Harm Reduction Journal最新文献

Europe has been at the forefront of harm reduction since its inception. These important early steps were in large part a response to the dramatically expanding HIV epidemic, and investing in these innovative interventions early and robustly had a transformative effect. This brought about not just pioneering services but also pioneering policy changes. However, while Western Europe and Member States in the European Union often have been at the vanguard of harm reduction innovation and vocal advocates for public health and human rights-based drug policy reform, the situation has been much different in the "wider" WHO European region, which also includes Eastern and Southeastern Europe as well as Central Asia. This is a result not just of limited budgets for health, but also of punitive laws and policies and persistent stigma and discrimination. Even as harm reduction has demonstrated huge successes in Europe, there is a need to move forward a wider array of services to respond to an evolving and increasingly complex drug situation in Europe. Instead, it is a lack of political will and of political courage that is holding back the establishment, expansion, and deepening of these essential, lifesaving interventions. Responding proactively and effectively to this changing drug situation will require redoubled investment in public health and harm reduction approaches.

Background: In the Northern Territory (NT) of Australia, there are significant evidence gaps about illicit drug use and harms, despite having established monitoring and reporting systems. This paper reports on illicit drug use, associated harms, contributing factors, service needs and priorities in the NT from the perspective and experiences of key stakeholders engaged in providing services for, or advocating on behalf of, people who use illicit drugs in the NT.

Methods: Face-to-face and online qualitative interviews were conducted with stakeholders across urban and remote locations in the NT. Key stakeholders were service providers, including acute and primary care clinicians, representatives of Aboriginal community controlled health organisations, lived experience advocates, peak body representatives and public health executives. Qualitative data were analysed thematically.

Results: Four researchers interviewed 21 participants across urban (62%), and remote areas (38%) of the NT. Themes identified were: (1) Illicit drug use and harms are diverse and distinct; (2) Client support needs are complex and influenced by co-morbidities, socio-demographic and cultural factors; (3) Priority population sub-groups need targeted strategies; (4) Local service strengths can be further developed and enhanced; (5) Local services need better resourcing; (6) Invest in progressive legislative and policy reforms; and (7) Improve routine monitoring and evaluation.

Conclusions: Key stakeholders described illicit drug use, harms and contributing factors, which provided insights into the local challenges. Participants emphasised that clients have complex care needs, and further investment into targeted strategies are required to improve service engagement with priority groups. Service needs included greater understanding the role of dual diagnosis and its implementation and enhancing integrated and collaborative care in both primary health and acute care contexts. The voices of people with lived experience captured in this paper must inform local strategy and policy development relating to illicit drug use, in alignment with national strategy.

Introduction: Smoking is negatively related to mental health, but there is a paucity of research on the relationship between the use of smokeless tobacco, such as snus, and mental health outcomes, especially in people with alcohol use disorders (AUD). The aim of the present study was to examine the development of mental distress and quality of life (QoL) among AUD patients in treatment who did or did not use snus.

Method: The study included 128 AUD patients (27% female) from three rehabilitation clinics in Eastern Norway who were interviewed at admission, at 6 weeks, and after 6 months. Patients were asked about their mental health-related problems, alcohol, and substance use, QoL, and physical activity. Information about tobacco use was gathered with the questions "Do you smoke cigarettes?" and "Do you use snus?", with follow-up questions "How often?".

Result: There were 39 current snus users (31%), of which 20 were also current smokers (dual users). Seventy-five patients (59%) were smokers only, and only 14 (11%) patients were abstainers. Those who used snus only had a lower severity of dependence score than the other groups (p < 0.05). The dual use group reported lower QoL than the no tobacco use group. In a regression model adjusted for sex and age, smokers and dual users, but not users of snus, had higher levels of mental distress and poorer QoL compared to nontobacco users (p < 0.05). There were no differences between tobacco groups at follow-ups.

Conclusion: In this study, among AUD patients, snus users reported QoL and mental distress close to that of non-smokers, indicating a lower problem load among snus users compared to smokers.

Implications: Previous studies have shown conflicting results regarding the potential harm reduction effect of snus use among patients with AUD who smoke regarding their tobacco use, quality of life and mental health problems. This study suggests that snus use could also be a viable alternative to smoking for patients with addictions.