↓ Skip to main content

Assessment of health services for people who use drugs in Central Asia: findings of a quantitative survey in Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan

Overview of attention for article published in Harm Reduction Journal, January 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
14 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
101 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
Assessment of health services for people who use drugs in Central Asia: findings of a quantitative survey in Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan
Published in
Harm Reduction Journal, January 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12954-016-0093-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Moritz Rosenkranz, Nina Kerimi, Madina Takenova, Antti Impinen, Mirlan Mamyrov, Peter Degkwitz, Heike Zurhold, Marcus-Sebastian Martens

Abstract

In Central Asia, there is a need to update information about the situation of people who use (opioid) drugs (PWUD), especially regarding their access to and utilization of health care services. The aim of the study was to gather information about two different groups of drug users in Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan. In 2013, two groups of PWUD were recruited in Kazakhstan and in Kyrgyzstan in order to gather quantitative data via interviewer-administered questionnaires. PWUD registered with the Narcological Register were allocated to group A while non-registered PWUD were allocated to group B. Interviews were conducted in the office of the Narcological Register as well as in low-threshold facilities. Participants reported about their drug use patterns, health status, and utilization of health services as well as barriers to utilization. The sample consisted of N = 600 PWUD (301 registered and 299 non-registered PWUD) from Kazakhstan and N = 900 PWUD (450 registered and 450 non-registered PWUD) from Kyrgyzstan. Both groups-registered (group A) and non-registered (group B)-consisted of mainly male long-term intravenous opioid users. We found high rates of current (last 30 days) opioid use (group A up to 70 %; group B up to 84 %). Most PWUD were burdened with poor physical and mental health. The prevalence of infectious diseases added up to 19 % (group A) or 13 % (group B) regarding HIV, 56 % (group A) or 30 % (group B) regarding HCV, and 24 % (group A) or 20 % (group B) regarding tuberculosis. Registered and non-registered PWUD reported high rates (95 or 82 %) of lifetime use of health services for PWUD. Drug-related services were utilized less often, especially among the non-registered PWUD (13 %). The most important barriers preventing PWUD from accessing services were the belief not to need treatment, doubts about the effectiveness of treatment, mistrust of treatment regime/staff, and fear of being registered with the Narcological Register (mainly group B). Results show that access to the health care system for non-registered PWUD is realized mainly through low-threshold facilities. Opioid substitution treatment, which is an important pillar in the treatment of PWUD, is normally only available for those registered with the Narcological Register. Instead, access to opioid substitution treatment (especially in Kazakhstan) should be expanded and granted without prior registration, as this poses an important barrier for PWUD's utilization of drug treatment services. Further, there seems to be a need for the provision of specific and target group-related information about drug treatment services in order to reduce existing reservations among PWUD as to the necessity and effectiveness of modern drug treatment.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 101 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 101 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 27 27%
Researcher 15 15%
Student > Bachelor 13 13%
Student > Postgraduate 5 5%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 4%
Other 8 8%
Unknown 29 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 31 31%
Nursing and Health Professions 13 13%
Psychology 10 10%
Social Sciences 6 6%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 3%
Other 9 9%
Unknown 29 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 21 March 2016.
All research outputs
#14,246,461
of 22,842,950 outputs
Outputs from Harm Reduction Journal
#777
of 922 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#207,935
of 396,850 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Harm Reduction Journal
#6
of 10 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,842,950 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 922 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 28.8. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 396,850 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 10 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 4 of them.