Search

Background: There is significant interest in comparing countries on many different indicators of social problems and policies. Cross-national comparisons of drug prevalence and policies are often hampered by differences in the approach used to reach respondents and the methods used to obtain information in national surveys. The paper explores how much these differences could affect cross-country comparisons.Methods: This study reports prevalence of drug use according to the most recent national household survey and then adjusts estimates as if all national surveys used the same methodology. The analysis focuses on European countries for which the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction reports data, the United States, Canada, and Australia. Adjustment factors are based on US data.Findings: Adjusting for modality differences appears likely to modestly affect the rankings of countries by prevalence, but to an extent that could be important for comparisons. For example, general population surveys suggest that the US had some of the highest cannabis and cocaine prevalence rates circa 2012, but this is partially driven by the use of a modality known to produce higher prevalence estimates. This analysis shows that country rankings are partly an artifact of the mode of interview used in national general population surveys.Conclusions: Our preliminary efforts suggest that cross-national prevalence comparisons, policy analyses and, other projects such as estimating the global burden of disease could be improved by adjusting estimates from drug use surveys for differences in modality. Research is needed to create more authoritative adjustment factors. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Healthcare professionals (HCPs) provide an important point of contact through which people who use performance and image enhancing drugs (PIEDs) could access reliable information, advice, and interventions on a range of PIEDs, their use and related harms. However, HCPs often report difficulties engaging and building rapport with people who use PIEDs, and research suggests that they often lack specialist knowledge on these substances. Providing credible evidence-based resources to support HCPs is thus important. However, educational materials in this area are generally absent and the ones that exist have not been assessed for their utility in the HCP workforce. This paper examines the acceptability and usability of a PIED e-learning module (the Dopinglinkki e-module) targeted at HCPs in three EU Member States and Australia.Methods: A standardised two stage, mixed methodology was implemented. Stage 1 involved HCPs completing the e-module and completing an online survey (N = 77). Stage 2 involved conducting individual structured interviews with a subset of survey respondents (N = 37). Normalisation Process Theory and the Theoretical Framework of Acceptability were used as conceptual lenses.Findings: The e-module provided information that was perceived as useful for HCPs' current and future practice. However, several individual, organisational and societal level barriers were reported as preventing the e-module becoming an accepted and normalised aspect of the HCP workforce, including the need for up to date evidence, the time-consuming nature of completing the e-module, lack of organisational support, the use of over-complex language, and the module's potential to reinforce the stigmatisation of PIEDs.Conclusion: Providing credible evidence-based resources to support HCPs' knowledge development is important. Evidence-based and theory informed interventions are needed to equip HCPs with knowledge that can aid culturally sensitive interactions and effective engagement with people who use PIEDs. Reflecting on our study findings, it is important that the development of interventions should include the voices of both HCP and those using PIEDs, and that careful consideration is given to the various factors that may act as a barrier to effective implementation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]