drug control policy can be ineffective in reducing such barriers if police continue to treat syringe possession as a crime or participation in NEP as evidence of criminal activity. [47]

Although most NEPs in the US are now operating legally, many report some form of police interference.[41] In a 2009 national survey of 111 US NEP managers, 43% reported at least monthly client harassment, 31% at least monthly unauthorized confiscation of clients’ syringes, 12% at least monthly client arrest en route to or from NEP and 26% uninvited police appearances at program sites at least every 6 months. In multivariate modeling, legal status of the program (operating legally vs illegally) and jurisdiction’s syringe regulation environment were not associated with frequency of police interference.[41] This finding confirms a substantial gap between the formal law and its enforcement by police.

A detailed 2011 analysis of NEP client experiences in Los Angeles suggested that as many as 7% of clients report negative encounters with security officers in any given month.[48] Given that syringes are not prohibited in the jurisdiction and their confiscation can only occur as part of an otherwise authorized arrest, almost 40% of those who reported syringe confiscation were not arrested. This[48] raises concerns about extrajudicial confiscation of personal property. Approximately 25% of the encounters detailed by respondents involved private security personnel, rather than local police.[48]

Similar findings have been researched internationally. For example, despite instituting laws protecting syringe access and possession and adopting NEPs, IDUs and sex workers in Mexico’s Northern Border regions report frequent syringe confiscation by law enforcement personnel.[49] In this region, as well as elsewhere, reports of syringe confiscation are correlated with increases in risky behaviors, such as groin injecting, public injection, and utilization of pharmacies.[49] These practices translate to risk for HIV and other blood-borne diseases.[49][50]

Racial gradient

NEPs serving predominantly IDUs of color may be almost 4 times more likely to report frequent client arrest en route to or from the program and almost 4 times more likely to report unauthorized syringe confiscation from clients.[41] A 2005 study in Philadelphia found that Black individuals accessing the city's legally operated exchange decreased at more than twice the rate of white individuals after the initiation of a police anti-drug operation.[51] These and other findings illustrate a possible mechanism by which racial disparities in the criminal justice enforcement can translate into disparities in HIV transmission.[48][52] Notably, the majority (56%) of respondents reported not documenting adverse police events; those who did were 2.92 times more likely to report unauthorized syringe confiscation from clients.[41] These findings suggest that systematic surveillance and interventions are needed to address police interference.[42]


Police interference with legal NEP operations may be partially explained by poor knowledge and the lack of targeted education of police about the law and public health rationale relating to the operation of such programs. A study of police officers in an urban police department four years after the decriminalization of syringe purchase and possession in the US state of Rhode Island suggested that up to a third of police officers were not aware that the law had changed.[42] This knowledge gap parallels other areas of public health law, underscoring pervasive gaps in dissemination.[53]

Even police officers with accurate knowledge of the law, however, reported intention to confiscate syringes from drug users as a way to address problematic substance abuse.[42] Police also reported being anxious about accidental needle sticks and acquiring communicable diseases from IDUs, but were not trained or equipped to deal with this occupational risk; this anxiety was intertwined with negative attitudes towards syringe access initiatives.

Training and interventions to address law enforcement barriers

Police trainings by US NEPs have been shown to be feasible, especially when framed from the standpoint of addressing police occupational safety and human resources concerns.[21] Preliminary evidence also suggests that such trainings can shift police knowledge and attitudes regarding NEPs specifically and public health-based approaches towards problematic drug use in general.[54]

According to a 2011 survey, 20% of US NEPs reported participating in police trainings during the previous year.[55] Covered topics included the public health rationale behind NEPs (71%), police occupational health (67%), needle stick injury (62%), NEPs’ legal status (57%), and harm reduction philosophy (67%).[55] On average, trainings were seen as moderately effective, but only four programs reported conducting any formal evaluation.[55] Assistance with police trainings was identified by 72% of respondents as the key to improving police relations.[55]

Arguments for and against

Pro-Needle Exchange Arguments

Organizations ranging from the National Institutes of Health,[56] the Centers for Disease Control,[57] the American Bar Association,[58] the American Medical Association,[59] the American Psychological Association,[60] the World Health Organization,[61] and many others have endorsed low-threshold programs including needle exchange.

Needle exchanges help fight HIV/AIDS

  • Sterile needle and syringe access stand as one component of a wide range of HIV prevention strategies that include drug dependence treatment (pharmacotherapies and psychosocial interventions), outreach and education programs, counseling and testing, antiretroviral therapy, and treatment of sexually transmitted infections.[9]
  • Many studies and review papers have shown that participation in multi-component HIV prevention programs that include NSE is associated with a reduction in drug-related HIV risk behaviors.[9] Evidence points towards the enhanced impact of harm reduction services when they work in combination.[62]

Needle exchanges place harm reduction over punitive actions

  • The ethos of NEPs typically consists of support for the health and well-being of people who use drugs through awareness, education, and empowerment; for example, programs in Australia use the community development (CD) discipline as a basis for their work.[63][64]
  • In accordance with the philosophy of harm reduction, NEPs treat illicit drug use as a health issue and neither condemn nor condone the practice.[63]
  • Some U.S. states require a prescription to buy needles and syringes, as they are considered drug paraphernalia rather than medical equipment, and NEPs provide access in such areas.[65]

No evidence of unintended consequences

  • "Few studies have specifically evaluated whether HIV prevention programs that include needle and syringe exchange lead to unintended consequences, such as increases in new drug users, more frequent injection among established users, expanded networks of high-risk users, more discarded needles in the community, and changes in crime trends. Modest evidence shows that NSE does not increase the number of discarded needles in the community, and that injection frequency does not increase among NSE participants. Weak evidence and limited data suggest that programs that include NSEs do not lead to new users, expanded drug networks, or increases in crime."[9]

Needle exchanges benefit their areas of implementation

  • Most NSPs operate on a one-for-one basis, and in so doing reduce the presence of discarded needles in the area; they provide safe disposal for discarded needles.[66]

Needle exchanges help bring addicts into treatment programs

  • Injection drug users (IDUs) are at risk of a wide range of health problems arising from non-sterile injecting practices, complications of the drug itself or of the lifestyle associated with drug use and dependence.[67] Furthermore, unrelated health problems, such as diabetes, may be neglected because of drug dependence. However, despite their increased health care needs, IDUs do not have the required access to care or may be reluctant to use conventional services.[68] Consequently, their health may deteriorate to a point at which emergency treatment is required,[69] with considerable costs to both the IDUs and the health system. Accordingly harm reduction based health care centers, also known as targeted health care outlet or low-threshold health care outlet for IDUs have been established across a range of settings utilising a variety of models.[14]
  • NSP staff facilitate a connection between people who use drugs and medical facilities, thereby exposing them to voluntary physical, psychological, and emotional treatment programs.[70][71]
  • Social services for addicts can be centered around needle exchanges.[72]

Needle exchanges are cost effective

  • As of 2011, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimate that every HIV infection prevented through a needle exchange program saves an estimated US$178,000+, as well as an overall estimate whereby a reduction of 30 percent or more HIV cases is reported among people who inject drugs.[73] As of March 2012, an estimated 1.2 million people were living with HIV in the United States, with one in five people unaware of their HIV-positive status—of those 1.2 million people infected, 25 percent resulted from injecting drug use, which is the fastest growing population of HIV. For the same time period, over 50,000 new cases of HIV are estimated to occur each year.[74]
  • NEPs represent a significant saving in public healthcare costs. For example, it is estimated that the average annual cost of HIV care per person in the United States is US$15,745. Those with advanced HIV had an annual estimated cost of US$40,678.[75] Depending on when infection is detected and when the treatment process begins, it is estimated that, as of November 2006, the total lifetime healthcare costs of HIV care are between US$303,000 and $619,000.[76]
  • In the U.S., the cost per needle at a NEP is approximately US$0.97, whereas the estimated cost of one day’s worth of the HIV treatment medication Truvada is US$36.[74]

Needle exchanges have reached a certain degree of public acceptance

  • Although needle exchange is a controversial subject in the United States, needle exchange programs—supported by private, state, and local funding—have proliferated. Internationally, there is much broader acceptance of the needle exchange model and its well-documented efficacy.[77]
  • Needle exchanges have achieved varying degrees of acceptance by churches and other religious groups as expressed in official resolutions from organizations such as the House of Bishops of the Episcopal Church, the Central Conference of American Rabbis, the Presbyterian Church, and the Society of Christian Ethics.[78]

Anti-Needle Exchange Arguments

Needle exchange programs have faced much opposition on political and moral grounds. Advocacy groups ranging from the National District Attorneys Association,[79] Drug Watch International,[80] the Heritage Foundation,[81] Drug Free Australia,[82] and so forth, religious organizations such as the Catholic Church,[83] and many individuals in important policy-making positions have united to oppose these programs.

Personal accountability

  • Harm reduction begins with the assumption that it is not possible to assume that individuals will make healthy decisions. Advocates of harm reduction hold that those trapped in dangerous behaviors are often unable and/or unwilling to break free of them, and should at least be enabled to continue these behaviors in a less harmful manner.[84] A strong current tendency in the medical profession has been to consider drug dependency as a chronic illness like other chronic illnesses such as diabetes, hypertension and asthma, arguing for their treatment, evaluation, and even insurance in like manner.[85][86] By treating drug dependency as an illness, the effect appears to be largely to absolve drug users of responsibility for their behavior.[81]
  • In the view of the NDAA, such a position strikes at a basic tenet of the criminal law and common sense, namely that people are responsible for their actions. Where criminal decisions are made that impact public health and the welfare of society, sanctions are appropriate and necessary.[79]
  • Such a position is also directly against Catholic Church doctrine, because it treats persons as objects not in control of their own actions and gives the impression that certain types of irresponsible behavior are somehow morally acceptable.[83]
  • Concerning the personal accountability issue, former President George W. Bush wrote: "Drug use in America, especially among children, increased dramatically under the Clinton-Gore Administration, and needle exchange programs signal nothing but abdication, that these dangers are here to stay. Children deserve a clear, unmixed message that there are right choices in life and wrong choices in life, that we are responsible for our actions, and that using drugs will destroy your life."[87]

Effectiveness of NSPs not proven

  • As summarized in the Research section of this article, despite the existence of moderate evidence that multicomponent HIV prevention programs that include needle exchange reduce the incidence of high-risk behaviors, conclusive evidence is lacking that this translates into an actual reduction in HIV or hepatitis C incidence.[9]
  • The conclusion of reports such as that by Tilson (2007) is that only comprehensive packages of services in multi-component prevention programs can be effective in reducing drug-related HIV risks. In such packages, it is unclear what the relative contribution of needle exchange may be to reductions in risk behavior and HIV incidence.[9]
  • Multiple examples can be cited showing the relative ineffectiveness of needle exchange programs alone in stopping the spread of blood-borne disease.[2][9][24][26]
  • Despite the ineffectiveness of needle exchange alone to stop the spread of HIV, the fact remains that many needle exchange programs do not make any serious effort to treat drug addiction. For example, David Noffs of the Life Education Center wrote, "I have visited sites around Chicago where people who request info on quitting their habit are given a single sheet on how to go cold turkey -- hardly effective treatment or counseling."[88]

Overemphasis on NSPs can take attention away from bigger drug problems

  • Especially given the ambiguous data concerning the effectiveness of NSPs, it has been argued that in fighting HIV, needle exchanges take attention away from bigger drug problems, and that, contrary to saving lives, they actually contribute to drug-related deaths. Giving out clean needles does not discourage drug dependence, and although participants in a needle exchange program may possibly expect a reduced incidence of HIV, they can still die of overdose, collapsed veins, contaminated dope, street violence and so forth. Drug-addicted mothers will still deliver drug-addicted babies. Educating drug addicts to inject in a safer manner means that they will continue to support the violent and criminal drug trade. The fundamental issues that led an addict to drugs in the first place will continue to be untreated.[89][90]
  • This argument is highlighted by the results of a 1993 study of the causes of death among 415 injection drug users in the Philadelphia area. Over a four year period, 28 died. Only 5 died from causes associated with HIV disease; 7 died from drug overdoses, 5 died from homicide, 4 died from heart disease, 3 died from renal failure, 2 died from liver disease, 1 died from suicide, and 1 died from cancer.[91]

Community issues

  • Studies on the effectiveness of NSPs have usually focused on the health effects for the addicts while neglecting community issues. The needs of the community cannot be neglected; rather, the needs of addicts and the needs of the community must be balanced.[79] Concerns are often expressed that NSPs may encourage drug use, or may actually increase the number of dirty needles in the community.[92] Another fear is that NSPs may draw drug activity into the communities in which they operate.[93] Only a very small number of short-term scientific studies have focused on the question of whether NSPs may draw drug activity into the communities in which they operate.[94]
  • Regardless of the degree of truth in such fears, the fact is that the fears are very real, and a powerful Not In My Backyard (NIMBY) stigma is attached to NSPs. Concerns are expressed on such things as the negative impact on property values, the possible drawing in of the "wrong element" to the neighbourhood, "spoiling the identity" of the neighborhood and so forth.[95]
  • Critics of needle exchange often cite the case of Platzspitz Park. " 1987 the authorities chose to allow illegal drug use and sales at the park, in an effort to contain Zurich's growing drug problem. Police were not allowed to enter the park or make arrests. Clean needles were given out to addicts as part of the Zurich Intervention Pilot Project, or ZIPP-AIDS program. However, lack of control over what went on in the park caused a multitude of problems. Drug dealers and users arrived from all over Europe, and crime became rampant as dealers fought for control and addicts (who numbered up to 20,000) stole to support their habit."
  • Even in Australia, which is considered a leading country in harm reduction,[96] a survey showed that a third of the public believed that NSPs encouraged drug use, and 20% believed that NSPs dispensed drugs.[97]

Discarded needles dangerous

  • Many NSPs do not operate on a strict one-for-one basis.
  • An Australian bi-partisan Federal Parliamentary inquiry which published recommendations in 2003 registered government concern about the lack of accountability of Australia’s needle exchanges, inadequate exchange and lack of a national register of resulting needle stick injuries.[98] Community concern about discarded needles[99] and needle stick injury led the Australian Federal Government to allocate $17.5 million in 2003/4 to investigating the provision of retractable technology for syringes.

See also


  1. ^ "Site Needle & Syringe Program". Retrieved 6 July 2013. 
  2. ^ a b c d Wodak, A.; Cooney, A. (2004). "Effectiveness of Sterile Needle and Syringe Programming in Reducing HIV/AIDS Among Injecting Drug Users". World Health Organization. Retrieved 18 July 2013. 
  3. ^ Yoast, R.; Williams, M. A.; Deitchman, S. D.; Champion, H. C. (2001). "Report of the Council on Scientific Affairs". Journal of Addictive Diseases 20 (2): 15–40. doi:10.1300/J069v20n02_03. PMID 11318395. 
  4. ^ Stancliff, S.; Agins, B.; Rich, J. D.; Burris, S. (2003). "Syringe access for the prevention of blood borne infections among injection drug users". BMC Public Health 3: 37. doi:10.1186/1471-2458-3-37. PMC 317318. PMID 14633286. 
  5. ^ Ritter, A and Cameron, J (2006) A Systematic Review of Harm Reduction, Drug Policy Modeling Project, Monograph 06, Turning Point Alcohol and Drug Center, University of Melbourne, December.
  6. ^ North American Syringe Exchange Network (2000). "2000 National Syringe Exchange Survey". Harm Reduction Coalition. 
  7. ^ a b Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) (15 July 2005). "Update:Syringe Exchange Programs". MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep (United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) 54 (27): 673–6. PMID 16015218. 
  8. ^ a b National Institutes Of, Health (November 2002). "National Institutes of Health Consensus Development Conference Statement: Management of hepatitis C: 2002--June 10–12, 2002". Hepatology 36 (5 Suppl 1): S3–20. doi:10.1002/hep.1840360703. PMID 12407572. 
  9. ^ a b c d e f g h i j Tilson, H. et al. (2007). "Preventing HIV Infection Among Injecting Drug Users in High-Risk Countries". United States Institute of Medicine. Retrieved 2010-01-09. 
  10. ^ McDonald, D. (2009). "The evaluation of a trial of syringe vending machines in Canberra, Australia". International Journal of Drug Policy 20 (4): 336–339. doi:10.1016/j.drugpo.2008.06.004. PMID 18790622. 
  11. ^ Islam MM, Conigrave KM (2007). "Syringe vending machines as a form of needle syringe program: Advantages and Disadvantages". Journal of Substance Use 12 (3): 203–12. doi:10.1080/14659890701249640. 
  12. ^ Islam MM, Stern T, Conigrave KM, Wodak A (January 2008). "Client satisfaction and risk behaviours of the users of syringe dispensing machines: a pilot study". Drug Alcohol Rev 27 (1): 13–9. doi:10.1080/09595230701711199. PMID 18034377. 
  13. ^ Brooner R, Kidorf M, King V, Beilenson P, Svikis D, Vlahov D (June 1998). "Drug abuse treatment success among needle exchange participants". Public Health Rep. 113 Suppl 1 (Suppl 1): 129–39. PMC 1307735. PMID 9722818. 
  14. ^ a b Islam, MM, Topp, L, Day, CA, Dawson, A and Conigrave, KM (2012). "The accessibility, acceptability, health impact and cost implications of primary healthcare outlets that target injecting drug users: A narrative synthesis of literature". International Journal of Drug Policy 23 (2): 94–102. doi:10.1016/j.drugpo.2011.08.005. PMID 21996165. 
  15. ^ Islam, MM, Topp, L, Day, CA, Dawson, A and Conigrave, KM (2012). "Primary healthcare outlets that target injecting drug users: Opportunity to make services accessible and acceptable to the target group". International Journal of Drug Policy 23 (2): 109–110. doi:10.1016/j.drugpo.2011.11.001. PMID 22280917. 
  16. ^ Islam, MM, Reid, SE, White, A, Grummett, S, Conigrave, KM and Haber, PS (2012). "Opportunistic and continuing health care for injecting drug users from a nurse-run needle syringe program-based primary health-care clinic". Drug Alcohol Rev 31: 114–115. doi:10.1111/j.1465-3362.2011.00390.x. PMID 22145983. 
  17. ^ Islam, MM. "Needle Syringe Program-Based Primary Health Care Centers: Advantages and Disadvantages". Journal of Primary Care & Community Health 1 (2): 100–103. doi:10.1177/2150131910369684. 
  18. ^ Fisher DG, Fenaughty AM, Cagle HH, Wells RS (June 2003). "Needle exchange and injection drug use frequency: a randomized clinical trial". J. Acquir. Immune Defic. Syndr. 33 (2): 199–205. doi:10.1097/00126334-200306010-00014. PMID 12794555. 
  19. ^ Surgeon General's Needle Exchange Review
  20. ^ Syringe/Needle Exchange Programs, DrugWarFacts, accessed 06-02-2010.
  21. ^ a b Davis, C. S.; Beletsky, L. (2009). "Bundling occupational safety with harm reduction information as a feasible method for improving police receptiveness to syringe access programs: Evidence from three U.S. Cities". Harm Reduction Journal 6: 16. doi:10.1186/1477-7517-6-16. PMC 2716314. PMID 19602236. 
  22. ^ Lucie Van Den Berg (20 May 2013). "Syringe machine push for addicts in Melbourne's heroin hot spots". The Australian. Retrieved 20 May 2013. 
  23. ^ Bridie Byrne (28 May 2013). "Drug experts propose needle vending machines for Footscray". Herald Sun Maribyrnong Leader. Retrieved 29 May 2013. 
  24. ^ a b Palmateer N, Kimber J, Hickman M, Hutchinson S, Rhodes T, Goldberg D (May 2010). "Evidence for the effectiveness of sterile injecting equipment provision in preventing hepatitis C and human immunodeficiency virus transmission among injecting drug users: a review of reviews". Addiction 105 (5): 844–59. doi:10.1111/j.1360-0443.2009.02888.x. PMID 20219055. 
  25. ^ Amy Norton (March 11, 2010). "Do needle-exchange programs really work?". Reuters Health. Retrieved October 18, 2011. 
  26. ^ a b Kimber J, Palmateer N, Hutchinson S, Hickman M, Goldberg D, Rhodes T, EMCDDA Monograph 10 ‘Harm Reduction – Impacts, Evidences and Challenges, Chapter 5 "Harm reduction among injecting drug users — evidence of Effectiveness". 2010. Retrieved July 1, 2013. 
  27. ^ Gibson, D. R.; Flynn, N. M.; Perales, D. (2001). "Effectiveness of syringe exchange programs in reducing HIV risk behavior and HIV seroconversion among injecting drug users". Aids 15: 1329–1341. doi:10.1097/00002030-200107270-00002. Retrieved 18 July 2013. 
  28. ^ a b Käll, K.; Hermansson, U.; Amundsen, E. J.; Rönnbäck, K.; Rönnberg, S. (2007). "The Effectiveness of Needle Exchange Programmes for HIV Prevention - A Critical Review". The Journal of Global Drug Policy and Practice 1 (3). Retrieved 6 July 2013. 
  29. ^ Wodak, A. (2005). "Do needle syringe programmes assist control of HIV among injecting drug users?". Retrieved 2013-07-01.  2006
  30. ^ Käll, K. (2005). "What science tells us about needle exchange programs". Retrieved 2013-07-01.  2006
  31. ^ Tilson, H. (committee chair) (2005). "Meeting 1: Prevention of HIV Infection among Injecting Drug Users in High Risk Countries". Retrieved 2013-07-01.  2006
  32. ^ Lemon, T. I.; Shah, R. (2013). "Needle exchanges: An important yet forgotten outpost in suicide and self-harm prevention". Journal of Psychosomatic Research 74 (6): 551–552. doi:10.1016/j.jpsychores.2013.03.057. 
  33. ^ Charlie Cooper (9 April 2014). "NICE: Needle exchanges should supply safe equipment to under-18 steroid users". The Independent. Retrieved 9 April 2014. 
  34. ^ a b c d e Green TC, Martin E, Bowman S, Mann M, Beletsky, L (2012). "Life After the Ban: An Assessment of US Syringe Exchange Programs’ Attitudes About and Early Experiences with Federal Funding". Am. J. Pub. Health 102 (5): e9–e16. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2011.300595. Retrieved 2012-07-05. 
  35. ^ a b c Des Jarlais DC, McKnight C, Goldblatt C, Purchase D. (2009). "Doing harm reduction better: syringe exchange in the United States.". Addiction 104 (9): 1441–6. doi:10.1111/j.1360-0443.2008.02465.x. Retrieved 2012-07-05. 
  36. ^ Sharon, Susan (2009-12-09). "Ban Lifted On Federal Funding For Needle Exchange". NPR. Retrieved 2011-03-25. 
  37. ^ Case P, Meehan T, Jones TS (1998). "Arrests and incarceration of injection drug users for syringe possession in Massachusetts: implications for HIV prevention". J. Acquir. Immune Defic. Syndr. Hum. Retrovirol. 18 Suppl 1: S71–5. PMID 9663627. 
  38. ^ GE Macalino, D Dhawan Sachdev, JD Rich, C Becker, LJ Tan, L Beletsky and S Burris. (2009). "A national physician survey on prescribing syringes as an HIV prevention measure.". Subst. Abuse Treatm’t., Prev. & Pol’y 4 (1). Retrieved 2012-07-05. 
  39. ^ a b S Burris, D Finucane, H Gallagher, and J Grace (1996). "The legal strategies used in operating syringe exchange programs in the United States.". Am J Public Health 86 (8): 1161–6. doi:10.2105/ajph.86.8_pt_1.1161. PMC 1380633. PMID 8712281. Retrieved 2012-07-05. 
  40. ^ Chris Barrish (10 June 2006). "To stop AIDS 'breeding ground' needle exchange a must, many say". The News Journal. pp. A1, A5. Archived from the original on 2 September 2006. Retrieved 2006-06-10.  Note: this article contains a picture of the interior of a "shooting gallery"
  41. ^ a b c d e Beletsky L, Grau LE, White E, Bowman S, Heimer R. (2011). "The roles of law, client race and program visibility in shaping police interference with the operation of US syringe exchange programs.". Addiction 106 (2). doi:10.1111/j.1360-0443.2010.03149.x. PMC 3088513. PMID 21054615. Retrieved 2012-07-05. 
  42. ^ a b c d e Beletsky L, Burris S, Macalino GE. (2005). "Attitudes of Police Officers Towards Syringe Access, Occupational Needle-Sticks, and Drug Use: A Qualitative Study of One City Police Department in the United States.". Int’l. J. Drug Pol’y 16 (4): 267–274. doi:10.1016/j.drugpo.2005.01.009. Retrieved 2012-07-05. 
  43. ^ Lune, H (December 2002). "Weathering the Storm: Non-profit Organization Survival Strategies in a Hostile Climate". Non-profit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 31 (4): 463–83. doi:10.1177/0899764002238096. 
  44. ^ [1][dead link][dead link]
  45. ^ "Boulder County Public Health". Retrieved 14 March 2012. 
  46. ^ Burris, S., Blankenship, K. M., Donoghoe, M., Sherman, S., Vernick, J. S., Case, P., et al. (2004). "Addressing the 'Risk Environment' for Injection Drug Users: The Mysterious Case of the Missing Cop.". Milbank Quarterly 82: 125–156. doi:10.1111/j.0887-378x.2004.00304.x. Retrieved 2012-07-05. 
  47. ^ Beletsky L, Grau LE, White E, Bowman S, Heimer R. (2011). "The roles of law, client race and program visibility in shaping police interference with the operation of US syringe exchange programs.". Addiction 106 (2). doi:10.1111/j.1360-0443.2010.03149.x. PMC 3088513. PMID 21054615. Retrieved 2012-07-05. 
  48. ^ a b c d Beletsky L, Sorensen A, Wagner K, Davidson P. (2011). "The State of the Row: Syringe Exchange Client’s Experiences with Police and Private Security Personnel in Downtown Los Angeles.". HHCLA. 
  49. ^ a b c Beletsky L, Lozada R, Gaines T, et al. (April 2013). "Syringe confiscation as an HIV risk factor: the public health implications of arbitrary policing in Tijuana and Ciudad Juarez, Mexico". J Urban Health 90 (2): 284–98. doi:10.1007/s11524-012-9741-3. PMC 3675719. PMID 22806453. 
  50. ^ Strathdee SA, Lozada R, Martinez G, et al. (2011). "Social and structural factors associated with HIV infection among female sex workers who inject drugs in the Mexico-US border region". PLoS ONE 6 (4): e19048. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0019048. PMC 3081836. PMID 21541349. 
  51. ^ Davis CS, Burris S, Becher J, Lynch K, Metzger D (2005). "Effects of an Intensive Street-Level Police Intervention on Syringe Exchange Program Use in Philadelphia, PA". American Journal of Public Health 95 (2). doi:10.2105/AJPH.2003.033563. PMC 1449157. PMID 15671455. 
  52. ^ Iguchi MY, Bell J, Ramchand RN, Fain T. (2005). "How criminal system racial disparities may translate into health disparities.". J Health Care Poor Underserved 16 (4 Suppl B): 48–56. doi:10.1353/hpu.2005.0114. PMID 16327107. 
  53. ^ Burris S, Beletsky L, Burleson J, Case P, and Lazzarini Z. (2007). "Do Criminal Laws Influence HIV Risk Behavior? An Empirical Trial". Arizona State Law Journal 2007 (03). Retrieved 2012-07-05. 
  54. ^ Beletsky L, Agrawal A, Moreau B, Kumar P, Weiss-Laxer N, Heimer R. (2011). "Police training to align law enforcement and HIV prevention: preliminary evidence from the field.". Am J Public Health 101 (11): 2012–2015. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2011.300254. 
  55. ^ a b c d Beletsky L, Grau LE, White E, Bowman S, Heimer R. (2011). "Prevalence, characteristics, and predictors of police training initiatives by US SEPs: Building an evidence base for structural interventions". Drug Alcohol Dependence 119 (1-2): 145–149. doi:10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2011.05.034. 
  56. ^ "Interventions to prevent HIV risk behaviors". NIH consensus statement 15 (2): 1–41. 1997. PMID 9505959. 
  57. ^ "Syringe Exchange Programs". Centers for Disease Control. Retrieved 26 March 2012. 
  58. ^ "ABA Urges Federal Support for Syringe Exchange Programs". American Bar Association. Retrieved 26 March 2012. 
  59. ^ Stapleton, Stephanie (1997). "AMA endorses needle-exchange programs". American Medical News. 
  60. ^ "Needle Exchange Programs: Position Statement". American Psychological Association. Retrieved 26 March 2012. 
  61. ^ "Drug use and HIV/AIDS". Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS. Retrieved 26 March 2012. 
  62. ^ Rhodes, T.; Hedrich, D. (2010). "Chapter 1: Harm reduction and the mainstream". EMCDDA Monographs: Harm reduction: evidence, impacts and challenges. European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction. ISBN 978-92-9168-419-9. Retrieved 20 July 2013. 
  63. ^ a b "Welcome to Mainline Needle Exchange". Mainline. Mainline Needle Exchange. 16 July 2013. Retrieved 16 July 2013. 
  64. ^ Dave Burrows. "Peer education and needle & syringe provision". Australian Federation of AIDS Organisations. AFAO. Retrieved 16 July 2013. 
  65. ^ Franciscus, A. (2003). HCV Advocate. Retrieved March 18, 2012, from
  66. ^ Franciscus, Alan. "Needle Exchange - A Matter of Public Health". Hepatitis C Support Project. Retrieved 20 July 2013. 
  67. ^ Latt, N.; Conigrave, K.; Marshall, J.; Saunders, J.; Marshall, J.; Nutt, D. (2009). Addiction Medicine. Oxford University Press. ISBN 9780199539338. 
  68. ^ McCoy, C. B.; Metsch, L. R.; Chitwood, D. D.; Miles, C. (2001). "Drug use and barriers to use of health care services". Substance use & misuse 36 (6–7): 789–806. PMID 11697611. 
  69. ^ McDonald, P (2002). "From streets to sidewalks: developments in primary care services for injecting drug users". Australian Journal of Primary Health 8: 65–69. doi:10.1071/PY02010. 
  70. ^ "Needle Exchange and Harm Reduction". Avert. Avert. 2013. Retrieved 16 July 2013. 
  71. ^ Des Jarlais, D. C.; McKnight, C.; Goldblatt, C.; Purchase, D. (2009). "Doing harm reduction better: Syringe exchange in the United States". Addiction 104 (9): 1441–1446. doi:10.1111/j.1360-0443.2008.02465.x. PMID 19215605. 
  72. ^ "Needle exchange options; pros and cons". 21 March 2008. Retrieved 20 July 2013. 
  73. ^ McLean, K. (2011). The biopolitics of needle exchange in the United States. Critical Public Health, 21(1), 71-79.
  74. ^ a b "HIV/AIDS > Fact Sheets". Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 2 July 2013. Retrieved 16 July 2013. 
  75. ^ KA Gebo, et al. (26–28 March 2009). "Contemporary Costs of HIV Health Care in the HAART Era" (PDF). Presentation for 13th International Workshop on HIV Observational Databases March 26–28, 2009 Lisbon, Portugal. HIV Research Network. Retrieved 16 July 2013. 
  76. ^ Schackman, B. R., Gebo, K. A., Walensky, R. P., Losina, E., Muccio, T., Sax, P. E., Weinstein, M. C., Seage, G. R., Moore, R. D., Freedberg, K. A. The Lifetime Cost of Current Human Immunodeficiency Virus Care in the United States. Medical Care, November 2006; vol 44: pp 990-997. Retrieved from
  77. ^ Bowen, E. A. (2012). "Clean Needles and Bad Blood: Needle Exchange as Morality Policy". Journal of sociology and social welfare 39 (2): 121–141. Retrieved 20 July 2013. 
  78. ^ Friedman, Sara (23 March 2008). "Needle Exchange Gets Religion". Religion Dispatches. Retrieved 20 July 2013. 
  79. ^ a b c "Policy Positions on Drug Control and Enforcement". National District Attorneys Association. Retrieved 13 July 2013. 
  80. ^ "Drug Watch International Position Statement: Needle Handouts to Addicts". Drug Watch International. Retrieved 13 July 2013. 
  81. ^ a b Loconte, Joe (July–August 1998). "Killing Them Softly". Policy Review (Heritage Foundation): 14–22. Retrieved 13 July 2013. 
  82. ^ "Needle Exchange and Hepatitis C". Drug Free Australia. Retrieved 13 July 2013. 
  83. ^ a b "Holy See opposes condoms, needle-exchange programs in fight against AIDS". Retrieved 13 July 2013. 
  84. ^ Souder, Mark. "Letter from Rep. Mark Souder to Dr. Elias A. Zerhouni, Director, National Institutes of Health". Retrieved 14 July 2013. 
  85. ^ "Drugs, Brains, and Behavior: The Science of Addiction". National Institute on Drug Abuse. Retrieved 14 July 2013. 
  86. ^ "Frontline: What is Addiction, and How Can We Treat It?". PBS. Retrieved 14 July 2013. 
  87. ^ Bush, George W. "Response of Governor George W. Bush To the AIDS Foundation of Chicago". Retrieved 14 July 2013. 
  88. ^ "Q: Should needle exchange be publicly funded?". PBS Online. Retrieved 14 July 2013. 
  89. ^ Aaron, Lawrence. "Why a Needle-Exchange Program is a Bad Idea". Retrieved 26 March 2012. 
  90. ^ Perkins, Joseph (27 Sep 2000). "False Compassion: Needles". The Rockmart Journal. Retrieved 14 July 2013. 
  91. ^ Woody, G. E.; Metzger, D. S. (1993). "Causes of Death in Injection-Drug Users". New England Journal of Medicine 329 (22): 1661. doi:10.1056/NEJM199311253292220.  edit
  92. ^ "Needle Exchange FAQs". Ontario Harm Reduction Distribution Program. Retrieved 26 March 2012. 
  93. ^ Keyl, P. M.; Gruskin, L.; Casano, K.; Montag, H.; Junge, B.; Vlahov, D. (1998). "Community support for needle exchange programs and pharmacy sale of syringes: A household survey in Baltimore, Maryland". Journal of acquired immune deficiency syndromes and human retrovirology : official publication of the International Retrovirology Association. 18 Suppl 1: S82–S88. PMID 9663629. 
  94. ^ Williams, C. T.; Ouellet, L. J. (2010). "Misdirected opposition: Evidence opposing "not in my back yard" arguments against syringe exchange programmes". International Journal of Drug Policy 21 (5): 437–439. doi:10.1016/j.drugpo.2010.02.003. PMID 20233654. 
  95. ^ Strike, C. J.; Myers, T.; Millson, M. (2004). "Finding a place for needle exchange programs". Critical Public Health 14 (3): 261–275. doi:10.1080/09581590400004386. Retrieved 14 July 2013. 
  96. ^ Islam, M. M. (2010). "Needle Syringe Program-Based Primary HealthCare Centers: Advantages and Disadvantages". Journal of Primary Care & Community Health 1 (2): 100. doi:10.1177/2150131910369684. 
  97. ^ "Community consulted for the first time on attitudes towards drugs". Anex. Retrieved 26 March 2012. 
  98. ^ "Road to recovery: Report on the inquiry into substance abuse in Australian communities". Australian House of Representatives Standing Committee on Family and Community Affairs. Retrieved 6 July 2013. 
  99. ^ "Drug-injecting hotspot near Collingwood childcare center". Melbourne Leader. 8 March 2010. Retrieved 2010-05-01. 

Further reading