↓ Skip to main content

Return Rates for Needle Exchange Programs: A Common Criticism Answered

Overview of attention for article published in Harm Reduction Journal, April 2004
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (98th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
4 news outlets
blogs
1 blog
twitter
3 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
5 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
46 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Return Rates for Needle Exchange Programs: A Common Criticism Answered
Published in
Harm Reduction Journal, April 2004
DOI 10.1186/1477-7517-1-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kate Ksobiech

Abstract

This study searched the available needle exchange program (NEP) literature for return rate data. A total of 26 articles were found. The overall worldwide return rate was 90%, although this ranged from a low of 15% to a high of 112%. U.S. NEP return rates were gathered from only eight studies, indicating a clear need for more data, although U.S. return rates were comparable to those from NEPs outside of the U.S.One underlying assumption made by opponents of NEPs is that IDUs will not return needles to the distribution site, thereby potentially increasing the risk of health problems to the surrounding community from exposure to contaminated needles. This study's results suggest that NEPs are relatively successful in taking in used needles, although it is generally unclear where the needles were originally acquired, and if IDUs return their own needles, or are returning needles for a social network. Ways for AIDS Service Organizations to capitalize on these brief encounters with IDUs, as well as public policy implications of the findings, are discussed.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 46 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 2%
Unknown 45 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 14 30%
Student > Bachelor 9 20%
Researcher 4 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 4%
Other 5 11%
Unknown 9 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 12 26%
Social Sciences 7 15%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 7%
Psychology 3 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 4%
Other 9 20%
Unknown 10 22%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 42. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 24 July 2021.
All research outputs
#981,665
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Harm Reduction Journal
#166
of 1,119 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#1,039
of 62,409 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Harm Reduction Journal
#1
of 3 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,119 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 28.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 62,409 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 3 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them