应用3种方法对某市吸毒人群基数估计实践研究

目的采用3种不同的基数估计方法对某市吸毒人群的基本规模进行估计,并综合3种方法所得结果,为吸毒人群艾滋病防治工作提供科学依据。方法对某市8个戒毒所登记在册的吸毒者调查,运用公安、司法等部门相关人员定性估计方法、捕获-再捕获法和简易乘数法对全市吸毒人群进行基数估计。结果该市公安部门登记在册的吸毒者共15856人,相关人员定性估计法估计该市吸毒人群基数约为32653人,捕获-再捕获法估计为85786～99446人（中位数为96407人）,简易乘数法估计为39106～50678人（中位数为48398人）,综合3种方法得到该市吸毒人群基数约为42900～90004人。结论该市吸毒人群的估计数量为登记在册人数的2.71～5.68倍。在实际工作中应在定性估计结果的基础上,根据实际需要,综合运用各种估计方法,以获得更准确的数字。     

吸毒人群基数估计方法的研究

目的 探讨估计吸毒人群基数的有效方法。方 法在乐山市市中区强制戒毒所、乐山市市中区自愿戒毒门诊和针具交换点收集相关数据资料，分别采用捕获一再捕获法、乘数法和德尔菲法对乐山市市中区现有吸毒人群基数进行估计。结果 捕获-再捕获法、乘数法和德尔菲法估计乐山市市中区现有吸毒分别为3455，1703和2600人。结论 依据戒毒所现存登记资料，采用捕获-再捕获法估计吸毒人群基数易于操作、费用低，结果可信性较好。乘数法计算简便，但在吸毒人群中获取准确的乘数较为困难。德尔菲法对难接触人群进行调查的可行性较好，但影响结果的主观因素较多。     

广东省某市吸毒人群规模的估计研究

[目的]采用乘数法和捕获-标记-再捕获法估计广东省某市吸毒人群的数量,为该人群健康干预工作提供依据。[方法]对广东省某市社区、美沙酮维持治疗门诊和劳教所的吸毒人员进行调查,获得该人群的基本情况,依据该市8家强制戒毒所的吸毒人员数据,运用乘数法和捕获-标记-再捕获法估算该市的吸毒人群数量。[结果]该市吸毒人群以青壮年为主,文化程度较低,地区分布广泛,乘数法和捕获-标记-再捕获法估计的吸毒人员基数分别为49619,(47599～54734)人。[结论]乘数法与捕获-标记-再捕获法有较好的一致性,估计该市吸毒人数约为50000人,对吸毒人群的基数估计要根据实际需要综合运用各种估计方法。     

同伴推动抽样法在吸毒人群基数估计中的应用

目的 探索用同伴推动抽样法(respondent-driven sampling,RDS)结合乘数法进行吸毒人群基数估计的可行性.方法 2008年,采用RDS招募东莞市社区吸毒人群进行面对面的问卷调查,获得样本所占接触强制戒毒所和美沙酮维持治疗(methadone maintenance treatment,MMT)门诊的比例,用RDS分析软件进行权重处理;结合当地强制戒毒所和MMT门诊的数据,估计吸毒人群基数.结果 经过15周,共招募303名吸毒者.以强制戒毒所为基础,估计东莞市吸毒人群为52 028(90% CI:35 196～81 590)人,是在册登记数的2.67(90% CI:1.81～4.19)倍;估计注射吸毒人群43 651(90% CI:29 529～68 454)人,占常住成年人口数的0.87%(90% CI:0.59%～1.36%).以MMT门诊为基础,估计东莞市吸毒人群为7 058(90% CI:3 555～13 162)人.结论 RDS结合乘数法对吸毒人群进行基数估计是可行的;但基于MMT门诊数据的估计结果可能会被低估,在应用时应注意选择合适的接触机构以及接触时间.     

应用乘数法估计英德市吸毒人群规模

本研究采用乘数法,分别以广东省英德市公安局2015年登记在册的吸毒人员数和强制戒毒所2014年收治的吸毒人员数作为基数,估算英德市吸毒人群规模。结果显示,2015年英德市登记在册的吸毒人数3 615人,2014年强制戒毒人员603人,估计的吸毒人群总数为4 004~5 965人,分别是英德市公安机关登记在册人数的1.11~1.65倍。以乘数法估计英德市吸毒人群规模是可行的,需考虑调查样本的代表性。     

卫生统计

052095吸毒人群基数估计方法的研究/袁萍…∥中国公共卫生.2003,19(8).1023～1024探讨估计吸毒人群基数的有效方法。在乐山市市中区强制戒毒所、乐山市市中区自愿戒毒门诊和针具交换点收集相关数据资料,分别采用捕获_再捕获法、、乘数法和德尔菲法对乐山市市中区现有吸毒人群基     

乘数法、捕获再捕获法和改良Delphi法估计吸毒人群的吸毒率

目的探讨乘数法、捕获再捕获法及改良Delphi法在吸毒率估计中的应用。方法在四川省乐山市中区同时应用乘数法、捕获再捕获法及改良Delphi法对其市中区现有吸毒人群的吸毒率进行了估计。结果得到现有吸毒人群吸毒估计率:乘数法为0.29%~0.38%;捕获再捕获法为0.30%(95%CI:0.22%~0.38%,分层估计)~0.32%(95%CI:0.22%~0.39%,不分层估计);改良Delphi法为0.45%(0.36%,0.46%)。总体估计结果约为公安登记在册估计率(0.20%)的1.5~2.5倍。结论改良Delphi法估计率最高,乘数法估计率较高于捕获再捕获法吸毒率95%可信区间的下限估计。3种估计方法一定程度上可满足应用需要,产生相对有效的吸毒估计率,但估计方法仍需进一步改进。     

捕获-再捕获法在艾滋病高危人群基数估计中的运用

目的:探讨捕获-再捕获法在艾滋病高危人群(同性恋人群、暗娼人群和吸毒人群)基数估计中的运用.方法:通过发放标记物和问卷调查估计成都市同性恋人群基数;依据戒毒所登记资料,估计乐山市市中区吸毒人群基数.结果:捕获-再捕获法对成都市同性恋者基数估计分别是1387、1372和1151人;对乐山市市中区吸毒人群的估计为3456人.结论:运用捕获-再捕获法对艾滋病高危人群进行估计经济易行,结果较为可靠,较适合发展中国家在卫生资源有限的情况下进行高危人群基数估计.     

用乘数法估计江苏省3市吸毒人群规模

目的估计吸毒人群规模,为制定防治策略提供依据。方法采用乘数法对江苏省3市吸毒人群进行估计,并根据注射吸毒比例计算注射吸毒人群规模。结果苏南某市吸毒人群32 914人,注射吸毒人群4 819人;苏中某市吸毒人群3 081人,注射吸毒人群719人;苏北某市吸毒人群5 461人,注射吸毒人群707人。结论利用已有数据和资料,用乘数法估计吸毒人群规模相对简单、易操作。     

应用捕获-再捕获方法估计湖南省洪江区吸毒人数的调查

目的 估计湖南省洪江区吸毒人数。方法应用捕获-再捕获法对洪江区吸毒者人数进行估计，同时，应用最优分配随机分层抽样的方法验证。一种捕获-再捕获法(CR1法)以抽样调查调查人数为第一次捕获，以公安部门登记在册687人为再捕获。应用Seber调整公式，计算估计吸毒人员总人数。另一种(CR2法)采用戒毒所登记的记录，以4个月为间隔，前后两次为捕获-再捕获。最优分配随机分层抽样方法则采用访谈，获得数据。结果抽样调查共调查1388人，发现吸毒人员24人，占1．73％；洪江区总人口为72709人，估计总吸毒人数1258人。CR1法估计总吸毒人数904人；CR2法估计总吸毒人数1069人。三种估计数差别无统计学意义，但高于公安部门在册人数1．3～1．6倍。结论捕获-再捕获法可以满足对吸毒人数的估计。     

实验室感染肾综合征出血热4例报告

肾综合征出血热(HFRS)传染源主要为野生的啮齿类动物。但是，国内外动物实验室、动物饲养室人员感染HFRS病毒的事件屡有发生。2005年初在牡丹江地区某高校动物实验室发生4例实验动物Wister大白鼠传染的HFRS，现报告如下。     

榆中县400名吸毒人员哨点监测HCV、HIV和梅毒感染状况调查分析

目的:了解榆中县吸毒人员艾滋病的感染状况,为预防控制艾滋病的流行提供科学依据。方法:对2010年4月-2010年6月份进入兰州市公安局强制戒毒所戒毒人员艾滋病哨点监测资料进行分析。结果:400名吸毒人员中,抗-HCV阳性88例,阳性率22.00%,抗-HIV阳性1例,阳性率0.25%,梅毒抗体阳性21例,阳性率5.25%。结论:吸毒人群存在HIV感染流行加快的潜在因素,必须加强吸毒人员的监测、宣传教育和实施行为干预。     

应用简易乘数法估计吸毒人群基数

目的探讨采用简易乘数法估计吸毒人群基数的可行性和准确性。方法对公安人员进行定性访谈以及对某市所有的强制戒毒所进行调查,了解该市目前的吸毒人员登记在册数和2004年该市强制戒毒所收治入所的吸毒人员数量;采用分层随机抽样方法在该市所有强制戒毒所抽取360名吸毒人员进行匿名访谈,获得其毒友中曾经被公安人员抓获或曾经在2004年内进入过该市的强制戒毒所的比例;分别采用该市的吸毒人员登记在册数和2004年该市强制戒毒所收治的吸毒人员数量作为基数,估算该市的吸毒人员数量。结果目前该市在册登记的吸毒者11 327人,2004年全市戒毒所共收押吸毒者4 670人。成功访谈戒毒所内吸毒人员340名,两种方法估计该市的吸毒人员数量分别为16 424人和19 614人。结论简易乘数法估计吸毒人员的规模可以在较短的时间内完成,且结果基本可信、耗费较少,适用于资源缺乏地区的快速评估。     

广东省四市吸毒人群规模估计研究

目的采用两种基数估计方法对广东省四市的吸毒人群规模进行估计,为广东全省吸毒人群的规模估计提供参考。方法于2005-2007年在广东省选取流动人口相对较少和较多的地级市各2个,对戒毒所内的戒毒者进行问卷调查,采用简易乘数法、捕获-再捕获法对各市的吸毒人群规模进行估计,并与各市公安登记在册的吸毒人数及上一年戒毒所收治的戒毒人数相比较。结果流动人口相对较少的两市,其吸毒人群规模约分别为登记在册数的1.39~3.70倍和1.33~2.05倍,为上一年该市戒毒所戒毒人数的3.37~8.97倍和4.11~6.33倍;流动人口较多的两市,其吸毒人群规模约分别为登记在册数的1.58~2.78倍和1.78~2.52倍,为上一年戒毒所戒毒人数的7.81~13.74倍和9.61~13.61倍。结论广东省各地可根据本地流动人口状况、吸毒的严重性、戒毒力度等综合情况,参考相应的倍数乘以当地吸毒者在册登记数或上一年戒毒所戒毒人数,估计该地的吸毒人群规模。     

Backcalculation of the number with human immunodeficiency virus infection in the United States

The method of backcalculation was applied to national surveillance data on the acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS) in order to estimate the cumulative number of adults with human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) infection as of January 1, 1985 and July 1, 1987. A "plausible range" of estimates was constructed which reflected both uncertainty about the AIDS incubation distribution and random variation from selection and fitting of flexible models of the HIV-1 infection curve. The authors estimated that, as of 1985, 411,000 to 756,000 persons were infected. The infected population included 266,000 to 492,000 homosexual men, 69,000 to 136,000 intravenous drug users, 24,000 to 49,000 homosexual intravenous drug users, and 11,000 to 26,000 persons infected through heterosexual contact. The estimated prevalence of infection among persons aged 15-55 years was 0.31% in whites, 0.78% in Hispanics, and 0.81% in blacks. An estimated 32,000 to 66,000 women were infected. Compared with white women aged 15-55 years, the prevalence of infection was 5.3-fold higher in Hispanic women and 10.2-fold higher in black women. Plausible estimates for the total number infected by July 1987 ranged from 707,000 to 1,376,000, with the most likely estimate equal to 992,000. Backcalculation provides an assessment of the magnitude of the HIV-1 epidemic that is independent of estimates based on prevalence surveys in special populations. The estimates obtained from both methods are consistent and emphasize the need for vigorous programs to prevent the spread of HIV-1, especially in minority communities.     

Estimation of injecting drug users in the City of Edinburgh, Scotland, and number infected with human immunodeficiency virus

OBJECTIVES: To estimate (1) the number of current and former injecting drug users (IDU) infected with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) alive in Edinburgh, and (2) the total number of current injectors in the city. METHODS: The number of infected IDU was estimated using a local register of HIV infections with correction for incompleteness of the register. The number of injectors was estimated by two independent methods, one based on the HIV register, the other by log-linear modelling of four lists of IDU interviewed in a city-wide survey, and/or attending drug treatment agencies and family doctors because of drug use. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Estimates for the period 1992-1994 of number of IDU infected with HIV, total number of IDU, and prevalence of injecting. RESULTS: The HIV register indicated that 371 infected drug users who had ever injected were alive and resident in Edinburgh. In all, 95% of infected survey respondents appeared in the register, leading to a corrected estimate of 472 infected ever injectors. From this the number of IDU currently injecting (i.e. in the previous 6 months) was estimated to be 1770 (95% CI: 1340-2240), and the prevalence of injecting as 8.0 (95% CI: 4.8-10.8) per 1000 Edinburgh residents aged 15-59 years. Log-linear modelling gave an estimate of 2070 (95% CI: 1360-2800) current injectors. CONCLUSIONS: The number of HIV-infected IDU in Edinburgh was estimated to be twice that in the larger nearby city of Glasgow, where a higher proportion of young adults currently injected drugs. Knowledge of the high prevalence of HIV in Edinburgh IDU (19.3%), the prescribing of oral substitutes, and counselling by doctors and drug workers are perceived reasons for the reduction in the prevalence of injecting which has occurred in Edinburgh in recent years. Such measures need to be continued to encourage further reduction of injecting.     

Capture-recapture estimates of problem drug use and the use of simulation based confidence intervals in a stratified analysis

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To establish the prevalence of problem drug use in the 10 local authorities within the Metropolitan County of Greater Manchester between April 2000 and March 2001. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Problem drug users aged 16-54 resident within Greater Manchester who attended community based statutory drug treatment agencies, were in contact with general practitioners, were assessed by arrest referral workers, were in contact with the probation service, or arrested under the Misuse of Drugs Act for offences involving possession of opioids, cocaine, or benzodiazepines. DESIGN: Multi-sample stratified capture-recapture analysis. Patterns of overlaps between data sources were modelled in a log-linear regression to estimate the hidden number of drug users within each of 60 area, age group, and gender strata. Simulation methods were used to generate 95% confidence intervals for the sums of the stratified estimates. MAIN RESULTS: The total number of problem drug users in Greater Manchester was estimated to be 19 255 giving a prevalence of problem drug use of 13.7 (95% CI 13.4 to 15.7) per 1000 population aged 16-54. The ratio of men to women was 3.5:1. The distribution of problem drug users varied across three age groups (16-24, 25-34, and 35-54) and varied between the 10 areas. CONCLUSIONS: Areas in close geographical proximity display different patterns of drug use in terms of prevalence rates and age and gender patterns. This has important implications, both for future planning of service provision and for the way in which the impact of drug misuse interventions are evaluated.