Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (CAMH), 1001 Queen Street, Toronto, Ontario, M6J 1H4, Canada; Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, 6th Floor, 155 College Street, Toronto, Ontario, M5T 3M7, Canada.
Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (CAMH), 1001 Queen Street, Toronto, Ontario, M6J 1H4, Canada; Institute of Medical Science, University of Toronto, 1 King's College Circle, Toronto, Ontario, M5S 1A8, Canada.
Int J Drug Policy. 2023 Feb;112:103958. doi: 10.1016/j.drugpo.2023.103958. Epub 2023 Jan 21.
Psychoactive substance use and the regulations that govern it both have the potential to lead to harm. A 'public health approach' (PHA) is frequently invoked as a means of addressing these harms, but the term is used in inconsistent and contradictory ways. This study systematically reviewed the English-language academic literature to understand how a public health approach to substance use is defined and described.
This review employed thematic synthesis, a methodology designed to rigorously synthesize qualitative evidence. Eligible articles were published in peer-reviewed journals, in the English language, with full text available, and focused primarily on substance use. There were no limits on year of publication. Original research, opinion/commentary, and reviews were included. The searches were conducted in October 2021 in CINAHL, Embase, Medline, PAIS Index, PsycINFO, Scopus, Sociological Abstracts, and Web of Science.
272 articles from 25 countries, published between 1950 and 2021, were synthesized. Definitions of a PHA have changed over time and differ by substance. The most commonly cited characteristics of a PHA were: for alcohol, regulation, e.g. of price and availability (54% of articles); for cannabis: regulation (68%); for illicit drugs: that a PHA is distinct from a criminal justice approach (63%); for opioids: substance use disorder treatment (55%); and for tobacco: regulation (62%).
There is no consensus on the definition of a public health approach to substance use, but there is substantial agreement when it comes to PHAs to specific substances. There are also similarities in how they are described for legal substances versus illicit ones. This review found areas of disagreement regarding the extent to which PHAs should focus on individual-level factors. Policymakers, academics, and others developing or implementing PHAs to substance use should be explicit about their aims and objectives - as well as the premises and assumptions underlying them.
精神活性物质的使用及其监管都有可能造成伤害。人们经常援引“公共卫生方法”(PHA)来解决这些伤害,但该术语的使用方式存在不一致和矛盾。本研究系统地回顾了英文学术文献,以了解物质使用的公共卫生方法是如何定义和描述的。
本研究采用主题综合法,这是一种旨在严格综合定性证据的方法。符合条件的文章发表在同行评议的期刊上,使用英文,全文可用,并主要关注物质使用。对出版物的年份没有限制。纳入原始研究、观点/评论和综述。检索于 2021 年 10 月在 CINAHL、Embase、Medline、PAIS Index、PsycINFO、Scopus、Sociological Abstracts 和 Web of Science 进行。
综合了来自 25 个国家的 272 篇文章,发表时间在 1950 年至 2021 年之间。PHA 的定义随着时间的推移而发生了变化,并且因物质而异。PHA 最常被引用的特征为:对于酒精,监管,例如价格和供应(54%的文章);对于大麻:监管(68%);对于非法药物:PHA 有别于刑事司法方法(63%);对于阿片类药物:物质使用障碍治疗(55%);对于烟草:监管(62%)。
对于物质使用的公共卫生方法的定义没有共识,但对于特定物质的 PHAs 有很大的共识。对于合法物质和非法物质,它们的描述也有相似之处。本研究发现,在 PHA 应在多大程度上关注个人层面的因素方面存在分歧。制定或实施物质使用的 PHA 的政策制定者、学者和其他人应该明确他们的目标和目的——以及这些目标背后的前提和假设。