美国具有全国代表性的人群中与 Kratom 相关的州政策环境与 Kratom 使用之间的关联。

IF 2.1 4区 医学 Q2 PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL Journal of psychoactive drugs Pub Date : 2024-07-01 Epub Date: 2023-06-12 DOI:10.1080/02791072.2023.2223622
Matthew S Ellis, Mance E Buttram, Alyssa Forber, Joshua C Black
{"title":"美国具有全国代表性的人群中与 Kratom 相关的州政策环境与 Kratom 使用之间的关联。","authors":"Matthew S Ellis, Mance E Buttram, Alyssa Forber, Joshua C Black","doi":"10.1080/02791072.2023.2223622","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Limited research has resulted in conflicting views on the risks versus benefits associated with kratom use. Despite no federal policy in the United States, individual states have implemented diverging policies through kratom bans, and legalization and regulation through Kratom Consumer Protection Acts (KCPAs). The Survey of Non-Medical Use of Prescription Drugs (NMURx) Program employs nationally-representative, repeated cross-sectional surveys on drug use. In 2021, weighted prevalence of past-12 month kratom use was compared across three state legal frameworks: no overarching state policy, KCPAs, and state bans. There was lower estimated prevalence of kratom use in banned states (prevalence: 0.75% (0.44, 1.06) relative to states with a KCPA (1.20% (0.89, 1.51)), and relative to states with no policies (1.04% (0.94, 1.13), though odds of use were not significantly associated with policy type. Kratom use was significantly associated with medicated treatment for opioid use disorder. While there were observed differences in the prevalence of past-12 month kratom use by state policy type, low uptake mitigated meaningful distinctions by limiting statistical precision, and potentially confounding effects, such as accessibility online. Future kratom-related policy decisions should be informed through evidence-based research.</p>","PeriodicalId":16902,"journal":{"name":"Journal of psychoactive drugs","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Associations Between Kratom-Related State Policy Environments and Kratom Use in a Nationally Representative Population in the United States.\",\"authors\":\"Matthew S Ellis, Mance E Buttram, Alyssa Forber, Joshua C Black\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/02791072.2023.2223622\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Limited research has resulted in conflicting views on the risks versus benefits associated with kratom use. Despite no federal policy in the United States, individual states have implemented diverging policies through kratom bans, and legalization and regulation through Kratom Consumer Protection Acts (KCPAs). The Survey of Non-Medical Use of Prescription Drugs (NMURx) Program employs nationally-representative, repeated cross-sectional surveys on drug use. In 2021, weighted prevalence of past-12 month kratom use was compared across three state legal frameworks: no overarching state policy, KCPAs, and state bans. There was lower estimated prevalence of kratom use in banned states (prevalence: 0.75% (0.44, 1.06) relative to states with a KCPA (1.20% (0.89, 1.51)), and relative to states with no policies (1.04% (0.94, 1.13), though odds of use were not significantly associated with policy type. Kratom use was significantly associated with medicated treatment for opioid use disorder. While there were observed differences in the prevalence of past-12 month kratom use by state policy type, low uptake mitigated meaningful distinctions by limiting statistical precision, and potentially confounding effects, such as accessibility online. Future kratom-related policy decisions should be informed through evidence-based research.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":16902,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of psychoactive drugs\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of psychoactive drugs\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/02791072.2023.2223622\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2023/6/12 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of psychoactive drugs","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/02791072.2023.2223622","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/6/12 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

有限的研究导致人们对使用 Kratom 的风险和益处产生了相互矛盾的看法。尽管美国联邦政府没有制定相关政策,但各州通过禁止使用 kratom,以及通过《Kratom 消费者保护法》(KCPA)实现合法化和监管,实施了不同的政策。非医疗使用处方药调查 (NMURx) 计划采用了具有全国代表性的、重复的横截面药物使用调查。2021 年,在三个州的法律框架下比较了过去 12 个月使用克利托姆的加权流行率:无总体州政策、KCPA 和州禁令。在禁止使用的州,使用 kratom 的估计流行率较低(流行率:0.75%(0.44%)):相对于有 KCPA 的州(1.20% (0.89, 1.51))和无政策的州(1.04% (0.94, 1.13)),使用率为 0.75% (0.44, 1.06),但使用率与政策类型无显著关联。使用 Kratom 与阿片类药物使用障碍的药物治疗密切相关。虽然观察到各州政策类型在过去 12 个月中使用 kratom 的流行率存在差异,但由于使用率较低,限制了统计精确度,并可能产生混淆效应(如在线可及性),从而减少了有意义的区分。未来与 kratom 相关的政策决策应通过循证研究来确定。
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
Associations Between Kratom-Related State Policy Environments and Kratom Use in a Nationally Representative Population in the United States.

Limited research has resulted in conflicting views on the risks versus benefits associated with kratom use. Despite no federal policy in the United States, individual states have implemented diverging policies through kratom bans, and legalization and regulation through Kratom Consumer Protection Acts (KCPAs). The Survey of Non-Medical Use of Prescription Drugs (NMURx) Program employs nationally-representative, repeated cross-sectional surveys on drug use. In 2021, weighted prevalence of past-12 month kratom use was compared across three state legal frameworks: no overarching state policy, KCPAs, and state bans. There was lower estimated prevalence of kratom use in banned states (prevalence: 0.75% (0.44, 1.06) relative to states with a KCPA (1.20% (0.89, 1.51)), and relative to states with no policies (1.04% (0.94, 1.13), though odds of use were not significantly associated with policy type. Kratom use was significantly associated with medicated treatment for opioid use disorder. While there were observed differences in the prevalence of past-12 month kratom use by state policy type, low uptake mitigated meaningful distinctions by limiting statistical precision, and potentially confounding effects, such as accessibility online. Future kratom-related policy decisions should be informed through evidence-based research.

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
5.30
自引率
7.10%
发文量
62
期刊最新文献
Positive and Negative Pathways Linking Depressive Symptoms to Problematic Alcohol Use Among Argentinian College Students: An Examination of Positive and Negative Urgency Traits and Internal Drinking Motives. Going Underground: Demographics, Services, and Best Practices Endorsed by Practitioners Providing Support for Naturalistic Psychedelic Use. Personal Psychedelic Experience as a Training Qualification for Facilitators: A Thematic Analysis of Qualitative Interviews with Psilocybin Experts. The Epidemiology of Psychedelic Use Among United States Military Veterans. Pharmacokinetics of Psilocybin, a Tryptamine Alkaloid in Magic Mushroom (Psilocybe cubensis): A Systematic Review.
×
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