Middelenmisbruik onder de Belgische beroepsbevolking. Of spreken we beter over werkgerelateerd alcohol- en druggebruik?
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
The impact of substance abuse in society is considerable, but depends largely on the type of drug used. Alcohol consumption was the third leading risk factor in the Global Burden of Disease Study 2010 of the World Health Organization (WHO). It plays a role in more than 60 major diseases and injuries. Alcohol-related health damage can result from occasional or regular heavy drinking. Cannabis is by far the most frequently used illegal drug in Europe. Estimations of the lifetime use of cocaine, amphetamines, and ecstasy are considerable lower. In Europe the high average consumption of benzodiazepines is a largely unrecognized problem. The workplace is confronted with the negative consequences of substance abuse. In the European Union the tangible costs of alcohol in 2010 were estimated to be €74.1billion, which is 47% of the total social cost. This is the result of lost productivity through absenteeism, unemployment and lost working years because of premature death. Alcohol-related work performance problems are mainly associated with non-dependent, lower-level drinkers who represent the biggest group of drinkers. Recreational drug use may also reduce performance efficiency and safety at work, but more research is needed in this area. The impact of benzodiazepines has mostly been described in relation to its impact on driving. Following a Collective Labour Agreement (CLA number 100), all private organizations in Belgium must have a policy statement on alcohol and drugs in the workplace. This CLA also promotes the development of an appropriate prevention policy. However there is a lack of prevalence data concerning the use and problematic use of alcohol and other drugs among the working population in Belgium. There is also little known about the motivation and approach of Occupational Physicians in the prevention and management of substance abuse among employees. References Lim, S.S. et al. (2012). A comparative risk assessment of burden of disease and injury attributable to 67 risk factors and risk factor clusters in 21 regions, 1990-2010: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2010. The Lancet, 380: 2224-60. Gisle, L., Hesse, E., Drieskens, S., Demarest, S., Van der Heyden, J., & Tafforeau, J. (2010). Health Interview survey, 2008. Brussels: Scientific Institute of Public Health. World Health Organization (2014). Global Status Report on Alcohol and Health. Geneva: WHO. UNODC (2013). World Drug Report 2013 (United Nations publication, Sales No. E.13.XI.6). INCB (2010). Report of the International Narcotics Control Board for 2009 (United Nations publication, Sales No. E.10.XI.1). Rehm, J., Shield, K.D., Rehm, M.X., Gmel, G. & Frick, U. (2012). Alcohol consumption, alcohol dependence and attributable burden of disease in Europe: Potential gains from effective interventions for alcohol dependence. Toronto: Centre for Addiction and Mental Health. Smith, A. et al. (2004). The scale and impact of illegal drug use by workers. Centre for Occupational and Health Psychology. Cardiff: Cardiff University. Orriols, L. et al. (2009). The impact of medicinal drugs on traffic safety: a systematic review of epidemiological studies. Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety, 18 (8), 647-658. WHO Regional Office for Europe (2013). Status Report on Alcohol and Health in 35 European Countries 2013. Copenhagen: WHO [http://www.euro.who.int/__data/assets/pdf_file/0017/190430/Status-Report-on-Alcohol-and-Health-in-35-European-Countries.pdf]. Download 15/12/2013. http://www.qado.be/media/37364/q-ado_resultaten_3jaar%20na%20cao%20100_2april13.pdf http://www.nar.be/CAO-COORD/cao-100.pdf. Use of alcohol, illegal drugs, hypnotics and tranquilizers in the Belgian population (UP TO DATE) [http://www.belspo.be/belspo/fedra/proj.asp?l=en&COD=DR/60] Royen, K., Remmen, R., Vanmeerbeek, M., Godderis, L., Mairiaux, P. & Peremans, L. (2013). A review of guidelines for collaboration in substance misuse management. Occupational Medicine, 63: 445-447. The I-Change Model [http://www.personeel.unimaas.nl/hein.devries/I-Change.htm] Download 10/12/2013. Smith, A.J. (2011). Evaluating the contribution of interpretative phenomenological analysis. Health Psychology Review, 5, (1) 9-27.20. Larkin, M., Watts, S. & Clifton, E. (2006). Giving voice and making sense in interpretative phenomenological analysis. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3, 102-120.
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 | 0,001 | 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 | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 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 ».