Trends in Primary Methamphetamine-Related Admissions to Youth Residential Substance Abuse Treatment Facilities in Canada, 2005–2006 and 2009–2010
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: During the last decade, methamphetamine use and issues surrounding its toxicity have triggered major concern in the Canadian government, leading to significant changes in drug policy and funding strategies to limit the societal impact of methamphetamine-related harms. This concern appears justified by research which found in 2005-2006 that 21% of all youth admissions to inpatient substance abuse treatment centres in Canada were due primarily to methamphetamine abuse. Given these patterns of treatment use and targeted governmental initiatives, an open question is whether the demand for methamphetamine treatment found in 2005-2006 has decreased. Our study aims to provide follow-up estimates of admissions for 2009-2010, as well as important trend information for these periods. METHOD: We developed a comprehensive list of all Canadian residential youth substance abuse treatment facilities. The executive director of each facility was asked about the site's annual caseload, and the proportion of cases primarily due to methamphetamine abuse within the past 12 months. RESULTS: Our survey data for the periods of 2005-2006 and 2009-2010 show marked reductions in admissions. In 2009-2010, we found that about 6% of all admissions were due primarily to methamphetamine abuse, a substantial drop from the 21% reported in our 2005-2006 study. CONCLUSIONS: Our data show a significant national reduction in methamphetamine-related admissions. Other reports show that methamphetamine-related treatment admissions in the United States and Mexico declined sharply during 2005-2008, reportedly in association with Mexico's methamphetamine precursor chemical controls, raising the possibility that the controls may also be associated with the declines reported here.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".