Defining a public health approach to substance use: insights from a systematic scoping review and conceptual framework development approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Psychoactive substance use represents a significant global public health challenge, leading to diverse health, social, and environmental harms. Traditional punitive and commercial approaches have faced criticism for potentially worsening these harms and overlooking potential benefits. Consequently, there is an increasing global call for a comprehensive public health approach to address psychoactive substances, focusing on both supply and demand reduction. However, the core components of a public health approach remain unclear. We aimed to conceptualize a public health approach to psychoactive substances and describe its core values, goals, and activities. METHODS: We used a two-step process to develop a coherent and comprehensive conceptual framework. First we conducted a scoping review of academic and practice literature on a public health approach to psychoactive substances published between 1950 and 2023 (n = 230 English language records). We then conducted an iterative team-based synthesis of the review findings and expert public health knowledge to address gaps in extant literature using a structured conceptual framework development approach. RESULTS: This conceptual framework includes core values (i.e. social justice, health equity, evidence-informed), activities (i.e. legal and regulatory action, supports and services, prevention and education, advocacy, and research, monitoring, and evaluation), and goals (e.g. improving population health; addressing determinants of substance use, substance harms and substance policy related harms; countering carceral logics) that are central to a public health approach to psychoactive substances. CONCLUSIONS: Our coherent and comprehensive framework incorporates international literature and is informed by contemporary values and goals with the aim of promoting a consensus understanding of this critical practice area. This framework can guide efforts to design, implement, and evaluate public health interventions that maximize benefits and mitigate harm associated with psychoactive substances.
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 | 0.213 | 0.248 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.065 | 0.049 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.019 | 0.019 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.016 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| 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".