Increased risk for hepatitis C associated with solvent use among Canadian Aboriginal injection drug users

  • Souradet Y Shaw1, 2Email author,

    Affiliated with

    • Kathleen N Deering3,

      Affiliated with

      • Ann M Jolly4, 5 and

        Affiliated with

        • John L Wylie2, 6, 7

          Affiliated with

          Harm Reduction Journal20107:16

          DOI: 10.1186/1477-7517-7-16

          Received: 30 December 2009

          Accepted: 19 July 2010

          Published: 19 July 2010

          Abstract

          Background

          Solvent abuse is a particularly serious issue affecting Aboriginal people. Here we examine the association between solvent use and socio-demographic variables, drug-related risk factors, and pathogen prevalence in Aboriginal injection drug users (IDU) in Manitoba, Canada.

          Methods

          Data originated from a cross-sectional survey of IDU from December 2003 to September 2004. Associations between solvent use and variables of interest were assessed by multiple logistic regression.

          Results

          A total of 266 Aboriginal IDU were included in the analysis of which 44 self-reported recent solvent use. Hepatitis C infection was 81% in solvent-users, compared to 55% in those reporting no solvent use. In multivariable models, solvent-users were younger and more likely to be infected with hepatitis C (AOR: 3.5; 95%CI: 1.3,14.7), to have shared needles in the last six months (AOR: 2.6; 95%CI:1.0,6.8), and to have injected talwin & Ritalin (AOR: 10.0; 95%CI: 3.8,26.3).

          Interpretation

          High hepatitis C prevalence, even after controlling for risky injection practices, suggests that solvent users may form closed networks of higher risk even amongst an already high-risk IDU population. Understanding the social-epidemiological context of initiation and maintenance of solvent use is necessary to address the inherent inequalities encountered by this subpopulation of substance users, and may inform prevention strategies for other marginalized populations.

          Background

          In developed countries, sexually transmitted infections (STI) and bloodborne pathogens (BBP) disproportionately affect marginalized populations. In the United States, Australia, and Canada the combined impact of poverty, lack of access, and historical and systemic oppression have resulted in overrepresentation of indigenous populations in national HIV/AIDS and STI statistics, especially amongst females and youth[16]. Within Canada, injection drug users (IDU) account for a significant proportion of prevalent HIV and other BBP (such as hepatitis C [HCV]) infections, and are an especially important risk group sustaining endemicity of these pathogens within Aboriginal populations[4, 79]. However, despite progress in, and substantial efforts towards both understanding, and addressing BBP epidemics in Canadian Aboriginal populations[7], the transmission of some BBP, such as HIV and HCV, appear to be growing unabated[1012]. This paradox has motivated researchers to examine heterogeneity in marginalized subpopulations, with the intention of finding and describing subpopulations that may be at particularly high risk of BBP transmission, as well as the environmental contexts within which they are embedded[1316].

          To this end, solvent abuse has been shown to be a particularly serious and destructive issue affecting Aboriginal populations in Canada, and elsewhere[1725]. In North America, the lifetime use of solvents has been reported to be as high as 44% in some high-risk groups[26], with some studies finding the prevalence of lifetime use at 17% by the eighth grade[27]. Solvent use is a term broadly applied to the self-administered inhalation of a variety of volatile, psychoactive substances that are found in many common products, including gasoline and adhesive glue[24, 28]. Solvent users have elevated rates of negative health outcomes including mental illness[29, 30], damage to the central nervous system, heart and lungs [28, 31, 32], as well as mortality[32, 33]. Contributing to its perniciousness, solvents are primarily legal and easily obtainable[18, 34]. As well, multiple factors have been identified as being associated with solvent use, including age, sex, ethnicity, education level, co-existing alcohol or other substance use disorders, and child and physical abuse[3539]. In youth, solvent use has been linked to broader societal issues such as higher school drop-out rates[40], delinquency (including criminal activity)[36, 39] and family conflict[39, 41]. Salient to this study, an association between chronic solvent use in adolescence and injection drug use among the most marginalized of populations has been demonstrated[20, 4244].

          On the treatment side, a particular defining feature of chronic solvent use is that it is typically associated with the most marginalized populations, with, for example higher levels of anti-social behaviour, trauma-exposure and psychiatric morbidities[19, 24, 45]. In response to the burgeoning need for Aboriginal-specific programs, Canada has over a dozen solvent abuse treatment centres spread across the country[46]. These centres operate under a continuum of interventions, including prevention, early intervention, residential treatment and environmental deterrence. Furthermore, evidence suggests IDU with a solvent use background have a "specific course of addiction"[39], often with much more detrimental outcomes, and a particular intransigency to treatment[39, 47]. This "deviant group within a deviant group" has been recognized since the late 1970s[47], but is still poorly understood, relative to other IDU groups.

          Despite the link observed between solvent use and IDU, and the disproportionate burden of both solvent abuse and STI/BBP infection in Aboriginal populations, there is little published research on solvent use among Aboriginal IDU. We therefore undertook this study to examine the association between solvent use and socio-demographic and drug-related risk factors in Aboriginal IDUs in Manitoba, Canada. We were also interested in examining the relationship between solvent use and injection of other types of illicit substances, as well as being infected with a BBP (i.e., HIV and HCV).

          Methods

          Study setting and survey instrument

          The study setting and survey instrument have been described previously[4850]. This was a cross-sectional survey of IDU in Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada (pop. 675,000) conducted from December 2003 to September 2004. Recruitment was advertised at local community health centres, meeting places (as identified by key informants) and word-of-mouth. Eligibility criteria included self-reported use of illicit injection drugs in the 6-month period prior to interview and having an age of 15 years or more. Potential participants made telephone contact with the study nurse, who administered all surveys in-person. Interviews took place in a private setting of the participant's choosing. An honorarium was provided to all study participants providing written or oral consent. The questionnaire was divided into three sections. The first section consisted of questions based on the respondent's own characteristics, the second elicited information on the respondent's egocentric network (i.e., the people with whom the respondent had regular contact with), while the third section asked questions on the respondent's IDU risk network. The first section was of primary interest for this study. The study design was approved by the Health Research Ethics Board of the University of Manitoba and the Winnipeg Regional Health Authority Research Review Committee.

          Measures

          The outcome measure in this study was a binary variable describing solvent use, which was derived from a positive answer for "Gasoline/Solvents" to the survey item "In the last 6 months, which of the following drugs have you used without injecting?" The study sample of IDUs was subsetted to only individuals who self-identified as Aboriginal, and included those who identified as 'First Nations' or 'Metis'. Variables were grouped into four categories: socio-demographic, injection-related behaviours, other drug use and BBP status. Socio-demographic variables included: age, which was categorized as 15-29, 30-39, and 40 years or more; education, which was coded as 'dropped out less than grade 12' or 'grade 12 or higher'; and place of birth, which was coded as 'born inside Manitoba' or 'born elsewhere'. Injection-related behaviours included: locales where drugs were injected (in the last 6 months), and this list included their own house, a family members' or friends' residences, an empty house, a shelter/hostel, hotel, shooting gallery and on the street; sharing needles (ever and in the last 6 months); sharing other injection equipment; injecting someone as a service; injecting someone as a favour; and ease of obtaining needles. The time frame for the last four questions was 6 months.

          Participants were asked which drugs they injected most frequently and finally, in terms of BBP infection, HIV and HCV status was assessed using venous blood samples, tested at Cadham Provincial Laboratory (Winnipeg, MB). Specimens were screened for HCV and HIV with AxSYM HCV (Abbott, Mississauga, ON) and AxSYM HIV1/2 gO (Abbott, Mississagua, ON), respectively. Presumptive positives were confirmed for HCV with Chiron HCV 3.0 RIBA (Ortho-Clinical Diagnostics, Markham, ON). Presumptive HIV positive specimens were confirmed by western blot (BioRad, Montreal, QC).

          Statistical methods

          Associations between solvent use and variables of interest were assessed using χ2 tests. Variables that were significant at the p < .20 level were included in multivariable logistic regression analysis. A parsimonious model was desired, so therefore, with the exception of sex (which was forced into the model to adjust for its effects), a backwards stepwise regression procedure was used to eliminate variables that were not significant at the p < .05 level. Odds ratios (OR) and their 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) are reported for univariate and multivariable analyses. Multicollinearity of the final model was assessed using VIF and tolerance statistics. Stata version 9 was used in performing all analyses[51].

          Results

          A total of 272 IDU identified as Aboriginal. An additional 6 that identified as transgendered were excluded from the analyses due to small numbers, leaving a total sample size of 266. Overall, 44 (16.5%) of the study sample reported solvent use in the last 6 months. Table 1 displays a comparison of characteristics of solvent and non solvent-using IDU. Broadly speaking, the two groups differed significantly, at least at the p < .05 level, by age, injection locations, injection risk behaviours, type of drugs injected and BBP status (Table 1).
          Table 1

          Characteristics of 266 Aboriginal IDU by solvent-use status, Winnipeg Manitoba

           

          Solvent use status; no. (%)

            
           

          Users (n = 44)

          Non-users (n = 222)

          Odds Ratio (95% CIs)

          P

          Socio-Demographic

              

          Age

              

          15-29

          21(47.7)

          51(22.4)

          Ref

          <.001

          30-39

          17(38.6)

          86(37.7)

          0.48 (0.23,0.99)

           

          40+

          6(13.6)

          91(39.9)

          0.16 (0.07,0.42)

           

          Mean (SD)

          31.6(7.5)

          36.3(9.1)

            

          Female

          25(56.8)

          117(52.7)

          1.18 (0.62,2.27)

          .617

          Born outside province

          5(11.4)

          37(16.7)

          0.64 (0.24,1.73)

          .362

          At least grade 12

          38(86.4)

          169(76.1)

          2.35 (0.90,6.15)

          .135

          Injection Locations

              

          Own House

          27(61.4)

          121(54.5)

          1.33 (0.68,2.57)

          .403

          Family House

          14(31.8)

          32(14.4)

          2.71 (1.32,5.79)

          .005

          Friend's House

          37(84.1)

          158(71.2)

          2.14 (0.91,5.05)

          .077

          Empty House

          10(22.7)

          22(9.9)

          2.67 (1.16,6.14)

          .017

          Shelter/Hostel

          0(0.0)

          6(2.3)

          n/a

          .277

          Hotel

          28(63.6)

          95(42.8)

          2.34 (1.20,4.57)

          .011

          Shooting Gallery

          15(34.1)

          35(15.8)

          2.76 (1.35,5.66)

          .004

          Street

          18(40.9)

          56(25.2)

          2.05 (1.05,4.02)

          .034

          Injection Risk Behaviours

              

          Share needles (Ever)

          25(56.8)

          104(46.9)

          1.49 (0.78,2.87)

          .227

          Share needles (6 months)

          15(34.1)

          27(12.2)

          3.74 (1.78,7.85)

          <.001

          Share injection equipment

          13(29.6)

          72(32.4)

          0.87 (0.43,1.77)

          .708

          Inject someone as service

          9(20.5)

          62(28.2)

          0.66 (0.29,1.44)

          .291

          Inject someone as favour

          19(43.2)

          97(44.1)

          0.96 (0.50,1.85)

          .912

          Ease of obtaining needles

          34(77.3)

          188(84.7)

          0.61 (0.28,1.36)

          .227

          Drugs Injected

              

          Cocaine

          21(47.7)

          152(68.5)

          0.42 (0.22,0.81)

          .008

          Talwin & Ritalin

          38(86.4)

          78(35.1)

          11.69 (4.73,28.87)

          <.001

          Morphine

          7(15.9)

          63(28.4)

          0.48 (0.20,1.12)

          .086

          Heroin

          0(0.0)

          18(8.1)

          n/a

          --

          Amphetamines

          0(0.0)

          4(1.8)

          n/a

          --

          Methadone

          0(0.0)

          9(4.1)

          n/a

          --

          Crack

          4(9.1)

          61(27.5)

          0.26 (0.09,0.77)

          .010

          Crystal Methamphetamine

          1(2.3)

          9(4.1)

          0.55 (0.07,4.46)

          .570

          Dilaudid

          3(6.8)

          23(10.4)

          0.63 (0.18,2.21)

          .470

          Oxycontin

          1(2.3)

          6(2.7)

          0.84 (0.10,7.13)

          .871

          BBP Status

              

          HIV (n = 233)

          7(17.5)

          16(8.3)

          2.34 (0.90,6.15)

          .082

          Hepatitis C (n = 238)

          33(80.5)

          109(55.3)

          3.33 (1.46,7.58)

          .004

          Socio-demographic, injection-related and BBP status characteristics

          Specifically, solvent-using IDU tended to be younger in age (p < .001) with an average age of 31.6 years (SD: 7.5), compared to non-solvent-using IDU, who averaged 36.3 years of age (SD: 9.1). Solvent users were more likely to have reported injecting in a family house (OR: 2.71; 95%CI: 1.32,5.79), empty house (OR: 2.67; 95%CI: 1.16,6.14), hotel (OR: 2.34; 95%CI: 1.20,4.57), shooting gallery (OR: 2.76; 95%CI: 1.35,5.66) and on the street (OR: 2.05; 95%CI: 1.05,4.02). Solvent users were more likely to have reported sharing needles in the last 6 months (OR: 3.74; 95%CI: 1.78,7.85). In terms of the most frequent drugs injected, solvent users were more likely to report Talwin & Ritalin injection (OR: 11.69; 95%CI: 4.73,28.87), while less likely to report cocaine (OR: 0.42; 95%CI: 0.22,0.81) and crack (OR: 0.26; 95%CI: 0.09,0.77) injection. No solvent users reported heroin, amphetamines or methadone as their most frequently injected drug. Finally, solvent users were more likely to be HCV positive (OR: 3.33; 95%CI: 1.46,7.58). Solvent users were more likely to be HIV positive than their non-solvent using counterparts (17.5% versus 8.3%), but this was not statistically significant at the p < .05 level (p = .076).

          Multivariable analysis

          After backwards elimination, the following variables remained in the final logistic regression model (Table 2): HCV status (p = .016), sharing needles in the last 6 months (p = .048), Talwin & Ritalin injection (p < .001) and age (p < .001), adjusted for sex. All variables remained significant if sex was removed from the model.
          Table 2

          Adjusted Odds Ratios, Multivariable Logistic Regression of Predictors of Solvent Use, Aboriginal IDU, Winnipeg Manitoba

           

          Odds Ratio (95% CIs)

          Standard Error

          p

          Hepatitis C

          3.52 (1.27,14.68)

          1.85

          .016

          Share needles (last 6 months)

          2.61 (1.01,6.78)

          1.27

          .048

          Talwin & Ritalin injection

          9.97 (3.77,26.34)

          4.94

          <.001

          Age (per year increase)

          0.91 (0.86,0.96)

          0.02

          <.001

          Female

          0.80 (0.35,1.81)

          0.33

          .587

          Discussion

          This study examined the association between solvent use in Aboriginal IDU and socio-demographic factors, drug-related risk factors, use of other illicit substances and BBP infection. We found that after adjusting for other variables including sex, solvent use was significantly associated with Talwin & Ritalin injection, HCV status and age in this population.

          Some important limitations of the study should be stated at the outset. First and foremost, ours was a cross-sectional study, and a causal linkage between solvent use and injection drug use cannot be inferred from the data. Although both likely share determinants, our data are insufficient to establish causality. Aboriginal individuals in Canada face a combination of socially and structurally determined vulnerabilities, including high rates of entrenched poverty, unemployment, homelessness and sexual and physical abuse[2, 52, 53]. Many of these factors stem from a history of colonization, oppression, systemic racism and discrimination in Canadian society and have resulted in Aboriginal Canadians having unequal access to a variety of resources [2, 54]. Thus, the perniciousness of both solvent and injection drug use within Aboriginal populations is more likely a result of these determinants. Second, solvent use was measured broadly. The measure used was not precise enough to discriminate between chronic and casual use. Similarly, different types of solvents were not captured in this study. Third, since a sampling frame was not possible to construct for this marginalized and hidden population, the sample was not randomly generated and may not be representative of Aboriginal IDUs in other settings, or in Winnipeg. Fourth, social desirability bias, or high non-response rate is always an issue with self-reported data; however, it is likely that this would have served to underestimate associations toward the null. Finally, the sample size was relatively small and thus may have not had power to detect significant findings.

          Previous studies in Winnipeg have reported Talwin & Ritalin injection as being strongly associated with both Aboriginal ethnicity[50, 55] and high HCV prevalence[49]. That HCV infection is three times more likely in the population of solvent-using Aboriginal IDU, after controlling for Talwin & Ritalin injection and risky injection practices, strongly suggests the existence of pockets of higher risk even amongst an already high-risk subpopulation[39, 47]. It was also demonstrated that these qualitatively distinct 'higher-risk' groups can be distinguished when both injectable and non-injectable drug use is considered.

          The relatively low prevalence of both HIV and HCV among IDU in our geographic setting has motivated researchers to ask what role, if any, public health responses in Winnipeg may have contributed to lower prevalence[56]. Both HIV and HCV prevalence in the subset of solvent-using IDU are relatively higher than other IDU in our sample; and at 18% and 81% respectively, are in closer alignment with the prevalence observed in other jurisdictions[57, 58]. This dichotomy in prevalence reinforces the exceptionally high risk faced by solvent-using IDU, and their real or potential ability to be missed by what otherwise may be an effective public health response. This higher-risk group is particularly relevant given the recent attention paid to especially high rates of HIV in Aboriginal populations in central Canada[11, 12], and serve to illustrate that BBP epidemics in Canada are not homogeneous.

          Solvent use is an issue where there are no easily-identifiable solutions[23, 24]. Solvent users are at the bottom of a drug-using hierarchy, in terms of perception by other substance users and practitioners, and by the sheer volume of their social and personal challenges[29, 39, 42, 47]. Thus, given the already difficult lifestyle and behavioural issues related to injection drug use[58, 59], a combination of solvent use and injection drug use within Aboriginal populations may present considerable, and specific challenges for treatment[39, 47]. For example, although there is well-established literature on the effectiveness of harm-reduction efforts such as needle-exchange programs in curtailing the spread of BBPs[60, 61], the constituents of an equivalent and appropriate harm reduction strategy for solvent users have not been well articulated in the literature [24], although practical advice may include using solvents in groups, and using clean rags or sponges. As well, outreach efforts to these populations may be unduly hampered by the considerable stigma attached to chronic solvent use. Similar to recent Canadian research demonstrating that IDU who also smoked crack cocaine were at higher risk of HIV seroconversion[10], perhaps an especially chaotic lifestyle is contributing to the higher HCV prevalence in our solvent-using subpopulation.

          Understanding outlier populations

          As Kuller has suggested that understanding epidemics in "outlier" populations may have substantial benefits in unpacking transmission dynamics in more mainstream populations[62], a deeper examination of this, and similar subpopulations is warranted. Thus, we submit that understanding the exogenous factors that contribute to solvent use in IDU may result in better understanding of marginalized subpopulations in general, particularly with respect to understanding the trajectory of use[63]. For example, it has been recognized that solvent use is typically a group activity[23, 24, 26]. The natural consequence is the tendency to form closed networks[64], in this case comprised of fellow solvent-using IDU. This may be particularly true in our study population of Aboriginal IDUs, since individuals have been shown to form more cohesive structures according to ethnicity[65]. At the same time, the near ubiquity and accessibility of sources of solvents and inhalants is clearly a key contributor to their abuse[66]. Recent programs that seek to address solvent use in adolescent Aboriginal Canadians through improving individual-level coping strategies recognize that without multi-level support structures (e.g. family, community, environment) in place, individual recovery is likely to fail[25]. Other researchers have found that strong peer group sanctions against solvent use, in concert with messages concerning the dangers of solvent use were protective against lifetime and current use of solvents[23]. Thus, finding ways to identify and engage with solvent users and their peers may have application with other hidden and marginalized populations. Along this line, some authors have suggested that solvent use may be a marker for an inherently more challenging type of substance user[19, 45]. Thus, it may be useful to understand to what extent the actual choice of solvent use is a proxy for characteristics that distinguish the most marginalized of subpopulations. Understanding the populations that become chronic abusers of easy-to-obtain substances (such as solvents) may help to facilitate a more general understanding of subpopulations that have proven to be intractable to treatment.

          The fact that solvent use clusters around Talwin & Ritalin injection suggests two other interesting areas for future research. First, other authors have demonstrated the advantages of understanding IDU from a poly-injection drug use perspective[67]. Here, we have demonstrated the practicality of examining IDU in their use of both injection and non-injection drugs. At the treatment level, this perspective highlights the importance of treating two or more qualitatively distinct addictions concurrently[68, 69]. For example, Stenbacka et al. demonstrated that opiate-injecting IDU undergoing methadone maintenance therapy (MMT) were more likely to relapse if they had co-occurring alcohol abuse issues[69]. Secondly, the clustering of solvent and Talwin & Ritalin use suggests that the use of either is driven, to a certain degree, by opportunism. Although our data cannot provide a definitive answer, it would be useful to know under what circumstances IDU resort to inhaling solvents. Assuming inhalation is their 'fallback' method, and philosophically similar to MMT, perhaps a reliable supply of other injectable or non-injectable drugs would deter this subpopulation of IDU from using solvents, and thus prevent some of the more serious neurological and cognitive deficits associated with long-term chronic use[70, 71].

          Conclusion

          In conclusion, although addressing social or peer group norms has long been advocated as part of an effective prevention and treatment strategy for IDU, perhaps structural-level interventions are especially indicated for solvent-using Aboriginal IDU. At a time when rates of HIV and other BBPs are escalating in Canadian Aboriginal populations, studies like this one can help inform targeted strategies, as well as motivate harm reduction research in very marginalized populations. The strong socially-constructed vulnerabilities of Aboriginal populations, the illegality of injection drug use, the obduracy of solvent use to traditional regulation and control, and the extreme marginalization of solvent users may be interacting to create a 'perfect storm' for those IDU already infected, and those at high risk for infection to slip through the cracks in public health systems.

          Declarations

          Acknowledgements

          Funding for this study was provided by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. The authors acknowledge contributions from Margaret Fast, Gayatri Jayaraman, Katherine Dinner and Maxine Zasitko.

          Authors’ Affiliations

          (1)
          Centre for Global Public Health, University of Manitoba
          (2)
          Department of Community Health Sciences
          (3)
          School of Population and Public Health, University of British Columbia
          (4)
          Centre for Communicable Diseases and Infection Control, Public Health Agency of Canada
          (5)
          Department of Epidemiology and Community Medicine, University of Ottawa
          (6)
          Department of Medical Microbiology, University of Manitoba
          (7)
          Cadham Provincial Laboratory, Manitoba Health 750 William Avenue

          References

          1. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: HIV/AIDS Surveillance Report. 2007, Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
          2. Frohlich KL, Ross N, Richmond C: Health disparities in Canada today: Some evidence and a theoretical framework. Health Policy. 2006, 79 (2-3): 132-43. 10.1016/j.healthpol.2005.12.010.View ArticlePubMed
          3. O'Neil JD, Reading J, Leader A: Changing the relations of surveillance: the development of a discourse of resistance in Aboriginal epidemiology. Hum Organ. 1998, 57: 230-7.View Article
          4. Public Health Agency of Canada: HIV/AIDS Epi Notes: Understanding the HIV/AIDS epidemic among Aboriginal Peoples in Canada: the community at a glance. 2004, Public Health Agency of Canada
          5. Wright MR, Giele CM, Dance PR: Fulfilling prophecy? Sexually transmitted infections and HIV in Indigenous people in Western Australia. eMJA. 2005, 183: 124-8.PubMed
          6. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: Sexually Transmitted Disease Surveillance. 2008, Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
          7. Craib KJP, Spittal PM, Wood E: Risk factors for elevated HIV incidence among Aboriginal injection drug users in Vancouver. CMAJ. 2003, 168: 19-24.PubMed CentralPubMed
          8. Miller C, Strathdee S, Spittal P: Elevated rates of HIV infection among young Aboriginal injection drug users in a Canadian setting. Harm Reduct J. 2006, 3 (1): 9-10.1186/1477-7517-3-9.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMed
          9. Wood E, Montaner JSG, Li K: Burden of HIV infection among Aboriginal injection drug users in Vancouver, British Columbia. Am J Public Health. 2008, 98: 515-9. 10.2105/AJPH.2007.114595.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMed
          10. DeBeck K, Kerr T, Fischer B: Smoking of crack cocaine as a risk factor for HIV infection among people who use injection drugs. CMAJ. 2009, 181: 585-9.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMed
          11. Manitoba Health and Healthy Living: Statistical Update on HIV/AIDS: January 1985-December 2007. 2008, Communicable Disease Control Branch, Public Health Division
          12. Saskatchewan Health: HIV/AIDS in Saskatchewan, 2007. 2008, Public Health Branch
          13. Poundstone KE, Strathdee SA, Celentano DD: The social epidemiology of human immunodeficiency virus/acquired immunodeficiency syndrome. Epidemiol Rev. 2004, 26: 22-35. 10.1093/epirev/mxh005.View ArticlePubMed
          14. Luke DA: Getting the big picture in community science: methods that capture context. Am J Community Psychol. 2005, 35: 185-200. 10.1007/s10464-005-3397-z.View ArticlePubMed
          15. Houck CD, Lescano CM, Brown LK: Islands of risk: subgroups of adolescents at risk for HIV. J Pediatr Psychol. 2006, 31: 619-29. 10.1093/jpepsy/jsj067.View ArticlePubMed
          16. Zenilman JM, Ellish N, Fresia A: The geography of sexual partnerships in Baltimore: applications of core theory dynamics using a geographic information system. Sex Trans Dis. 1999, 26: 75-81. 10.1097/00007435-199902000-00002.View Article
          17. Steinman KJ, Hu Y: Substance use among American Indian Youth in an eastern city. J Ethn Subst Abuse. 2007, 6: 15-29. 10.1300/J233v06n01_02.View ArticlePubMed
          18. Howard MO, Perron BE: A survey of inhalant use disorders among delinquent youth: prevalence, clinical features, and latent structure of DSM-IV diagnostic criteria. BMC Psychiatry. 2009, 9 (8): doi:10.1186/471-244X/9/8
          19. Howard MO, Walker RD, Walker PS: Inhalant use among urban American Indian youth. Addiction. 1999, 94: 83-95. 10.1046/j.1360-0443.1999.941835.x.View ArticlePubMed
          20. Wu LT, Howard MO: Is inhalant use a risk factor for heroin and injection drug use among adolescents in the United States. Addict Behav. 2007, 32: 265-81. 10.1016/j.addbeh.2006.03.043.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMed
          21. Spear S, Longshore D, Micarffrey D: Prevalence of substance use among white and American Indian young adolescents in a Northern Plains state. J Psychoactive Drugs. 2005, 37: 1-6.View ArticlePubMed
          22. Dinwiddie SH: Abuse of inhalants: a review. Addiction. 1994, 89: 925-39. 10.1111/j.1360-0443.1994.tb03348.x.View ArticlePubMed
          23. Beauvais F, Waymann JC, Jumper-Thurman P: Inhalant abuse among American Indian, Mexican American, and Non-Latino White adolescents. Am J Drug Alcohol Abuse. 2002, 28: 171-87. 10.1081/ADA-120001287.View ArticlePubMed
          24. Weir E: Inhalant use and addiction in Canada. CMAJ. 2001, 164: 397-PubMed CentralPubMed
          25. Dell CA, Dell DE, Hopkins D: Resiliency and holistic inhalant abuse treatment. Journal of Aboriginal Health. 2005, 2 (1): 4-13.
          26. McGarvey EL, Clavet GJ, Mason W: Adolescent inhalant abuse: environments of use. Am J Drug Alcohol Abuse. 1999, 25: 731-41. 10.1081/ADA-100101889.View ArticlePubMed
          27. Johnston LD, O'Malley PM, Bachman JG: Monitoring the future national results on adolescent drug use: Overview of key findings, 2004. 2005, Rockville, MD: National Institute on Drug Abuse
          28. Collin C: Substance abuse issues and public policy in Canada: IV. prevalence of use and its consequences. 2006, Ottawa, Canada: Library of Parliament
          29. Wu LT, Howard MO: Psychiatric disorders in inhalant users: results from the National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions. Drug Alc Dep. 2007, 88: 146-55. 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2006.10.012.View Article
          30. Wu LT, Pilowsky DJ, Schlenger WE: Inhalant abuse and dependence among adolescents in the United States. J Am Acad Child Adolesc. 2004, 43: 1206-14. 10.1097/01.chi.0000134491.42807.a3.View Article
          31. Marjot R, McLeod AA: Chronic Non-neurological Toxicity from Volatile Substance Abuse. Hum Exp Toxicol. 1989, 8 (4): 301-6. 10.1177/096032718900800408.View Article
          32. Williams JF, Storck M, and the Committee on Substance Abuse: Inhalant Abuse. Pediatrics. 2007, 119 (5): 1009-17. 10.1542/peds.2007-0470.View ArticlePubMed
          33. Esmail A, Warburton B, Bland JM: Regional variations in deaths from volatile solvent abuse in Great Britain. Addiction. 1997, 92 (12): 1765-71. 10.1111/j.1360-0443.1997.tb02896.x.View ArticlePubMed
          34. Collins D, Pan Z, Johnson K: Individual and contextual predictors of inhalant use among 8th graders: a multilevel analysis. J Drug Educ. 2008, 38 (3): 193-210. 10.2190/DE.38.3.a.View ArticlePubMed
          35. Fendrich M, Mackesy-Amiti ME, Wislar JS: Childhood abuse and the use of inhalants: differences by degree of use. Am J Public Health. 1997, 87 (5): 765-9. 10.2105/AJPH.87.5.765.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMed
          36. Mackesy-Amiti ME, Fendrich M: Trends in Inhalant Use Among High School Students in Illinois: 1993-1995. Am J Drug Alcohol Abuse. 2000, 26 (4): 569-91. 10.1081/ADA-100101896.View ArticlePubMed
          37. Wu LT, Ringwalt CL: Inhalant use and disorders among adults in the United States. Drug Alc Dep. 2006, 85 (1): 1-11. 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2006.01.017.View Article
          38. Wu LT, Howard MO, Pilowsky DJ: Substance use disorders among inhalant users: Results from the National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions. Addict Behav. 2008, 33 (7): 968-73. 10.1016/j.addbeh.2008.02.019.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMed
          39. Altenkirch H, Kindermann W: Inhalant abuse and heroin addiction: a comparative study in 574 opiate addicts with and without a history of sniffing. Addict Behav. 1986, 11: 93-104. 10.1016/0306-4603(86)90033-X.View ArticlePubMed
          40. Bates SC, Plemons BW, Jumper-Thurman P: Volatile solvent use: Patterns by gender and ethnicity among school attenders and dropouts. Drugs Soc. 1997, 10 (1/2): 61-78. 10.1300/J023v10n01_04.View Article
          41. Howard MO, Jenson JM: Inhalant use among antisocial youth:: prevalence and correlates. Addict Behav. 1999, 24 (1): 59-74. 10.1016/S0306-4603(98)00039-2.View ArticlePubMed
          42. Storr CL, Westergaard R, Anthony JC: Early onset inhalant use and risk for opiate initiation by young adulthood. Drug Alc Dep. 2005, 78: 253-61. 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2004.11.005.View Article
          43. Johnson EO, Schutz CG, Anthony JC: Inhalants to heroin: a prospective analysis from adolescence to adulthood. Drug Alc Dep. 1995, 40: 159-64. 10.1016/0376-8716(95)01201-X.View Article
          44. Dinwiddie SH, Reich T, Cloninger CR: Solvent use as a precursor to intravenous drug abuse. Compr Psychiatry. 1991, 32: 133-40. 10.1016/0010-440X(91)90005-W.View ArticlePubMed
          45. Howard MO, Jenson JM: Inhalant use among antisocial youth: prevalence and correlates. Addict Behav. 1999, 24 (1): 59-74. 10.1016/S0306-4603(98)00039-2.View ArticlePubMed
          46. Health Canada: First Nations, Inuit and Aboriginal Health Treatment Centre Directory. 2010, (Accessed May 4 2010), http://​www.​hc-sc.​gc.​ca/​fniah-spnia/​substan/​ads/​nnadap-pnlaada_​dir-rep-eng.​phphttp://​www.​hc-sc.​gc.​ca/​fniah-spnia/​substan/​ads/​nnadap-pnlaada_​dir-rep-eng.​phphttp://​www.​hc-sc.​gc.​ca/​fniah-spnia/​substan/​ads/​nnadap-pnlaada_​dir-rep-eng.​php
          47. D'Amanda C, Plumb M, Taintor Z: Heroin addicts with a history of glue sniffing: a deviant group within a deviant group. Int J Addict. 1977, 12: 255-70.PubMed
          48. Wylie JL, Shah L, Jolly AM: Incorporating geographic settings into a social network analysis of injection drug use and bloodborne pathogen prevalence. Health Place. 2006, 13: 617-28. 10.1016/j.healthplace.2006.09.002.View ArticlePubMed
          49. Wylie JL, Shah L, Jolly AM: Demographic, risk behaviour and personal network variables associated with prevalent hepatitis C, hepatitis B, and HIV infection in injection drug users in Winnipeg, Canada. BMC Public Health. 2006, 6: 229-10.1186/1471-2458-6-229.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMed
          50. Shaw SY, Shah L, Jolly AM: Identifying heterogeneity among intravenous drug users: a cluster analysis approach. Am J Public Health. 2008, 98: 1430-7. 10.2105/AJPH.2007.120741.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMed
          51. StataCorp: Stata Statistical Software: Release 9. 2005, College Station: StataCorp LP
          52. Anand SS, Yusuf S, Jacobs R: Risk factors, atherosclerosis, and cardiovascular disease among Aboriginal people in Canada: the Study of Health Assessment and Risk Evaluation in Aboriginal Peoples (SHARE-AP). The Lancet. 2001, 358 (9288): 1147-53. 10.1016/S0140-6736(01)06255-9.View Article
          53. Brownridge BA: Understanding the Elevated Risk of Partner Violence Against Aboriginal Women: A Comparison of Two Nationally Representative Surveys of Canada. Journal of Family Violence. 2008, 23 (5): 353-67. 10.1007/s10896-008-9160-0.View Article
          54. MacMillan HL, MacMillan AB, Offord DR: Aboriginal health. CMAJ. 1996, 155: 1569-78.PubMed CentralPubMed
          55. Shaw SY, Shah L, Jolly AM: Determinants of IDU syringe sharing: The relationship between availability of syringes and risk network member characteristics in Winnipeg, Canada. Addiction. 2007, 102: 1626-35. 10.1111/j.1360-0443.2007.01940.x.View ArticlePubMed
          56. Des Jarlais DC: Reducing syringe sharing among injection drug users in Winnipeg: 81% success or 19% failure?. Addiction. 2007, 102: 1636-10.1111/j.1360-0443.2007.01991.x.View ArticlePubMed
          57. Des Jarlais DC, Perlis T, Arasteh K: Reduction of HIV infection in injecting drug users entering detoxification treatment in New York City, 1990-2001. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2004, 35: 158-66. 10.1097/00126334-200402010-00010.View ArticlePubMed
          58. Strathdee SA, Patrick DM, Currie SL: Needle exchange is not enough: lessons from the Vancouver injecting drug use study. AIDS. 1997, 11: 59-65. 10.1097/00002030-199708000-00001.View Article
          59. Miller CL, Wood E, Spittal P: The future face of coinfection: prevalence and incidence of HIV and Hepatitis C virus coinfection among young injection drug users. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2004, 36: 743-9. 10.1097/00126334-200406010-00012.View ArticlePubMed
          60. Raboud JM, Boily MC, Rajeswaran J: The impact of needle-exchange programs on the spread of HIV among injection drug users: a simulation study. J Urban Health. 2003, 80: 302-20.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMed
          61. Vlahov D, Junge B: The role of needle exchange programs in HIV prevention. Public Health Rep. 1998, 113: 75-80.PubMed CentralPubMed
          62. Kuller LH: Epidemiology is the study of "epidemics" and their prevention. AJE. 1991, 134: 1051-6.
          63. Ginzler JA, Cochran BN, Domenech-Rodriguez M: Sequential progression of substance use among homeless youth: an empirical investigation of the gateway theory. Subst Use Misuse. 2003, 38: 725-38. 10.1081/JA-120017391.View ArticlePubMed
          64. Des Jarlais DC, Perlis T, Arasteh K: "Informed altruism" and "partner restriction" in the reduction of HIV infection in injecting drug users entering detoxification treatment in New York City, 1990-2001. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2004, 35 (2): 158-66. 10.1097/00126334-200402010-00010.View ArticlePubMed
          65. McPherson M, Smith-Lovin L, Cook JM: Birds of a Feather: Homophily in Social Networks. Annu Rev Sociol. 2001, 27: 415-44. 10.1146/annurev.soc.27.1.415.View Article
          66. Lorenc JD: Inhalant abuse in the pediatric population: a persistent challenge. Cur Opin Pediatr. 2003, 15: 204-9. 10.1097/00008480-200304000-00012.View Article
          67. Peretti-Watel P, Spire B, Lert F: Drug use patterns and adherence to treatment among HIV-positive patients: evidence from a large sample of French outpatients (ANRS-EN12-VESPA 2003). Drug Alc Dep. 2006, 82 (Suppl I): S71-S9. 10.1016/S0376-8716(06)80012-8.View Article
          68. Torrens M, San L, Peri JM: Cocaine abuse among heroin addicts in Spain. Drug Alc Dep. 1991, 27: 29-34. 10.1016/0376-8716(91)90083-B.View Article
          69. Stenbacka M, Beck O, Leifman A: Problem drinking in relation to treatment outcome among opiate addicts in methadone maintenance treatment. Drug Alcohol Rev. 2007, 26: 55-63. 10.1080/09595230601036994.View ArticlePubMed
          70. Byrne A, Kirby B, Zibin T: Psychiatric and neurological effects of chronic solvent abuse. Can J Psychiatry. 1991, 36: 735-8.PubMed
          71. Muller AA, Muller GF: Inhalant abuse. J Emerg Nurs. 2006, 32: 447-8. 10.1016/j.jen.2006.05.018.View ArticlePubMed

          Copyright

          © Shaw et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2010

          This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://​creativecommons.​org/​licenses/​by/​2.​0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

          Advertisement