Search

Summary: Background: Healthcare workers (HCWs) are at significant risk of exposure to blood-borne viruses (BBV). Aim: To investigate HCW perceptions concerning occupational exposures to BBV and possible barriers involved in reporting incidents. Methods: A total of 120 HCWs based at the Dental Institute, King''s College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, completed an anonymous questionnaire as part of a multicentre study. Findings: Eighty-six percent (99/115) of respondents worried about developing a BBV infection at work. Of those who feared hepatitis C virus (HCV) the most, 69% (31/45) also believed that HCV posed the greatest risk to their health, versus 53% (10/19) and 13% (5/40) with regard to hepatitis B virus (HBV) and HIV infection, respectively (P < 0.001). Of respondents with ≥21 years of health service experience, 75% (18/24) knew the risk of HIV transmission versus 13% (2/16) of respondents with <5 years of health service experience (P = 0.002). All (23/23) respondents with ≥21 years of service were aware of HIV PEP versus 20% (12/60) with <21 years of service. Ninety-two percent of respondents (104/113) agreed that it was important to report all body fluid exposure incidents but only 58% (28/48) had reported all their exposure incidents. Fifty-nine percent (60/102) agreed that an electronic reporting system would improve reporting of such incidents. Conclusions: This study identified a need to improve HCWs'' knowledge of BBV infection risks and their management. Data gathered in this study will be used to inform the development of a web-based system for the surveillance of occupational exposures to BBV in the UK. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Abstract: In many high income countries men who have sex with men (MSM) and injecting drug users (IDUs) are the two groups with the highest HIV prevalence. Yet these two groups are not mutually exclusive, and those MSM who are also IDUs (MSM–IDUs) may be particularly vulnerable to HIV infection. This may be particularly relevant to the IDU population in countries, like the UK, with a much lower HIV prevalence amongst IDUs than MSM, as the MSM–IDUs could provide a route of HIV infection into the IDU population. In this research two alternative modelling approaches that describe the transmission dynamics of HIV within the IDU, MSM, and heterosexual populations are proposed. These models are constructed with two aims. The first is to investigate the possible impact of interventions that target HIV transmission in the MSM and IDU populations, and the second aim is to investigate the impact of the model structure on the model results. An examination of the assortativity of mixing between risk groups is also undertaken. The models are parameterised for England and Wales. While the MSM–IDU population is small, targeting MSM–IDUs was the most efficient intervention strategy in terms of cases averted per 100 individuals targeted with the intervention. Sensitivity analysis showed that variations in the assumed assortativity of mixing between the population groups in both models have a large impact on model results. This means that to generate quantitatively robust estimates for the impact of different intervention strategies it will be necessary to obtain estimates for assortativity values through empirical work. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Background: There have been increasing concerns about injection into the femoral vein - groin injecting - among people who inject drugs in a number of countries, though most studies have been small. The extent, reasons and harms associated with groin injecting are examined.Method: Participants were recruited using respondent driven sampling (2006-2009). Weighted data was examined using bivariate analyses and logistic regression.Results: The mean age was 32 years; 25% were women (N=855). During the preceding 28 days, 94% had injected heroin and 13% shared needles/syringes. Overall, 53% reported ever groin injecting, with 9.8% first doing so at the same age as starting to inject. Common reasons given for groin injecting included: "Can't get a vein elsewhere" (68%); "It is discreet" (18%); and "It is quicker" (14%). During the preceding 28 days, 41% had groin injected, for 77% this was the only body area used (for these "It is discreet" was more frequently given as a reason). In the multivariable analysis, groin injection was associated with: swabbing injection sites; saving filters for reuse; and receiving opiate substitution therapy. It was less common among those injecting into two body areas, and when other people (rather than services) were the main source of needles. Groin injection was more common among those with hepatitis C and reporting ever having deep vein thrombosis or septicaemia.Conclusions: Groin injection was common, often due to poor vascular access, but for some it was out of choice. Interventions are required to reduce injecting risk and this practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]