17
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Política de drogas e Saúde Coletiva: diálogos necessários Translated title: Política de drogas y Salud Colectiva: diálogos necesarios Translated title: Drug policy and Collective Health: necessary dialogues

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          A hegemonia atual das políticas de drogas ilícitas tem implicações à Saúde Coletiva que necessitam ser discutidas de forma aprofundada. Este ensaio procura explorar, à luz das melhores evidências, o impacto das políticas sobre drogas focadas na criminalização do plantio, comércio e consumo de substâncias psicoativas sobre a saúde das populações. O contexto de análise principal será o brasileiro. Os pontos principais abordados por este trabalho incluem a questão social das drogas e a definição do paradigma proibicionista, as evidências da relação insalubre entre tal paradigma e a saúde das populações, a problemática de um modelo de assistência aos usuários de substâncias psicoativas focado nas comunidades terapêuticas, e futuros caminhos a serem explorados na superação da proibição de drogas ilícitas como a principal forma de abordar a questão. Entre os principais elementos problemáticos da abordagem repressiva no contexto brasileiro podem ser destacados a violência e a mortalidade por homicídios, os impactos sanitários do encarceramento e o bloqueio de acesso ao sistema de saúde e a novas terapias derivadas de substâncias psicoativas atualmente proscritas. Como propostas de mudanças políticas futuras, ressalta-se a descriminalização do uso, posse e pequenas vendas de drogas; a redução da violência e da discriminação associadas ao policiamento; o foco em políticas de redução de danos; a abordagem das especificidades relacionadas ao gênero; incluir variáveis sociais como métrica do sucesso no tratamento do uso problemático de drogas. Concluindo, é relevante que a questão social e política das drogas se torne objeto de mais estudos no campo da Saúde Coletiva.

          Translated abstract

          La hegemonía actual de las políticas de drogas ilícitas tiene implicaciones para la Salud Colectiva que necesitan discutirse profundamente. Este trabajo estudia, a la luz de las mejores evidencias, el impacto de las políticas sobre las drogas, enfocadas en la criminalización del cultivo, tráfico y consumo de sustancias psicoactivas, para la salud de la población. El contexto de análisis principal será el brasileño. Los puntos principales abordados por este trabajo incluyen: cuestión social de las drogas y la definición del paradigma prohibicionista; evidencias de la relación insana entre este paradigma y la salud de las poblaciones; así como la problemática de un modelo de asistencia a los consumidores de sustancias psicoactivas centrado en comunidades terapéuticas, y los futuros caminos que se exploran para que se supere la prohibición de las drogas ilícitas como la vía principal de abordaje de esta cuestión. Entre los elementos primordiales y problemáticos del enfoque represivo en el contexto brasileño se pueden destacar: violencia y mortalidad por homicidios; impactos sanitarios con conlleva el encarcelamiento y el bloqueo del acceso al sistema de salud; así como las nuevas terapias, derivadas de sustancias psicoactivas, actualmente proscritas. A modo de propuestas para posibles cambios políticos futuros, se resalta la descriminalización del consumo, posesión y venta de pequeñas cantidades de droga; la reducción de la violencia y discriminación, asociadas a la vigilancia policial; situar el centro de la cuestión en políticas de reducción de perjuicios para la salud; plantear las especificidades relacionadas con el género; así como incluir variables sociales como medir el éxito de los tratamientos relacionados con el consumo problemático de drogas. A modo de conclusión, es relevante que la cuestión social y política de las drogas se convierta en objeto de más estudios en el campo de la Salud Colectiva.

          Translated abstract

          The current status of policies on illicit drugs has implications for Collective Health that need to be discussed in depth. This essay aims to explore, in light of the best evidence, the public health impact of drug policies focused on the criminalization of growing, selling, and consuming psychoactive substances. Brazil provides the context for the main analysis. The principal points addressed in this work include drugs as a social issue and the definition of the prohibitionist paradigm, evidence of the unhealthy relationship between this paradigm and the population’s health, the issue of a model of care for users of psychoactive substances focused on therapeutic communities, and future paths to be explored to overcome the prohibition of illicit drugs as the principal approach to the issue. Among the main problematic elements in the repressive approach in the Brazilian context, the study highlights violence and homicides, the health impacts of incarceration and blocked access to the health system, and potential new therapies derived from currently banned psychoactive substances. As proposals for future policy changes, the study highlights decriminalization of the use, possession, and small-scale sale of drugs; the reduction of the violence and discrimination associated with policing; focus on harm reduction policies; approach to gender-related specificities; and inclusion of social variables as metrics for successful treatment of problematic drug use. In conclusion, it is relevant that the social issue and drug policy have become the object of more studies in the field of Collective Health.

          Related collections

          Most cited references50

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Substance abuse and dependence in prisoners: a systematic review.

          To review studies of the prevalence of substance abuse and dependence in prisoners on reception into custody. A systematic review of studies measuring the prevalence of drug and alcohol abuse and dependence in male and female prisoners on reception into prison was conducted. Only studies using standardized diagnostic criteria were included. Relevant information, such as mean age, gender and type of prisoner, was recorded for eligible studies. The prevalence estimates were compared with those from large cross-sectional studies of prevalence in prison populations. Thirteen studies with a total of 7563 prisoners met the review criteria. There was substantial heterogeneity among the studies. The estimates of prevalence for alcohol abuse and dependence in male prisoners ranged from 18 to 30% and 10 to 24% in female prisoners. The prevalence estimates of drug abuse and dependence varied from 10 to 48% in male prisoners and 30 to 60% in female prisoners. The prevalence of substance abuse and dependence, although highly variable, is typically many orders of magnitude higher in prisoners than the general population, particularly for women with drug problems. This highlights the need for screening for substance abuse and dependence at reception into prison, effective treatment while in custody, and follow-up on release. Specialist addiction services for prisoners have the potential to make a considerable impact.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD) for alcoholism: meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

            Assessments of lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD) in the treatment of alcoholism have not been based on quantitative meta-analysis. Hence, we performed a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials in order to evaluate the clinical efficacy of LSD in the treatment of alcoholism. Two reviewers independently extracted the data, pooling the effects using odds ratios (ORs) by a generic inverse variance, random effects model. We identified six eligible trials, including 536 participants. There was evidence for a beneficial effect of LSD on alcohol misuse (OR, 1.96; 95% CI, 1.36-2.84; p = 0.0003). Between-trial heterogeneity for the treatment effects was negligible (I² = 0%). Secondary outcomes, risk of bias and limitations are discussed. A single dose of LSD, in the context of various alcoholism treatment programs, is associated with a decrease in alcohol misuse.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Effectiveness of brief alcohol interventions in primary care populations

              Excessive drinking is a significant cause of mortality, morbidity and social problems in many countries. Brief interventions aim to reduce alcohol consumption and related harm in hazardous and harmful drinkers who are not actively seeking help for alcohol problems. Interventions usually take the form of a conversation with a primary care provider and may include feedback on the person's alcohol use, information about potential harms and benefits of reducing intake, and advice on how to reduce consumption. Discussion informs the development of a personal plan to help reduce consumption. Brief interventions can also include behaviour change or motivationally‐focused counselling. This is an update of a Cochrane Review published in 2007. To assess the effectiveness of screening and brief alcohol intervention to reduce excessive alcohol consumption in hazardous or harmful drinkers in general practice or emergency care settings. We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, and 12 other bibliographic databases to September 2017. We searched Alcohol and Alcohol Problems Science Database (to December 2003, after which the database was discontinued), trials registries, and websites. We carried out handsearching and checked reference lists of included studies and relevant reviews. We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of brief interventions to reduce hazardous or harmful alcohol consumption in people attending general practice, emergency care or other primary care settings for reasons other than alcohol treatment. The comparison group was no or minimal intervention, where a measure of alcohol consumption was reported. 'Brief intervention' was defined as a conversation comprising five or fewer sessions of brief advice or brief lifestyle counselling and a total duration of less than 60 minutes. Any more was considered an extended intervention. Digital interventions were not included in this review. We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We carried out subgroup analyses where possible to investigate the impact of factors such as gender, age, setting (general practice versus emergency care), treatment exposure and baseline consumption. We included 69 studies that randomised a total of 33,642 participants. Of these, 42 studies were added for this update (24,057 participants). Most interventions were delivered in general practice (38 studies, 55%) or emergency care (27 studies, 39%) settings. Most studies (61 studies, 88%) compared brief intervention to minimal or no intervention. Extended interventions were compared with brief (4 studies, 6%), minimal or no intervention (7 studies, 10%). Few studies targeted particular age groups: adolescents or young adults (6 studies, 9%) and older adults (4 studies, 6%). Mean baseline alcohol consumption was 244 g/week (30.5 standard UK units) among the studies that reported these data. Main sources of bias were attrition and lack of provider or participant blinding. The primary meta‐analysis included 34 studies (15,197 participants) and provided moderate‐quality evidence that participants who received brief intervention consumed less alcohol than minimal or no intervention participants after one year (mean difference (MD) ‐20 g/week, 95% confidence interval (CI) ‐28 to ‐12). There was substantial heterogeneity among studies (I² = 73%). A subgroup analysis by gender demonstrated that both men and women reduced alcohol consumption after receiving a brief intervention. We found moderate‐quality evidence that brief alcohol interventions have little impact on frequency of binges per week (MD ‐0.08, 95% CI ‐0.14 to ‐0.02; 15 studies, 6946 participants); drinking days per week (MD ‐0.13, 95% CI ‐0.23 to ‐0.04; 11 studies, 5469 participants); or drinking intensity (‐0.2 g/drinking day, 95% CI ‐3.1 to 2.7; 10 studies, 3128 participants). We found moderate‐quality evidence of little difference in quantity of alcohol consumed when extended and no or minimal interventions were compared (‐20 g/week, 95% CI ‐40 to 1; 6 studies, 1296 participants). There was little difference in binges per week (‐0.08, 95% CI ‐0.28 to 0.12; 2 studies, 456 participants; moderate‐quality evidence) or difference in days drinking per week (‐0.45, 95% CI ‐0.81 to ‐0.09; 2 studies, 319 participants; moderate‐quality evidence). Extended versus no or minimal intervention provided little impact on drinking intensity (9 g/drinking day, 95% CI ‐26 to 9; 1 study, 158 participants; low‐quality evidence). Extended intervention had no greater impact than brief intervention on alcohol consumption, although findings were imprecise (MD 2 g/week, 95% CI ‐42 to 45; 3 studies, 552 participants; low‐quality evidence). Numbers of binges were not reported for this comparison, but one trial suggested a possible drop in days drinking per week (‐0.5, 95% CI ‐1.2 to 0.2; 147 participants; low‐quality evidence). Results from this trial also suggested very little impact on drinking intensity (‐1.7 g/drinking day, 95% CI ‐18.9 to 15.5; 147 participants; very low‐quality evidence). Only five studies reported adverse effects (very low‐quality evidence). No participants experienced any adverse effects in two studies; one study reported that the intervention increased binge drinking for women and two studies reported adverse events related to driving outcomes but concluded they were equivalent in both study arms. Sources of funding were reported by 67 studies (87%). With two exceptions, studies were funded by government institutes, research bodies or charitable foundations. One study was partly funded by a pharmaceutical company and a brewers association, another by a company developing diagnostic testing equipment. We found moderate‐quality evidence that brief interventions can reduce alcohol consumption in hazardous and harmful drinkers compared to minimal or no intervention. Longer counselling duration probably has little additional effect. Future studies should focus on identifying the components of interventions which are most closely associated with effectiveness. Effectiveness of brief alcohol interventions in primary care populations What is the aim of this review? We aimed to find out whether brief interventions with doctors and nurses in general practices or emergency care can reduce heavy drinking. We assessed the findings from 69 trials that involved a total of 33,642 participants; of these 34 studies (15,197 participants) provided data for the main analysis. Key messages Brief interventions in primary care settings aim to reduce heavy drinking compared to people who received usual care or brief written information. Longer interventions probably make little or no difference to heavy drinking compared to brief intervention. What was studied in the review? One way to reduce heavy drinking may be for doctors and nurses to provide brief advice or brief counselling to targeted people who consult general practitioners or other primary health care providers. People seeking primary healthcare are routinely asked about their drinking behaviour because alcohol use can affect many health conditions. Brief interventions typically include feedback on alcohol use and health‐related harms, identification of high risk situations for heavy drinking, simple advice about how to cut down drinking, strategies that can increase motivation to change drinking behaviour, and the development of a personal plan to reduce drinking. Brief interventions are designed to be delivered in regular consultations, which are often 5 to 15 minutes with doctors and around 20 to 30 minutes with nurses. Although short in duration, brief interventions can be delivered in one to five sessions. We did not include digital interventions in this review. Search date The evidence is current to September 2017. Study funding Funding sources were reported by 60 (87%) studies. Of these, 58 studies were funded by government institutes, research bodies or charitable foundations. One study was partly funded by a pharmaceutical company and a brewers association, another by a company developing diagnostic testing equipment. Nine studies did not report study funding sources. What are the main results of the review? We included 69 controlled trials conducted in many countries. Most studies were conducted in general practice and emergency care. Study participants received brief intervention or usual care or written information about alcohol (control group). The amount of alcohol people drank each week was reported by 34 trials (15,197 participants) at one‐year follow‐up and showed that people who received the brief intervention drank less than control group participants (moderate‐quality evidence). The reduction was around a pint of beer (475 mL) or a third of a bottle of wine (250 mL) less each week. Longer counselling probably provided little additional benefit compared to brief intervention or no intervention. One trial reported that the intervention adversely affected binge drinking for women, and two reported that no adverse effects resulted from receiving brief interventions. Most studies did not mention adverse effects. Quality of the evidence Findings may have been affected because participants and practitioners were often aware that brief interventions focused on alcohol. Furthermore, some participants could not be contacted at one‐year follow‐up to report drinking levels. Overall, evidence was assessed as mostly moderate‐quality. This means the reported effect size and direction is likely to be close to the true effect of these interventions.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Role: ND
                Role: ND
                Role: ND
                Role: ND
                Journal
                csp
                Cadernos de Saúde Pública
                Cad. Saúde Pública
                Escola Nacional de Saúde Pública Sergio Arouca, Fundação Oswaldo Cruz (Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil )
                0102-311X
                1678-4464
                2019
                : 35
                : 7
                : e00242618
                Affiliations
                [1] Campinas orgnameLaboratório de Estudos Interdisciplinares sobre Psicoativos Brasil
                [2] Campinas São Paulo orgnameUniversidade Estadual de Campinas orgdiv1Faculdade de Ciências Médicas Brazil
                Article
                S0102-311X2019000903001
                10.1590/0102-311x00242618
                2ea59f2b-2223-4e4a-9602-b1d2d9040e72

                This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

                History
                : 17 December 2018
                : 15 April 2019
                Page count
                Figures: 0, Tables: 0, Equations: 0, References: 93, Pages: 0
                Product

                SciELO Brazil


                Trastornos Relacionados con Substancias,Aplicación de la Ley,Control de Medicamentos y Narcóticos,Legislación de Medicamentos,Substance-Related Disorders,Law Enforcement,Drug and Narcotic Control,Drug Legislation,Transtornos Relacionados ao Uso de Substâncias,Aplicação da Lei,Controle de Medicamentos e Entorpecentes,Legislação de Medicamentos

                Comments

                Comment on this article