Estimating prevalence of problem drug use at national level in countries of the European Union and Norway

Kraus, Ludwig; Augustin, Rita; Frischer, Martin; Kümmler, Petra; Uhl, Alfred; Wiessing, Lucas

doi:10.1046/j.1360-0443.2003.00326.x

Cited by 107 publications

(71 citation statements)

References 32 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…20 Results of this study are compatible with the publications and probation data showing that the most commonly used illegal substance is marijuana in our country and the world. [27][28][29] However, most of the multiple substance use was not specified in the study, its rate found in another study is quite lower than the rate in our study (1.7%-29.9%) and the number of the subjects in other studies is lower than the relevant number in our study, so it causes us to think that multiple substance use is more common in essence and goes unnoticed. 30 It is investigated that how many of the admissions to psychiatry outpatient clinics has substance positive urine results and how it changes year by year.…”

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 53%

Urinary extract profiles of illegal substances at psychiatry and dependency clinics: three years report

Tanyeri

Yazıcı

Büyükokuroğlu

et al. 2017

Int J Basic Clin Pharmacol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Substance abuse is a serious problem all over the world. There are many studies report the illegal substance use profile but few studies present their toxicology laboratory analysis. This study reports a quantitative profile of (Urine Drug Screening)) for illegal substances in Sakarya-Turkey.Methods: This study presents the urine analysis of all illegal substances which were made in the laboratory of Sakarya Training Research Hospital between March 2012 and February 2015. The results obtained from socio-demographic data and urine tests of patients were analyzed by examining their hospital record files. Urine drug screening was conducted with immunoassay quantitative analysis.Results: People subjected to substance analysis (n=2948) ages vary between 12 and 76, their mean age was 28.30±9.46. 96.74% (n=2852) of them were males. Substance positivity was determined in 34.73% of all patients (n=1024/2948) and their ages varied between 14 and 70 and their mean age was 29.39±9.65. Distribution of the urine positivity of the substances contained: marijuana 79, 5% (n=814), amphetamine 30.17% (n=309), ecstasy 23.74% (n=199), benzodiazepine 9,1% (n=94), synthetic cannabinoid 4.9% (n=12/243); opioid 5.2% (n=54), cocaine 1.67% (n=14) and multiple substance 29.9% (n=308).Conclusions: According to this study, marijuana is the most frequently used substance and multiple substance use is common. Synthetic cannabinoid seems to take place rapidly among the users. Updating the kits is important to reach the correct information in drug screening tests.

show abstract

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 53%

Urinary extract profiles of illegal substances at psychiatry and dependency clinics: three years report

Tanyeri

Yazıcı

Büyükokuroğlu

et al. 2017

Int J Basic Clin Pharmacol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Heroin use is widespread in Denmark and very strict prohibition has not had any effect in limiting its prevalence [20,21]. Indeed, prohibition may have increased the commercial attractiveness of the drug to the criminal underworld.…”

Section: Heroin / Morphinementioning

confidence: 99%

Psychoactive Drugs and Quality of Life

Ventegodt

Merrick

2003

The Scientific World JOURNAL

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Our study showed that over half the Danish population had used illegal psychotropic drugs. The most commonly used was cannabis (marijuana) though experience of this drug appeared not to co-vary with QOL to any significant extent. Cocaine, amphetamine, and psilocybin had been used by 1.2 to 3.3% of the population and this varied with QOL to a clear albeit small extent. LSD has been used by 1.2% of the population and the users had a QOL score 10% lower than those who had never used psychotropic drugs. The group with the lowest quality of life was found to be persons who had used heroin, morphine, methadone, and a mixture of alcohol and tranquilizers (10-20% below the group with the highest quality of life).

show abstract

“…Instead, indirect methods such as capture–recapture (CRC) estimation have been recommended 12, 13, 14, 15. CRC is used extensively to estimate the prevalence of problem drug use 11, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Problem drug use prevalence estimation revisited: heterogeneity in capture–recapture and the role of external evidence

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background and AimsCapture–recapture (CRC) analysis is recommended for estimating the prevalence of problem drug use or people who inject drugs (PWID). We aim to demonstrate how naive application of CRC can lead to highly misleading results, and to suggest how the problems might be overcome.MethodsWe present a case study of estimating the prevalence of PWID in Bristol, UK, applying CRC to lists in contact with three services. We assess: (i) sensitivity of results to different versions of the dominant (treatment) list: specifically, to inclusion of non‐incident cases and of those who were referred directly from one of the other services; (ii) the impact of accounting for a novel covariate, housing instability; and (iii) consistency of CRC estimates with drug‐related mortality data. We then incorporate formally the drug‐related mortality data and lower bounds for prevalence alongside the CRC into a single coherent model.ResultsFive of 11 models fitted the full data equally well but generated widely varying prevalence estimates, from 2740 [95% confidence interval (CI) = 2670, 2840] to 6890 (95% CI = 3740, 17680). Results were highly sensitive to inclusion of non‐incident cases, demonstrating the presence of considerable heterogeneity, and were sensitive to a lesser extent to inclusion of direct referrals. A reduced data set including only incident cases and excluding referrals could be fitted by simpler models, and led to much greater consistency in estimates. Accounting for housing stability improved model fit considerably more than did the standard covariates of age and gender. External data provided validation of results and aided model selection, generating a final estimate of the number of PWID in Bristol in 2011 of 2770 [95% credible interval (Cr‐I) = 2570, 3110] or 0.9% (95% Cr‐I = 0.9, 1.0%) of the population aged 15–64 years.ConclusionsSteps can be taken to reduce bias in capture–recapture analysis, including: careful consideration of data sources, reduction of lists to less heterogeneous subsamples, use of covariates and formal incorporation of external data.

show abstract

Estimating prevalence of problem drug use at national level in countries of the European Union and Norway

Abstract: Cross-national comparisons should be made with care and estimated target populations may vary greatly between countries. For estimating various forms of problem drug use at national level, a multi-method approach is recommended.

Cited by 107 publications

References 32 publications

Urinary extract profiles of illegal substances at psychiatry and dependency clinics: three years report

Urinary extract profiles of illegal substances at psychiatry and dependency clinics: three years report

Psychoactive Drugs and Quality of Life

Problem drug use prevalence estimation revisited: heterogeneity in capture–recapture and the role of external evidence

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About