Notice bibliographique
Résumé
The paper by Degenhardt and colleagues (2005) makes a substantial contribution to the addictions literature. In this field there are very few principles that can be said to have acquired the status of ‘laws’. We spend much of our time trying to disprove the validity, applicability and/or generalizability of those observations that are candidates for law status, and are most often successful in doing so. I would suggest that for a principle to be considered a law of addiction it needs to pass two initial tests. First, it needs to be able to predict important phenomena related to a single drug. Secondly, it needs to be able to predict important phenomena across drugs. Availability has long been known as an important determinant of alcohol use and related problems. Information has accumulated over the years to demonstrate that alcohol use varies with alcohol availability, and alcohol problems vary with alcohol availability; this body of evidence is among the strongest bodies of evidence in existence linking health problems to determinants. This evidence serves as the fundamental underpinning of the dominant public health approach to alcohol problems which has been formulated over the past several decades (Seeley 1960; Bruun et al. 1975; Edwards et al. 1994; Babor et al. 2003; Room et al. 2005). However, evidence for the applicability of the principal of availability across drugs, or drug groups, has not been observed consistently. For example, one of the aspects of availability which influences the use of alcohol is its legal availability. The North American experience with legal drinking ages provides a good example of this. When legal drinking ages in North America were lowered, drinking driving collisions and other alcohol-related problems in the affected age groups increased (Schmidt & Kornaczewski 1975). Conversely, in the United States when the drinking age was again increased to 21, drinking-driving collisions and other alcohol-related problems in the affected age groups decreased significantly (Wagenaar & Toomey 2002). However, even though drugs such as cannabis and heroin are illegal in most western countries, they are used by substantial numbers of individuals. In Ontario recently, the proportions of student drivers who drive after using cannabis, an illegal drug, is higher than the proportion who drive after using alcohol, a legal drug (Adlaf et al. 2003). Previous research on the effects of a significant reduction in availability of heroin has not provided a clear picture of impact. Many studies provide only anecdotal evidence, or evidence that may not support the availability principal. For example, Wood et al. (2003) examined the impact of a massive seizure of heroin in British Columbia, and found no impact on public health measures. The strategy of supply reduction is one that would work most strongly through affecting availability, and the value of this strategy has been called into question in recent years (Rydell, Caulkins & Everingham 1995). However, Degenhart et al.'s (in press) detailed examination of the impact of a substantial and sustained reduction in heroin availability in New South Wales, Victoria and South Australia is the most comprehensive evaluation of a large reduction of heroin availability in the literature. This reduction was accomplished in part through increased enforcement efforts (Degenhardt et al. 2005). They have carefully documented the nature and extent of the reduction in heroin availability, as well as the impact on a variety of important health indicators. The impact appears clear. Significant reductions in heroin use and heroin-related health problems were observed. This work is completely consistent with work examining the impact of reductions in alcohol availability (e.g. Giesbrecht & Macdonald 1981; Mann & Anglin 1990). There are important implications of the availability law for preventing drug problems. However, recent thought on dealing with illicit drugs has been turning away from availability-based interventions (e.g. Rydell et al. 1995). The findings of Degenhardt et al. (in press) reinforce the potential value of successful availability-based initiates in reducing the suffering caused by heroin.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,004 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».