澳大利亚人对监督注射设施态度的变化。

IF 3 3区 医学 Q2 SUBSTANCE ABUSE Drug and alcohol review Pub Date : 2024-09-02 DOI:10.1111/dar.13937
Zachary Lloyd, Samantha Colledge-Frisby, Nicholas Taylor, Michael Livingston, Marianne Jauncey, Amanda Roxburgh
{"title":"澳大利亚人对监督注射设施态度的变化。","authors":"Zachary Lloyd,&nbsp;Samantha Colledge-Frisby,&nbsp;Nicholas Taylor,&nbsp;Michael Livingston,&nbsp;Marianne Jauncey,&nbsp;Amanda Roxburgh","doi":"10.1111/dar.13937","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Introduction</h3>\n \n <p>Supervised injecting facilities (SIF) have been shown to reduce negative outcomes experienced by people who inject drugs. They are often subject to intense public and media scrutiny. This article aimed to explore population attitudes to SIFs and how these changed over time in Australia.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>Data were drawn from the National Drug Strategy Household Survey, a national sample collecting data on illicit drug use and attitudes towards drug policy among Australians (2001–2019). Ordinal logistic regression assessed sociodemographic characteristics associated with different attitudes to SIFs and binary logistic regression assessed trends over time and by jurisdiction.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>In 2019, 54% of respondents (95% CI 52.9, 55.1) supported SIFs, 27.5% (95% CI 26.6, 28.4) opposed and 18.4% (95% CI 17.7, 19.2) were ambivalent. Support for SIFs correlated with having a university degree (OR 1.75; 95% CI 1.58, 1.94), non-heterosexual identity (OR 1.81, 95% CI 1.51, 2.17) and recent illicit drug use (OR = 1.74, 95% CI 1.55, 1.94). Male respondents or those living in socioeconomically disadvantaged areas had lower odds of supporting SIFs (OR 0.92, 95% CI 0.85, 1.00; OR 0.64–0.80, respectively). Between 2001 and 2019, support for SIFs increased modestly by 3.3%, those who ‘don't know’ by 7.4%, whereas opposition decreased by 11.7%. Between 2001 and 2019, support for SIFs increased in NSW and Queensland, whereas opposition decreased in all jurisdictions.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Discussion and Conclusions</h3>\n \n <p>Opposition to SIFs declined over the past 20 years, but a substantial proportion of respondents are ambivalent or ‘don't know enough to say’. Plain language information about SIFs and their potential benefits, targeted to those who are ambivalent/’don't know’ may further increase public support.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":11318,"journal":{"name":"Drug and alcohol review","volume":"43 7","pages":"1892-1904"},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Changes in Australians' attitudes towards supervised injecting facilities\",\"authors\":\"Zachary Lloyd,&nbsp;Samantha Colledge-Frisby,&nbsp;Nicholas Taylor,&nbsp;Michael Livingston,&nbsp;Marianne Jauncey,&nbsp;Amanda Roxburgh\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/dar.13937\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div>\\n \\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Introduction</h3>\\n \\n <p>Supervised injecting facilities (SIF) have been shown to reduce negative outcomes experienced by people who inject drugs. They are often subject to intense public and media scrutiny. This article aimed to explore population attitudes to SIFs and how these changed over time in Australia.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Methods</h3>\\n \\n <p>Data were drawn from the National Drug Strategy Household Survey, a national sample collecting data on illicit drug use and attitudes towards drug policy among Australians (2001–2019). Ordinal logistic regression assessed sociodemographic characteristics associated with different attitudes to SIFs and binary logistic regression assessed trends over time and by jurisdiction.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Results</h3>\\n \\n <p>In 2019, 54% of respondents (95% CI 52.9, 55.1) supported SIFs, 27.5% (95% CI 26.6, 28.4) opposed and 18.4% (95% CI 17.7, 19.2) were ambivalent. Support for SIFs correlated with having a university degree (OR 1.75; 95% CI 1.58, 1.94), non-heterosexual identity (OR 1.81, 95% CI 1.51, 2.17) and recent illicit drug use (OR = 1.74, 95% CI 1.55, 1.94). Male respondents or those living in socioeconomically disadvantaged areas had lower odds of supporting SIFs (OR 0.92, 95% CI 0.85, 1.00; OR 0.64–0.80, respectively). Between 2001 and 2019, support for SIFs increased modestly by 3.3%, those who ‘don't know’ by 7.4%, whereas opposition decreased by 11.7%. Between 2001 and 2019, support for SIFs increased in NSW and Queensland, whereas opposition decreased in all jurisdictions.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Discussion and Conclusions</h3>\\n \\n <p>Opposition to SIFs declined over the past 20 years, but a substantial proportion of respondents are ambivalent or ‘don't know enough to say’. Plain language information about SIFs and their potential benefits, targeted to those who are ambivalent/’don't know’ may further increase public support.</p>\\n </section>\\n </div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":11318,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Drug and alcohol review\",\"volume\":\"43 7\",\"pages\":\"1892-1904\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Drug and alcohol review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/dar.13937\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"SUBSTANCE ABUSE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Drug and alcohol review","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/dar.13937","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SUBSTANCE ABUSE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

导言:事实证明,监督注射设施(SIF)可减少注射吸毒者的不良后果。这些设施经常受到公众和媒体的强烈关注。本文旨在探讨澳大利亚民众对监督注射设施的态度,以及随着时间的推移这些态度是如何变化的:数据来自国家毒品战略家庭调查,该调查是一项全国性抽样调查,收集了澳大利亚人非法药物使用情况和对毒品政策的态度(2001-2019 年)。顺序逻辑回归评估了与对SIF的不同态度相关的社会人口特征,二元逻辑回归评估了不同时期和不同辖区的趋势:2019年,54%的受访者(95% CI 52.9,55.1)支持SIF,27.5%(95% CI 26.6,28.4)反对,18.4%(95% CI 17.7,19.2)持矛盾态度。支持 SIF 与拥有大学学位(OR 1.75;95% CI 1.58,1.94)、非异性恋身份(OR 1.81,95% CI 1.51,2.17)和近期使用非法药物(OR = 1.74,95% CI 1.55,1.94)相关。男性受访者或生活在社会经济贫困地区的受访者支持 SIF 的几率较低(OR=0.92,95% CI=0.85,1.00;OR=0.64-0.80)。2001 年至 2019 年间,支持 SIF 的人数小幅增加了 3.3%,"不知道 "的人数增加了 7.4%,而反对人数则减少了 11.7%。2001 年至 2019 年间,新南威尔士州和昆士兰州对 SIF 的支持率有所上升,而所有辖区的反对率均有所下降:在过去 20 年中,反对 SIF 的人数有所减少,但相当一部分受访者态度暧昧或 "不了解,不好说"。针对矛盾/"不了解 "的受访者,以通俗易懂的语言提供有关 SIF 及其潜在益处的信息,可能会进一步提高公众的支持率。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Changes in Australians' attitudes towards supervised injecting facilities

Introduction

Supervised injecting facilities (SIF) have been shown to reduce negative outcomes experienced by people who inject drugs. They are often subject to intense public and media scrutiny. This article aimed to explore population attitudes to SIFs and how these changed over time in Australia.

Methods

Data were drawn from the National Drug Strategy Household Survey, a national sample collecting data on illicit drug use and attitudes towards drug policy among Australians (2001–2019). Ordinal logistic regression assessed sociodemographic characteristics associated with different attitudes to SIFs and binary logistic regression assessed trends over time and by jurisdiction.

Results

In 2019, 54% of respondents (95% CI 52.9, 55.1) supported SIFs, 27.5% (95% CI 26.6, 28.4) opposed and 18.4% (95% CI 17.7, 19.2) were ambivalent. Support for SIFs correlated with having a university degree (OR 1.75; 95% CI 1.58, 1.94), non-heterosexual identity (OR 1.81, 95% CI 1.51, 2.17) and recent illicit drug use (OR = 1.74, 95% CI 1.55, 1.94). Male respondents or those living in socioeconomically disadvantaged areas had lower odds of supporting SIFs (OR 0.92, 95% CI 0.85, 1.00; OR 0.64–0.80, respectively). Between 2001 and 2019, support for SIFs increased modestly by 3.3%, those who ‘don't know’ by 7.4%, whereas opposition decreased by 11.7%. Between 2001 and 2019, support for SIFs increased in NSW and Queensland, whereas opposition decreased in all jurisdictions.

Discussion and Conclusions

Opposition to SIFs declined over the past 20 years, but a substantial proportion of respondents are ambivalent or ‘don't know enough to say’. Plain language information about SIFs and their potential benefits, targeted to those who are ambivalent/’don't know’ may further increase public support.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Drug and alcohol review
Drug and alcohol review SUBSTANCE ABUSE-
CiteScore
4.80
自引率
10.50%
发文量
151
期刊介绍: Drug and Alcohol Review is an international meeting ground for the views, expertise and experience of all those involved in studying alcohol, tobacco and drug problems. Contributors to the Journal examine and report on alcohol and drug use from a wide range of clinical, biomedical, epidemiological, psychological and sociological perspectives. Drug and Alcohol Review particularly encourages the submission of papers which have a harm reduction perspective. However, all philosophies will find a place in the Journal: the principal criterion for publication of papers is their quality.
期刊最新文献
Issue Information A qualitative exploration of triggers for alcohol use and access to support during the COVID-19 pandemic among people identifying as problem drinkers in the United Kingdom. Unmet treatment need: The size of the gap for alcohol and other drugs in Australia. Psychoactive substance use among Russian migrants relocated in Georgia following the 2022 invasion of Ukraine: Qualitative study. A mixed-methods study of staff perspectives on the barriers and facilitators to the implementation of patient-reported routine outcome measures and feedback in alcohol and other drug treatment.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1