Codeine Addiction and Internet Forum Use and Support: Qualitative Netnographic Study
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: The use of codeine as an analgesic is well-recognized, but there are increasing concerns that for some individuals continued use may lead to misuse, dependence, and fatalities. Research suggests that those affected may represent a hard-to-reach group who do not engage with formal treatment services. OBJECTIVE: This study sought to explore the experiences of people with self-reported addiction to codeine and, specifically, how a social media forum is used to communicate with others about this issue. METHODS: Using a qualitative netnographic methodology, the social media forum Mumsnet was used, with permission, and searches were undertaken in 2016 of any posts that related to codeine and addiction. A total of 95 relevant posts were identified; a purposive sample of 25 posts was selected to undertake subsequent six-stage thematic analysis and development of emerging themes. These 25 posts were posted between 2003 and 2016 and comprised 757 individual posts. RESULTS: Individuals created posts to actively request help in relation to usually their own, but occasionally their partner's or relative's, problems relating to codeine use and self-reported "addiction." Varying levels of detail were provided in narratives of problematic codeine use. There were both positive and negative descriptions of side effects emerging, problems experiencing withdrawal, and failed attempts to discontinue codeine use. Mainly positive and supportive responses to posts were identified from those with either self-reported health profession experience or lay respondents, who often drew on their own experiences of similar problems. Treatment advice emerged in two main ways, either as signposting to formal health services or to informal approaches and often anecdotal advice about how to taper or use cold turkey techniques. Some posts were more critical of the original poster, and arguments and challenges to advice were not uncommon. Shame and stigma were often associated with users' posts and, while there was a desire to receive support and treatment advice in this forum, users often wanted to keep their codeine use hidden in other aspects of their lives. Distinctly different views emerged as to whether responsibility lay with prescribers or patients. Some users expressed anger toward doctors and their prescribing practices. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides a unique insight into how a public internet forum is used by individuals to confirm and seek support about problematic codeine use and of the ways others respond. The pseudonymous use of internet forums for such information and variation in treatment options suggested by often lay respondents suggest that increased formal support and awareness about codeine addiction are needed. There may be opportunities for providing further support directly on such online forums. Improvements in prescribing codeine and in the over-the-counter supply of codeine are required to prevent problematic use from occurring.
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) | 0,000 | 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 | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
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 ».