Defining a public health approach to substance use: Perspectives from professionals and practitioners across Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: While increasingly referenced in the literature and policy discussions, a "public health approach" (PHA) to substance use has been inconsistently defined or remained undefined. As part of a larger project on building the capacity to implement a PHA to substance use, we aimed to understand how professionals and practitioners across Canada who work with or whose work directly impacts the lives of people who use substances conceptualize a PHA. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional national online survey of public health professionals, public safety professionals, health and social service providers, and other relevant professionals and practitioners. The survey contained closed- and open-ended questions designed to gauge familiarity and comfort with application of a PHA to substance use, and perspectives on an organizational definition of such an approach. Survey recruitment was active between May and July 2021. Data analysis included descriptive statistics and thematic analysis. RESULTS: A total of 1041 surveys were completed. Most respondents (76 %) reported having heard of a PHA to substance use, as it was defined. Over half (54 %) indicated a high level of comfort with applying such an approach within their work. In relation to defining a PHA to substance use, the following thematic suggestions emerged from respondent's open-ended answers: explicitly recognize people with lived/living experience of substance use; incorporate trauma-informed understanding and acknowledge the varied underlying reasons for substance use; decolonize approaches to substance use and empower communities; and consider a more critical appraisal of a PHA and the terminology in its definition. CONCLUSION: Empirically unpacking multi-stakeholder understandings of a PHA to substance use can help to inform a more cohesive definition and build the consensus needed for more effective, coordinated, and community-led responses to substance use. Future work, especially qualitative research, will provide richer and more practical understandings of a PHA to substance use.
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 | 0.017 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.044 | 0.020 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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".