Wednesday, February 7, 2007

Safe in Your Own Home??

Have you ever considered the fact that your health may be at risk based on your choice of residence? If not, you may need to rethink your answer to that question. A scholarly journal, “Health and Place” recently published an article entitled, “Neighborhood and HIV infection among IDU: Place of residence independently predicts HIV infection among a cohort of injection drug users,” revealing a shocking study that investigated a poor Canadian neighborhood and its surrounding areas, deciding whether or not the environmental conditions were a risk factor for HIV infection in injection users. The study, conducted by medical professionals, found this claim to be somewhat true, bringing to surface a question in all of our minds; can we feel safe in our own surroundings?

Recently it has became known within the field of public health that certain environmental areas have been more subject to the spread of infectious diseases among injection users than others. These areas are usually characterized by extreme poverty, high crime rates, homelessness, unsatisfactory housing, and high levels of alcohol and drug abuse. (City of Vancouver, 2000; Wood et al., 2004b) The scientists conducting the study felt that Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) is a disease more likely to be transmitted in these conditions. Vancouver, Canada being one of these high risk areas was a perfect place to test the spread of HIV among injection users. The study began by collecting blood samples from the selected subjects, some being from downtown Vancouver, known for the above characteristics in which 4700 of Vancouver’s 8000 injection users resided. The other population samples came from surrounding Vancouver areas, where residents were less likely to reside in the previously mentioned environments. Each person was required to be HIV negative at enrollment. The subjects went through a variety of interviews where they were questioned on what types of injections they gave themselves, how frequently they were given, and what drugs were being injected. Those conducting the study used answers to these questions as variables in the experiment. To test the HIV rate of the subjects a Kaplan-Meier analysis was introduced. The goal of this type of analysis is to estimate a population survival curve from a sample. It was an easy way to determine the results of the study because if every patient is followed until death, the curve can be estimated by computing the fraction surviving at each time. (http://biostat.mc.vanderbilt.edu/twiki/pub/Main/ClinStat/km.lam.pdf, 1) The study found that as of December 2004, 133 of 1035 participants were HIV positive. The incidence rate was 16.1% for those residing in downtown Vancouver compared to 8.9% among those in the surrounding areas of Vancouver that had less of the high-risk environmental factors. (Maas, 12) This seems to be reason enough to believe that area of residence can increase the spread of infectious diseases among injection users. The conductors of the study also revealed that there was a substantial number of downtown Vancouver residents who reported moves to and from their area of residence, suggesting that the transmission of infection to other parts of Canada and the US would begin to greatly increase. (Maas, 15) While previous studies have shown that high risk environments can include shooting galleries, crack houses and public injection sites, who would have ever thought to look right in their own backyard? (Maas, 16) Not only do the residents of Vancouver, Canada need to be aware of this appalling evidence, but the rest of the public should as well.

Overall, the study conducted to determine whether or not one can feel safe from the spread of infection in his or her own surroundings was very informative. It revealed harsh truths that the public should be aware of and after learning of the problem officials should target high-risk environments with effective distribution of medicines and strive to prevent the spread of disease locally. Hopefully the knowledge acquired from this study will open everyone’s eyes to some of the major health problems affecting the world around us.

1 comment:

Daniel Lupton said...

Brittany, I think this is a good post and you've definitely picked an academic article and summarized it well. My main criticism is about your framing device. Unless you live in a shooting gallery or a crack house, should you really worry that environmental factors will cause you to get HIV? It seems as though you are attempting to hook your readers by playing on the fear of an unlikely scenario, which I think has big ethical ramifications. Also, I think you should think more about your organization. The long paragraph in the middle of your post certainly could have been broken into smaller paragraphs, which would've made it much easier to read.