囚禁环境中阿片类药物使用障碍筛查和诊断框架。

IF 4.4 2区 医学 Q1 SUBSTANCE ABUSE International Journal of Drug Policy Pub Date : 2024-10-30 DOI:10.1016/j.drugpo.2024.104627
Helen E. Jack , Catherine L. Smith , Lauren Brinkley-Rubinstein , Justin Berk
{"title":"囚禁环境中阿片类药物使用障碍筛查和诊断框架。","authors":"Helen E. Jack ,&nbsp;Catherine L. Smith ,&nbsp;Lauren Brinkley-Rubinstein ,&nbsp;Justin Berk","doi":"10.1016/j.drugpo.2024.104627","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>In the United States, the opioid overdose crisis disproportionately affects incarcerated individuals, with opioid overdose risk in the two weeks after release 50 times higher than the general population. As a response, many prisons and jails are starting to offer medication for opioid use disorder (MOUD), including methadone or buprenorphine, during incarceration or prior to release. One implementation barrier is how to identify who would benefit from treatment, given that opioid use disorder screening and diagnostic testing are imperfect, particularly in criminal-legal settings. Prisons and jails use a variety of OUD assessment strategies, including brief self-report screening tools, diagnostic interviews, review of pre-incarceration medical records, and urine drug screening, all of which may lead to false positive and false negative results. In this essay, we apply a common framework from epidemiology and other fields to conceptualize OUD assessment in carceral settings: individuals assessed for OUD can be those with OUD who are correctly offered MOUD (“true positives”), those without OUD who are offered MOUD (“false positives”), those with OUD who are not offered MOUD (“false negatives”), and those without MOUD who are not offered MOUD (“true negatives”). We discuss these assessment and treatment outcomes from the perspectives of people who are incarcerated, security staff, and healthcare staff. This framework may inform discussions between medical staff and security personnel on the implementation of MOUD programs.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":48364,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Drug Policy","volume":"134 ","pages":"Article 104627"},"PeriodicalIF":4.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Framework for opioid use disorder screening and diagnosis in carceral settings\",\"authors\":\"Helen E. Jack ,&nbsp;Catherine L. Smith ,&nbsp;Lauren Brinkley-Rubinstein ,&nbsp;Justin Berk\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.drugpo.2024.104627\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><div>In the United States, the opioid overdose crisis disproportionately affects incarcerated individuals, with opioid overdose risk in the two weeks after release 50 times higher than the general population. As a response, many prisons and jails are starting to offer medication for opioid use disorder (MOUD), including methadone or buprenorphine, during incarceration or prior to release. One implementation barrier is how to identify who would benefit from treatment, given that opioid use disorder screening and diagnostic testing are imperfect, particularly in criminal-legal settings. Prisons and jails use a variety of OUD assessment strategies, including brief self-report screening tools, diagnostic interviews, review of pre-incarceration medical records, and urine drug screening, all of which may lead to false positive and false negative results. In this essay, we apply a common framework from epidemiology and other fields to conceptualize OUD assessment in carceral settings: individuals assessed for OUD can be those with OUD who are correctly offered MOUD (“true positives”), those without OUD who are offered MOUD (“false positives”), those with OUD who are not offered MOUD (“false negatives”), and those without MOUD who are not offered MOUD (“true negatives”). We discuss these assessment and treatment outcomes from the perspectives of people who are incarcerated, security staff, and healthcare staff. This framework may inform discussions between medical staff and security personnel on the implementation of MOUD programs.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48364,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Journal of Drug Policy\",\"volume\":\"134 \",\"pages\":\"Article 104627\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-30\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Journal of Drug Policy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0955395924003116\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"SUBSTANCE ABUSE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Drug Policy","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0955395924003116","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"SUBSTANCE ABUSE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在美国,阿片类药物过量危机对在押人员的影响尤为严重,释放后两周内阿片类药物过量的风险是普通人群的 50 倍。作为应对措施,许多监狱和看守所开始在监禁期间或释放前提供治疗阿片类药物使用障碍 (MOUD) 的药物,包括美沙酮或丁丙诺啡。鉴于阿片类药物使用障碍筛查和诊断检测并不完善,尤其是在刑事法律环境中,如何确定哪些人将从治疗中受益是实施过程中的一个障碍。监狱和看守所使用各种 OUD 评估策略,包括简短的自我报告筛查工具、诊断访谈、入狱前医疗记录审查和尿液药物筛查,所有这些都可能导致假阳性和假阴性结果。在这篇文章中,我们运用流行病学和其他领域的通用框架,对囚禁环境中的药物依赖性评估进行概念化:接受药物依赖性评估的个体可以是那些被正确提供 "谅解备忘录 "的患有药物依赖性的个体("真阳性")、那些被提供 "谅解备忘录 "的未患有药物依赖性的个体("假阳性")、那些未被提供 "谅解备忘录 "的患有药物依赖性的个体("假阴性")以及那些未被提供 "谅解备忘录 "的未患有药物依赖性的个体("真阴性")。我们从被监禁者、安保人员和医护人员的角度来讨论这些评估和治疗结果。这一框架可为医务人员和安保人员之间就实施MOUD项目进行讨论提供参考。
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
Framework for opioid use disorder screening and diagnosis in carceral settings
In the United States, the opioid overdose crisis disproportionately affects incarcerated individuals, with opioid overdose risk in the two weeks after release 50 times higher than the general population. As a response, many prisons and jails are starting to offer medication for opioid use disorder (MOUD), including methadone or buprenorphine, during incarceration or prior to release. One implementation barrier is how to identify who would benefit from treatment, given that opioid use disorder screening and diagnostic testing are imperfect, particularly in criminal-legal settings. Prisons and jails use a variety of OUD assessment strategies, including brief self-report screening tools, diagnostic interviews, review of pre-incarceration medical records, and urine drug screening, all of which may lead to false positive and false negative results. In this essay, we apply a common framework from epidemiology and other fields to conceptualize OUD assessment in carceral settings: individuals assessed for OUD can be those with OUD who are correctly offered MOUD (“true positives”), those without OUD who are offered MOUD (“false positives”), those with OUD who are not offered MOUD (“false negatives”), and those without MOUD who are not offered MOUD (“true negatives”). We discuss these assessment and treatment outcomes from the perspectives of people who are incarcerated, security staff, and healthcare staff. This framework may inform discussions between medical staff and security personnel on the implementation of MOUD programs.
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
CiteScore
7.80
自引率
11.40%
发文量
307
审稿时长
62 days
期刊介绍: The International Journal of Drug Policy provides a forum for the dissemination of current research, reviews, debate, and critical analysis on drug use and drug policy in a global context. It seeks to publish material on the social, political, legal, and health contexts of psychoactive substance use, both licit and illicit. The journal is particularly concerned to explore the effects of drug policy and practice on drug-using behaviour and its health and social consequences. It is the policy of the journal to represent a wide range of material on drug-related matters from around the world.
期刊最新文献
National impact of a constraining regulatory framework on pregabalin dispensations in France, 2020–2022 Suboptimal uptake and placement of a mandatory alcohol pregnancy warning label in Australia Increases in employment over six months following Khanya: A secondary analysis of a pilot randomized controlled trial of a peer-delivered behavioral intervention for substance use and HIV medication adherence in Cape Town, South Africa The criminal careers of Australian drug traffickers Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on cannabis cultivation and use in 18 countries.
×
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