Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: November 22, 2024 Fri
Time: 11:57 am
Time: 11:57 am
Results for substance use
15 results foundAuthor: Trust for America's Health Title: Reducing Teen Substance Misuse: What Really Works Summary: A significant number of students try alcohol, tobacco or other drugs as teenagers. More than 65 percent of students have used alcohol, more than 40 percent used illegal drugs and around one-quarter used cigarettes at some point before entering or while in high school. While the number of teens who regularly misuse or develop substance use disorders has been decreasing over time, overall levels are still too high. More than 90 percent of adults who develop a substance use disorder began using before they were 18-years-old. Substance misuse can have long-term adverse effects on physical and mental health, academic and career attainment, relationships with family and friends and establishing and being a connected part of a community. For decades, substance misuse strategies focused on individual willpower to "just say no" or intervening once a person already has a serious problem. But, the evidence shows that if the country is going to maintain a continued downward trend in substance use - it will require a greater emphasis on: 1) preventing use in the first place; 2) intervening and providing support earlier after use has started; and 3) viewing treatment and recovery as a sustained and long-term commitment. More than 40 years of research exists from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and other experts that supports this approach, but there has been a disconnect in implementing the science into real-world practice. A prevention-oriented approach - building positive protective factors and reducing risk factors - can decrease the chances of tweens and teens initiating, regularly using or developing an addiction to alcohol and/or drugs. This approach not only lowers the chances for substance misuse, but also has a bigger impact, since similar underlying root causes have also been shown to contribute to increased likelihood of poor academic performance, bullying, depression, violence, suicide, unsafe sexual behaviors and other problems that can emerge during teenage years. Details: Washington, DC: Trust for America's Health, 2015. 100p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 8, 2016 at: http://healthyamericans.org/assets/files/TFAH-2015-TeenSubstAbuse%20FINAL.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: http://healthyamericans.org/assets/files/TFAH-2015-TeenSubstAbuse%20FINAL.pdf Shelf Number: 137805 Keywords: Drug Abuse and AddictionDrug Abuse PreventionSubstance AbuseSubstance Abuse PreventionSubstance Use |
Author: Ramos, Christal Title: Evidence-Based Interventions for Adolescent Opioid Use Disorder: What Might Work for High-Risk Ohio Counties? Summary: Opioid use disorder (OUD) is a serious national crisis and often originates with substance use in adolescence. A considerable body of research exists on effective interventions for preventing, screening for, and treating adolescent OUD. However, use of evidence-based treatment is very low among adolescents. In addition, little up-to-date, objective, outcome-relevant information is available to guide communities and families on preventing and treating adolescent OUD. Our policy partners at the Addiction Policy Forum (APF) have been supporting the efforts of Franklin, Pickaway and Warren counties in Ohio to develop county-specific plans to address OUD in their adolescent populations - a critical policy and practice need expressed by stakeholders in those communities. To provide information on evidence-based strategies to inform the development of these plans, we systematically reviewed literature and other resources to identify promising interventions aimed to prevent, intervene early (such as screening and referral), and treat adolescent OUD. This report includes information on the interventions identified through our review, as well as additional resources and considerations for Ohio counties on the potential implementation of these interventions. We hope this information will help counties across the United States make decisions about how to prevent and treat adolescent OUD. This report was funded by the William T. Grant Foundation. Details: Washington, DC: Urban Institute, 2018. 69p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 23, 2018 at: https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/98990/evidence-based_interventions_for_adolescent_opioid_use_disorder.pdf Year: 2018 Country: United States URL: https://www.urban.org/research/publication/evidence-based-interventions-adolescent-opioid-use-disorder Shelf Number: 153024 Keywords: Adolescent Evidence-Based Strategies Evidence-Based Treatment Intervention Juvenile Opioid Opioid Crisis Opioid Epidemic Opioid Use Disorder Substance Abuse Substance Use |
Author: Traffic Injury Research Foundation Title: Marijuana Use Among Drivers in Canada, 2000-2015 Summary: Public concern about drug-impaired driving in general and marijuana-impaired driving in particular has increased in recent years. Marijuana studies have shown that the psychoactive chemical delta9-tetrahydrocannabinol (or THC) enters the user's bloodstream and brain immediately after smoking or consuming marijuana, and has impairing effects. In addition, research on drivers in fatal crashes has shown that THC-positive drivers are more than twice as likely to crash as THC-free drivers (Grondel 2016). There is also evidence from surveys of Canadian drivers suggesting that the prevalence of marijuana use is greater among drivers aged 16 to 19 years than drivers in other age groups (Robertson et al. 2017). With the legalization of recreational marijuana in Canada, continued monitoring of this road safety topic is timely. This fact sheet, sponsored by Desjardins, examines the role of marijuana in collisions involving fatally injured drivers in Canada between 2000 and 2015. Data from TIRF's National Fatality Database were used to prepare this fact sheet which explores trends in the use of marijuana among fatally injured drivers, and the characteristics of these drivers. Other topics that are examined include the presence of different categories of drugs among fatally injured drivers in different age groups as well as comparisons of the presence of marijuana and alcohol among this population of drivers. Details: Ottawa: Traffic Injury Research Foundation, 2018. 6p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 25, 2018 at: http://tirf.ca/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/Marijuana-Use-Among-Drivers-in-Canada-2000-2015-7.pdf Year: 2018 Country: Canada URL: http://tirf.ca/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/Marijuana-Use-Among-Drivers-in-Canada-2000-2015-7.pdf Shelf Number: 153029 Keywords: Alcohol Driving Under InfluenceDriving While IntoxicatedLegalizationMarijuanaRecreational MarijuanaSubstance UseTraffic AccidentsWeed |
Author: Schleifer, Rebecca Title: Drug Courts in the Americas Summary: Executive Summary Drug courts in the United States are presented as an alternative to incarceration for people arrested for minor drug offenses where drug use is considered an underlying cause of the crime, thus theoretically serving as a tool for reducing prison and jail populations. The United States has nearly thirty years of experience with these courts, which have spread to all fifty states as well as US territories. Many countries around the world have looked to the United States' experience with drug courts as a model to be adopted, and the US government has also promoted them abroad as an alternative to incarceration. Perhaps the most organized efforts to expand this policy are those currently underway in Latin America and the Caribbean. The considerable influence of the United States on the region's drug control policies has certainly encouraged many of its countries to view drug courts as such an alternative, and the growing number of countries implementing them signals that these efforts are moving ahead with full force there. The Canadian government has also worked to support the expansion of drug courts, particularly in the Caribbean, but this report does not focus on the Canadian model. Proponents of drug courts assert that they are cost-effective; they reduce recidivism as well as time spent in detention (prison or jail); and they offer drug treatment as an alternative to incarceration to people whose drug use fuels their criminal activity. To evaluate these assertions, this report reviews key findings from the United States' experience which, despite major institutional, legal, and cultural differences, may usefully inform debates about drug courts, along with other alternatives to incarceration for low-level drug crimes, in other countries - in particular, in countries in Latin America and the Caribbean that have either established, or are looking to establish, drug courts. This report also presents a brief overview of where and how drug courts have been implemented in Latin America and the Caribbean to identify, to the extent possible, the different experiences and challenges faced by those countries. One main difficulty in this exercise is the limited availability of data that would allow strong parallels to be drawn. As is the case with the United States, with rare exceptions, drug courts in Latin America and Caribbean are not independently monitored and evaluated, and most were established relatively recently. Nevertheless, we have found the information available points to fundamental problems with the implementation of drug courts; the findings from the United States experience could, at the very least, offer insight into whether and under what circumstances they provide a more desirable option than incarceration. The US section is based on review of the existing research on drug courts and treatment for substance use disorders and evaluations of drug court efficacy conducted and published by the US government, major research institutions, advocacy organizations, and leading scholars whose work focuses on drug courts specifically or on criminal justice, substance use disorders, drug treatment, and drug policy more broadly. The Latin America and Caribbean sections are based on a review of their available information on drug courts (which is significantly more limited than the vast literature available in the United States), as well as on research on criminal justice, incarceration, drug treatment, and drug policy, responses to requests for information, and interviews. Also reviewed for each country are laws, official documents (including memoranda of understanding, government documents and web pages, judiciary reports, PowerPoint presentations made by authorities, and international organization documents, among others), studies and evaluations (when available), and, in a few cases, news reports. The substantial diversity among drug court models complicates efforts to evaluate their impact on the problems they aim to address, but our review of the existing evidence shows the claim that drug courts provide an alternative to incarceration is debatable. We found that drug courts, as implemented in the United States, are a costly, cumbersome intervention that has limited, if any, impact on reducing incarceration. Indeed, for many participants, they may have the opposite effect by increasing criminal justice supervision and subjecting those who fail to graduate to harsher penalties than they might otherwise have received, thus becoming an adjunct rather than an alternative to incarceration. Moreover, evidence about their effectiveness in reducing cost, recidivism, and time spent in prison is mixed. The financial and human costs to drug court participants are also steep and disproportionately burdensome to the poor and racial minorities. The evidence also does not support drug courts as an appropriate public health intervention. Drug court judges are empowered to make treatment decisions that should be the domain of health care professionals, choosing from limited or counterproductive options that may threaten the health and lives of participants as well as expose confidential information about their health and drug use. One of the main stated objectives of drug courts is to ensure access to comprehensive substance abuse treatment for those who need it. Our review of the available evidence shows, however, that, in practice, many drug court participants do not need treatment; at the same time, treatment may be unavailable to or inappropriate for those who do. Evidence we have found indicates the resort to drug courts may be an appropriate measure for certain offenders - that is, people charged with serious crimes linked to their drug dependence who would otherwise serve prison terms. What is often not considered is that most drug courts do not meet this definition. More important, we must remember that drug dependence treatment is a type of medical care. People who are dependent on drugs have a right, under international human rights law, to relevant health care services that are available, physically and economically accessible without discrimination, gender appropriate, culturally and ethically acceptable, designed to respect confidentiality, scientifically and medically appropriate, and of good quality. By mediating treatment through the criminal justice system, drug courts aggressively insert the penal system into people's private and family lives and into their decisions about their health and medical care, reproducing and perpetuating the criminalization of people who use drugs and those involved in low-level drug-related crimes. As an overall framework through which to think about drug courts, we should not lose sight of the fact that no individuals, regardless of their criminal records, should be punished for their medical conditions, nor should they have to allow courts to make their medical decisions for them or rely on the criminal justice system for access to treatment that could perhaps have prevented their incarceration in the first place. The primary lessons learned from US drug courts that should be considered by other countries in the Americas as they look at this model are the following: Drug courts are not an alternative to incarceration: - Defendants remain in criminal proceedings at every step in the drug court program, risk incarceration, both as a sanction while in the program and for failure to complete it, and, in some cases, spend more time behind bars than they would have had they chosen to pursue criminal justice proceedings instead of drug court. Drug courts may increase the number of people under supervision of the criminal justice system in the following ways: - By requiring them to plead guilty as a condition of getting access to drug court. - By processing discretionary crimes that police might have not enforced had drug court not been an option. - By mediating treatment through the criminal justice system. Drug courts are not a rights-based health intervention: - Drug court judges maintain control over treatment decisions for drug court participants, in some cases ordering treatment that is at odds with accepted medical practice. - Participants who fail drug court risk incarceration and face abrupt interruption of treatment and other health risks attendant to incarceration. - Access to treatment comes at the cost of forfeiting fundamental legal and human rights. Drug courts may perpetuate racial bias in the criminal justice system: - Drug courts point to drug dependence as the factor that puts people at risk of criminal justice involvement, ignoring the racial bias in drug policing and prosecution in the United States that leads African Americans and Latinos into long-term criminal justice supervision at much higher rates than their white counterparts. Further complicating this scenario is the concerted effort to export drug courts as a model that should be adopted by other countries. Despite the evidence from the United States experience cited above, countries in Latin America and the Caribbean have embraced drug courts as a promising solution to the over-incarceration problem that plagues the region. This development is problematic not only because governments in the region apparently are not conducting proper investigations before adopting drug courts as a public policy model, but also because the very specific social, economic, and political context of Latin American and Caribbean countries immediately complicates the adoption of public policies designed by other, more developed countries with different legal systems. The lack, for example, of scientifically and medically appropriate treatment options and the reliance on private providers is a serious issue in the Latin America and Caribbean region, where numerous cases of abuse and human rights violations by treatment providers have been documented. Furthermore, health systems do not have enough capacity to provide health and social services to all the people who need them; in these cases, private and religious institutions with scarce knowledge about drug dependence, treatment, and medical standards are used. A reliance on abstinence-based treatment programs and drug testing is also of concern. On the criminal justice side of the issue, many drug courts in the region still focus on simple drug possession as a crime, contributing to the criminalization and stigmatization of people who use drugs. Research about drug courts in Latin America and the Caribbean also underscores the need for a more rigorous data management system that can provide sufficient information for a comprehensive assessment of their effectiveness in the region. Currently, research is too dependent on anecdotal evidence and not focused on evidence-based analysis. This report's main findings about drug treatment courts in Latin America are as follows: - Generally speaking, detailed and current data are lacking in almost all the Latin American countries studied, and independent evaluations are scarce. - The model is more advanced in three countries (Chile, Mexico, and Costa Rica) and in a pilot phase in four others (Argentina, Panama, Dominican Republic, and Colombia). Ecuador and Peru are also considering whether to establish drug courts. - Most programs in the region were established in 2012 or later, except for the Chilean model, which was implemented in 2004. - Drug courts in Latin America function as specific programs within the legal jurisdictions where they have been established rather than as special courts. They function under the conditional suspension of criminal proceedings mechanism and adopt a pre-plea approach that diverts participants before conviction. - Candidates must meet two basic requirements to enter the programs: they must be prosecuted for an eligible offense, and they must receive a diagnosis of problematic drug use related to the commission of the crime. - Only people charged with what the local jurisdictions consider to be minor and/or nonviolent rimes (charges carrying sentences of no more than three to five years in prison) are accepted in the programs. - Many programs carry harsh penalties as sanctions during the course of treatment. - In most programs, participants must be first-time offenders. - In contrast to the US experience, Latin American drug treatment courts graduate few participants. - The drug courts in the region most commonly address crimes against property, domestic violence, and drug possession. Based on available information, simple possession is one of the most frequent crimes in drug court programs that include drug offenses (those in Chile, Dominican Republic, Mexico, and Panama). - Most participants in drug court programs are male. - Juvenile courts have been established in Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, and Mexico, and other countries plan to create such programs. - Much as in the United States, participation in Latin American drug courts typically requires that participants remain drug free and sometimes sanction them for positive drug tests. - Most countries clearly lack the capacity to provide appropriate treatment to all program participants. This report's main findings about drug treatment courts in the English-speaking Caribbean are as follows: - Much as in Latin America, detailed and current data are lacking in almost all the Caribbean countries studied, and no independent evaluations of drug courts have been done. The information available is mostly from government sources. - The earliest drug court programs in the Caribbean were established in 2001 in Bermuda and Jamaica (making these the oldest programs in the Latin America and Caribbean region), with other countries (the Cayman Islands, Trinidad and Tobago, Barbados, and Belize) establishing drug courts in 2012 or later. - The drug court model is more advanced in three countries (Bermuda, Jamaica, and the Cayman Islands) and in an initial phase in three others (Trinidad and Tobago, Barbados, and Belize). The Bahamas seems to be interested in establishing drug courts. - Drug courts in the Caribbean are not specialized courts as in the United States but, rather, operate as specific programs under local lower (parish/magistrate’s) courts, as in Latin America. The drug treatment courts in Caribbean countries operate under different legal structures. Bermuda, the Cayman Islands, and Jamaica have enacted specific legislation, while Barbados, Belize, and Trinidad and Tobago have signed memoranda of understanding with the Organization of American States' Inter-American Drug Abuse Control Commission (CICAD). The Canadian government has directly supported the implementation of drug courts in a few Caribbean countries. - The basic requirements for admission to drug court are to be charged with an eligible offense and receive a diagnosis of problematic drug use related to the commission of the crime. - Only people charged with what the local jurisdictions consider to be minor and/or nonviolent crimes are accepted in the programs, with the exception of Jamaica, where people charged with certain more serious crimes may be eligible. Participants must be first-time offenders. - Jamaica is the only country in the English-speaking Caribbean where a guilty plea is not a requirement for admission. - The information available suggests that few participants graduate from Caribbean drug courts. - The drug courts in the region most commonly address crimes against property and drug possession. Based on available information, simple possession is one of the most frequent crimes in drug court programs that include drug offenses. - Most participants in drug court programs are male. - Juvenile courts have been established in Jamaica, and reports indicate the Cayman Islands and Trinidad and Tobago are exploring the possibility of establishing such programs. - Many programs carry harsh penalties as sanctions during the course of treatment. - Participation in Caribbean drug courts typically requires that participants remain drug free, and they rely on drug testing to assess compliance, with sanctions imposed for positive drug tests. - Information about treatment standards and options available is scarce, but our research suggests most countries in the region lack the capacity to provide appropriate treatment to all program participants. Undoubtedly, the creation of alternatives to the criminal justice system for drug-related offenses is urgently needed, and countries should focus on moving away from an excessive reliance on incarceration as a panacea. Nonetheless, a close examination of the United States as a case study does not support the drug court model as the most appropriate solution for governments genuinely focused on addressing this issue, since in some respects it continues to criminalize drug consumption and prioritize a criminal approach to drug dependence over a health approach. Hence, this report presents a series of recommendations that should be seriously considered by countries concerned with mass incarceration and intent on moving away from over-reliance on criminal justice responses to drug use. We developed the recommendations with two groups in mind: countries that have not established drug courts or in which they are in early stages, and countries in which drug courts are more established and their continuation is overwhelmingly supported, thus making it difficult (but not impossible) to address the issues raised here. Details: New York, NY: Social Science Research Council, 2018. 126p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed January 20, 2019 at: https://www.ssrc.org/publications/view/drug-courts-in-the-americas/ Year: 2018 Country: International URL: https://s3.amazonaws.com/ssrc-cdn1/crmuploads/new_publication_3/DSD_Drug+Courts_English_online+final.pdf Shelf Number: 154312 Keywords: Alternatives to IncarcerationCaribbeanData Management SystemDrug CourtsDrug CrimesDrug OffensesDrug PossessionDrug Treatment CourtsInter-American Drug Abuse Control Commission (CICAJail PopulationLatin AmericaPrison PopulationPublic Health InterventionRacial BiasRecidivismSubstance UseSupervisionTreatment |
Author: Capler, Rielle Title: Cannabis Use and Driving: Evidence Review Summary: Cannabis is widely used in Canadian society (used by 12% of Canadians in 2011) for both medical and recreational purposes. Recently, the federal government announced its intention to legalize cannabis, with the implementation of new laws expected in early 2018. The federal government's stated intention of the new laws is to mitigate potential risks of cannabis use. A potential risk that is of great concern is driving after using cannabis. Public education pertaining to the use of cannabis and driving must be based upon current research knowledge if it is to be effective and relevant. To this end, we have undertaken a scoping review of available research evidence in order to: 1. Synthesize current research regarding risks associated with cannabis use in the context of driving; 2. Identify research that points to effective strategies for mitigation of this risk. Details: Burnaby, BC: Canadian Drug policy Coalition, Simon Fraser University, 2017. 67p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 3, 2019 at: https://drugpolicy.ca/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/CDPC_Cannabis-and-Driving_Evidence-Review_FINALV2_March27-2017.pdf Year: 2017 Country: Canada URL: https://drugpolicy.ca/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/CDPC_Cannabis-and-Driving_Evidence-Review_FINALV2_March27-2017.pdf Shelf Number: 155277 Keywords: Driving Under InfluenceDriving While IntoxicatedDrugged DrivingLegalizationMarijuanaRecreational MarijuanaSubstance UseTraffic AccidentsWeed |
Author: Milloy, M-J.S. Title: Estimated Drug Overdose Deaths Averted by North America's First Medically-Supervised Safer Injection Facility Summary: Background: Illicit drug overdose remains a leading cause of premature mortality in urban settings worldwide. We sought to estimate the number of deaths potentially averted by the implementation of a medically supervised safer injection facility (SIF) in Vancouver, Canada. Methodology/Principal Findings: The number of potentially averted deaths was calculated using an estimate of the local ratio of non-fatal to fatal overdoses. Inputs were derived from counts of overdose deaths by the British Columbia Vital Statistics Agency and non-fatal overdose rates from published estimates. Potentially-fatal overdoses were defined as events within the SIF that required the provision of naloxone, a 911 call or an ambulance. Point estimates and 95% Confidence Intervals (95% CI) were calculated using a Monte Carlo simulation. Between March 1, 2004 and July 1, 2008 there were 1004 overdose events in the SIF of which 453 events matched our definition of potentially fatal. In 2004, 2005 and 2006 there were 32, 37 and 38 drug-induced deaths in the SIF's neighbourhood. Owing to the wide range of non-fatal overdose rates reported in the literature (between 5% and 30% per year) we performed sensitivity analyses using non-fatal overdose rates of 50, 200 and 300 per 1,000 person years. Using these model inputs, the number of averted deaths were, respectively: 50.9 (95% CI: 23.6–78.1); 12.6 (95% CI: 9.6–15.7); 8.4 (95% CI: 6.5–10.4) during the study period, equal to 1.9 to 11.7 averted deaths per annum. Conclusions/Significance: Based on a conservative estimate of the local ratio of non-fatal to fatal overdoses, the potentially fatal overdoses in the SIF during the study period could have resulted in between 8 and 51 deaths had they occurred outside the facility, or from 6% to 37% of the total overdose mortality burden in the neighborhood during the study period. These data should inform the ongoing debates over the future of the pilot project. Details: S.L., 2008. 6p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 21, 2019 at: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0003351 Year: 2008 Country: United States URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0003351&type=printable Shelf Number: 155958 Keywords: Drug Overdose Fatal Overdose Heroin Illegal Drugs Naxolone Safe Injections Substance Abuse Substance Use |
Author: Reichert, Jessica Title: Addressing Opioid Use Disorders in Community Corrections: A Survey of Illinois Probation Departments Summary: Nearly one-third of Illinois probationers suffer from an opioid use disorder (OUD). Despite evidence that FDA-approved medications methadone, buprenorphine, and naltrexone can effectively treat OUD, many probation departments do not allow their clients to use them, even when prescribed by a healthcare provider. ICJIA researchers surveyed probation departments across the state to better understand their familiarity with, and training on, the medications, as well as barriers to their clients' access and use. This article summarizes the study's findings. Details: Chicago, Illinois: Illinois Criminal Justice Information Authority, 2018. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 22, 2019 at: http://www.icjia.state.il.us/articles/addressing-opioid-use-disorders-in-community-corrections-a-survey-of-illinois-probation-departments Year: 2018 Country: United States URL: http://www.icjia.state.il.us/articles/addressing-opioid-use-disorders-in-community-corrections-a-survey-of-illinois-probation-departments Shelf Number: 156007 Keywords: BuprenorphineDrug AbuseDrug UseMethadoneNaltrexoneOpioid CrisisOpioid UseSubstance AbuseSubstance Use |
Author: Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) Title: Addressing Problematic Opioid Use in OECD Countries Summary: Over the past few years, Canada and the United States have been experiencing an opioid crisis as a result of problematic opioid use fueled by the emergence of synthetic opioids such as fentanyl and carfentanil. Problematic opioid use is also spreading in other OECD countries, due to the upward trend of prescription opioid use and the complexities of the illegal drug supply. This report presents evidence on the magnitude of problematic opioid use across OECD countries, describes the main drivers, and identifies a set of policy actions to address them. The report highlights the opioid crisis as a complex public health issue that requires a comprehensive approach across all sectors, including health, social services, and law enforcement. Strong health information systems are also needed, particularly data and research. Preventing problematic opioid use requires a combination of policies that ensure more information is provided to patients and health care practitioners, while providing access to appropriate pain management treatment for patients. A public health approach to problematic opioid use must incorporate socio-economic considerations (e.g. employment and housing), which also need to be addressed to prevent problematic substance use in general. Details: Paris: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development Health Policy Studies, 2019. 78p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 23, 2019 at: http://www.oecd.org/health/addressing-problematic-opioid-use-in-oecd-countries-a18286f0-en.htm Year: 2019 Country: International URL: http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/deliver/fulltext?itemId=/content/publication/a18286f0-en&mimeType=freepreview&redirecturl=http://www.keepeek.com/Digital-Asset-Management/oecd/social-issues-migration-health/addressing-problematic Shelf Number: 156023 Keywords: Fentanyl Illegal Drugs Opioid Crisis Opioid Epidemic Opioid Use Prescription Drugs Public Health Substance Abuse Substance Use |
Author: Drug Enforcement Administration Title: 2016 Heroin Domestic Monitor Program Summary: The DEA Heroin Domestic Monitor Program (HDMP) is a retail-level heroin purchase program that provides data analysis about the geographic source of heroin along with price, purity, adulterants, and diluents sold at the street-level in 27 U.S. cities. The data in this report is from 2016. Details: S.L.: Drug Enforcement Administration, 2018. 31p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 28, 2019 at: https://www.dea.gov/sites/default/files/2018-10/Heroin%20Domestic%20Monitor%20Report%20DEA-GOV%20FINAL.pdf Year: 2018 Country: United States URL: https://www.dea.gov/documents/2018/10/29/heroin-domestic-monitor-report Shelf Number: 156072 Keywords: Drug Abuse Drug Enforcement Administration Heroin Substance Abuse Substance Use |
Author: East African Community Title: East African Community Regional Policy on Prevention, Management and Control of Alcohol, Drugs and Other Substance Use Summary: The East African Community is a regional intergovernmental organization established by a Treaty of 1999, is made up of six (6) Partner States namely: The Republics of Burundi, Kenya, Rwanda, South Sudan, Uganda and the United Republic of Tanzania with its headquarters in Arusha, United Republic of Tanzania - mainland. The EAC has an estimated population of over 150 million people. The region is mainly composed of a young population with up to 64.2% aged 0-24 years. The objectives of the EAC are to develop policies and programs for widening and deepening cooperation among the Partner States in political, economic, social and cultural fields, research and technology, security, legal and judicial affairs for their mutual benefit. In line with the Vision of the EAC Health Policy "A healthy and productive population in the East African Community" the region has prioritized health as one of the pillars essential for the attainment of the above objectives. With the coming into force of the EAC Common Market Protocol ratified by all Partner States there is increased movement of people goods and services across the region. The increased volume of people crossing from one partner state to another is likely to facilitate the movement of licit and illicit Alcohol, drugs and other substances. This is further compounded by the existence of porous borders across Partner States, nonadherence to existing regulatory mechanisms and inadequate human capacities. Details: Arusha, Tanzania: East African Community, 2019. 39p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 8, 2019 at: https://idpc.net/publications/2019/05/east-african-community-regional-policy-on-prevention-management-and-control-of-alcohol-drugs-and-other-substance-use Year: 2019 Country: Africa URL: http://fileserver.idpc.net/library/EAC-Regional-Policy-on-alcohol.pdf Shelf Number: 156256 Keywords: Africa Black Markets Border Security Drug Abuse Drug Use Illicit Drugs Illicit Markets Substance Abuse Substance Use |
Author: Baumgartner, Lindsey Title: Safe Withdrawal in Jail Settings: Preventing Deaths, Reducing Risks to Counties and States Summary: As the opioid crisis continues, jails across the country are encountering people with opioid use disorders who are actively using heroin, fentanyl, illicit prescription medications, and other opioids. These individuals often experience withdrawal syndrome upon abrupt substance discontinuation, and they may need withdrawal management services while detained. Withdrawal syndrome can occur with discontinuation of non-opioid substances as well, including alcohol and benzodiazepines. Contrary to commonly held notions, withdrawal is often not only uncomfortable or painful, but may also be harmful to health and even fatal. Jails without adequate services and protocols for withdrawal management may face risk liability. Jurisdictions can save lives and reduce their possible exposure to costly and time-consuming litigation by creating and enacting policies that ensure adequate care for individuals going through withdrawal syndrome while in correctional custody. This brief is for jail administrators and other public safety leaders, as well as county and state policymakers who work on issues related to public safety, public health, and behavioral health. It contains information about safe withdrawal management in jail and resources to aid in developing these procedures. Details: Chicago, Illinois: Treatment Alternatives for Safe Communities, Center for Health and Justice, 2018. 7p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 10, 2019 at: http://www2.centerforhealthandjustice.org/sites/www2.centerforhealthandjustice.org/files/publications/Safe%20Withdrawal%20in%20Jail_010918.pdf Year: 2018 Country: United States URL: http://www2.centerforhealthandjustice.org/content/pub/safe-withdrawal-jail-settings Shelf Number: 156339 Keywords: Corrections Custody Fentanly Jails Opioid Crisis Opioid Epidemic Prescription Drugs Public Health Substance Abuse Substance Use |
Author: Hughes, Liz Title: Capability Framework: Working Effectively with People with Co-Occurring Mental Health and Alcohol/Drug Use Conditions Summary: Clinks, in partnership with Revolving Doors, has published a capability framework to better equip services to meet the needs of people with co-occurring mental health and alcohol/drug use conditions. The framework has been developed in collaboration with Justine Trippier, Consultant Nurse at Oxleas NHS Foundation Trust, and Professor Liz Hughes, formerly at University of Huddersfield and now at University of Leeds, and Centre for E-learning at Coventry University. The capability framework supports the implementation of Public Health England's Better Care guide on the ground. It describes the values, knowledge and skills required for effective care of people with co-occurring conditions. It is very common for people to experience problems with their mental health and alcohol/drug use at the same time. Research shows that mental health problems are experienced by the majority of drug (70%) and alcohol (86%) users in community substance misuse treatment. People with co-occurring conditions are at a heightened risk of developing serious and chronic health conditions, as well as at a heightened risk of experiencing social disadvantages, including homelessness and criminal justice contact. Yet, we know that many people with co-occurring conditions are often excluded from support and care provision. Details: London: Clinks, 2019. 30p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 18, 2019 at: https://www.clinks.org/sites/default/files/2019-06/Capability%20Framework%20FINAL.PDF Year: 2019 Country: United Kingdom URL: https://www.clinks.org/publication/capability-framework-working-effectively-people-co-occurring-mental-health-and Shelf Number: 156487 Keywords: Alcohol Abuse Chronic Health Issues Homelessness Mental Health Substance Abuse Substance Use |
Author: Gordon, Sara Title: About a Revolution: Toward Integrated Treatment in Drug and Mental Health Courts Summary: This Article examines specialty courts, including drug, alcohol, and mental health courts, which proponents claim created a revolution in criminal justice. Defendants whose underlying crime is the result of a substance use disorder or a mental health disorder can choose to be diverted into a specialty court, where they receive treatment instead of punishment. Many of these individuals, however, do not just suffer from a substance use disorder or a mental health disorder; instead, many have a "co-occurring disorder." Approximately 8.9 million American adults have co-occurring mental health and substance use disorders, and almost half of individuals who meet diagnostic criteria for one disorder will also meet criteria for the other. Moreover, an extensive body of literature has shown that treatment for cooccurring disorders should be integrated and that individuals should receive appropriate mental health and substance abuse treatment from a single clinician or clinical team. This Article argues that the segregation of drug, alcohol, and mental health courts is out of step with our current understanding of the high rates of co-occurring disorders, and often fails to provide integrated treatment for the multiple disorders a single specialty-court participant might present. Moreover, by segregating specialty courts, we are further stigmatizing addiction and failing to acknowledge that drug and alcohol use disorders are some of the many types of mental illnesses recognized by the medical community. Drug, alcohol, and mental health courts should therefore move away from their traditional siloed approach to the selection and treatment of participants and instead provide individuals with comprehensive and integrated treatment for co-occurring substance use and mental health disorders. Details: Las Vegas, Nevada: University of Las Vegas, William S. Boyd School of Law, 2019. 41p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 27, 2019 at: https://scholarship.law.unc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=6708&context=nclr Year: 2019 Country: International URL: https://scholarship.law.unc.edu/nclr/vol97/iss2/3/ Shelf Number: 156577 Keywords: Alcohol Courts Drug Courts Mental Health Courts Mental Health Disorders Specialty Courts Substance Abuse Substance Use |
Author: Brown, Rick Title: The Opioid Epidemic in North America: Implications for Australia Summary: The opioid epidemic in North America has attracted considerable international concern because of the scale of the problem and the high rate of overdose deaths. This paper explores the factors that have contributed to the opioid epidemic in the United States and Canada, and reviews the current situation in Australia. There is little evidence that Australia is on the same trajectory as the United States or Canada, or that fentanyl, particularly illicit fentanyl, has penetrated the Australian drug market as it has overseas. There is, however, evidence of an increase in harm associated with pharmaceutical opioids and heroin, despite a fall in heroin use. This paper highlights the importance of being vigilant about the potential for similar problems in Australia, and continuing to monitor key indicators of opioid availability, use and harm. Responses to opioid misuse and overdose must be relevant to the Australian context. Details: Canberra, Australia: Australian Institute of Criminology, 2019. 15p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 25, 2019 at: https://aic.gov.au/publications/tandi/tandi578 Year: 2019 Country: Australia URL: https://aic.gov.au/publications/tandi/tandi578 Shelf Number: 157060 Keywords: Drug Abuse Drug Overdose Drug Use Fentanyl Illicit Drugs Opioid Epidemic Pharmaceutical Drugs Substance Use |
Author: University of York Title: Blueprints for the Treatment and Throughcare of Prisoners with Histories of Drug Dependence Summary: Recommendation: - The EPRA Working Group recommends that evaluated trials are undertaken of the blueprints presented here. We believe these will demonstrate clear benefits and cost savings, by transforming post-release support for prisoners who seek to make fundamental changes in their lives. Background: - Previous research has shown a 'cliff-edge' of support for released prisoners recovering from substance abuse. - Prison interventions can effectively initiate recovery journeys. However, prisoners' hopes for transformation become unrealistic when they are released homeless and unsupported. - The Ex-prisoners Recovering from Addiction (EPRA) Working Group was set up to produce evidence-based blueprints for the effective treatment and throughcare of prisoners recovering from addiction to drugs and/or alcohol. - In the course of its work, EPRA has considered reviews of the research evidence, received reports on promising approaches around the country and had feedback from focus groups of male and female prisoners with histories of substance misuse. - Reflecting different needs and opportunities, four blueprints have been developed separated by gender (men and women) and sentence length (short and longer sentences). Details: York, United Kingdom: University of York, 2019. 72p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 1, 2019 at: https://www.york.ac.uk/media/spru/EPRA%20report.pdf Year: 2019 Country: United Kingdom URL: https://www.drugsandalcohol.ie/30799/ Shelf Number: 157087 Keywords: Alcohol Drug Abuse Drug Use Gender in Prison Prisoners Substance Abuse Substance Misuse Substance Use |