Search

Heroin overdose, more accurately termed ‘heroin-related overdose’ due to the frequent involvement of other drugs, is the leading cause of mortality among regular heroin users. (Degenhardt et al., 2010) Heroin injectors are at greater risk of hospital admission for heroin-related overdose (HOD) in the eastern United States where Colombian-sourced powder heroin is sold than in the western US where black ‘tar’ heroin predominates. (Unick et al., 2014) This paper examines under-researched influences on HOD, both fatal and non-fatal, using data from a qualitative study of injecting drug users of black tar heroin in San Francisco and powder heroin in Philadelphia Data were collected through in-depth, semi-structured interviews carried out in 2012 that were conducted against a background of longer-term participant-observation, ethnographic studies of drug users and dealers in Philadelphia (2007–12) and of users in San Francisco (1994–2007, 2012). Our findings suggest three types of previously unconsidered influences on overdose risk that arise both from structural socio-economic factors and from the physical properties of the heroin source-types: 1) retail market structure including information flow between users; 2) marketing techniques such as branding, free samples and pricing and 3) differences in the physical characteristics of the two major heroin source forms and how they affect injecting techniques and vascular health. Although chosen for their contrasting source-forms, we found that the two cities have contrasting dominant models of drug retailing: San Francisco respondents tended to buy through private dealers and Philadelphia respondents frequented an open-air street market where heroin is branded and free samples are distributed, although each city included both types of drug sales. These market structures and marketing techniques shape the availability of information regarding heroin potency and its dissemination among users who tend to seek out the strongest heroin available on a given day. The physical characteristics of these two source-types, the way they are prepared for injecting and their effects on vein health also differ markedly. The purpose of this paper is to examine some of the unexplored factors that may lead to heroin-related overdose in the United States and to generate hypotheses for further study. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Despite the health and survival advantages of Hispanics relative to non-Hispanic whites in the USA, Hispanics report themselves to be in worse health than whites. Prior research indicates that these ethnic differences in self-rated health (SRH), measured by a simple question asking individuals to assess their overall health status, persist in the presence of an extensive set of explanatory variables. In this paper we use data from the first wave of the Los Angeles Family and Neighborhood Survey (L.A.FANS-1) to test three hypotheses regarding Hispanic–white differences in SRH. We evaluate whether poorer health reports among Hispanics result from: (1) acculturation and language-related differences in reports; (2) measures of socioeconomic status (SES) that are often omitted in other studies; and (3) somatization of emotional distress by Hispanics. Our results provide new insights into the validity of these explanations and suggest avenues for future research. First, they underscore the importance of language of interview over other measures of acculturation, suggesting that translation issues between the Spanish and English versions of the SRH question may give rise to some of the differences. Second, adjustment for SES—especially years of schooling—narrows, but does not eliminate, the gap between whites’ and Hispanics’ SRH. Finally, although respondents who are depressed are more likely to report poor SRH, this study provides little evidence to support the somatization hypothesis. The second wave of L.A.FANS incorporates new questions that are likely to permit more in-depth assessments of these hypotheses in future analyses. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Recent work on health and place has examined the impact of the environment on health. At the local level, research has followed several strands, such as contextual effects of neighborhoods, the impact of differential access to services and amenities, effects of a neighborhood''s collective efficacy, and the relationship between social capital and health. Of these four approaches, social capital has generated the most debate; some scholars discuss social capital as a key epidemiological variable, while others discount or dismiss its utility. We undertook this research to assess whether the concept of social capital could increase our understanding of the impact of neighborhoods on residents’ health. We utilized key informant interviews and focus groups to understand ways in which residents of diverse neighborhoods in one large California city perceived that their local communities were affecting health. We argue in this paper that using the term “social capital” to discuss social resources and their mobilization in a particular neighborhood highlights the ways in which social resources can vary in relation to economic resources, and that residents of neighborhoods with differing levels of services and amenities face different issues when mobilizing to improve their neighborhoods. Additionally, the projects that people invest in vary by neighborhood socioeconomic status. We draw on the paired concepts of “bridging” and “bonding” social capital, and discuss that while stores of bonding social capital may be more uniform across neighborhoods of varying SES, bridging social capital tends to be found in greater amounts in neighborhoods of higher SES which allows them greater success when mobilizing to improve their neighborhoods. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]