Search

Background and Aims: The pathways model is a highly cited etiological model of problem gambling. In the past two decades, a number of studies have found support for the model's utility in classifying gambling subtypes. The aims of this paper were to refine empirically the model subtypes and to revise and update the model based on those findings. Design and Measurement: Observational study using data collected from treatment‐seeking problem gamblers using the Problem Gambling Severity Index (PGSI) and the Gambling Pathways Questionnaire (GPQ). Setting: Treatment clinics in Canada, Australia and the United States. Participants: A convenience sample of 1168 treatment‐seeking problem gamblers, aged 18 years or older. Findings Empirically validated risk factors were analyzed using latent class analyses, identifying a three‐class solution as the best‐fitting model. Those in the largest class (class 1: 44.3%, n = 517) reported the lowest levels of all etiological risk factors. Participants in class 2 (39.5%, n = 461) reported the highest rates of anxiety and depression, both before and after gambling became a problem, as well as childhood maltreatment, and a high level of gambling for stress‐coping. Those in class 3 (16.3%, n = 190) reported high levels of impulsivity; risk‐taking, including sexual risk‐taking; antisocial traits; and coping to provide meaning in life and to alleviate stress. Conclusions: The revised pathways model of problem gambling includes three classes of gamblers similar to the three subtypes in the original pathways model, but class 3 in the revised pathways model is distinct from class 2, showing higher levels of risk‐taking and antisocial traits and gambling motivated by a desire for meaning/purpose and/or to alleviate stress. Class 2 in the revised pathways model demonstrates high levels of childhood maltreatment as well as gambling for stress‐coping. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: This paper presents updated prevalence estimates of awareness, ever‐use, and current use of nicotine vaping products (NVPs) from 14 International Tobacco Control Policy Evaluation Project (ITC Project) countries that have varying regulations governing NVP sales and marketing. Design, Setting, Participants and Measurements: A cross‐sectional analysis of adult (≥ 18 years) current smokers and ex‐smokers from 14 countries participating in the ITC Project. Data from the most recent survey questionnaire for each country were included, which spanned the period 2013–17. Countries were categorized into four groups based on regulations governing NVP sales and marketing (allowable or not), and level of enforcement (strict or weak where NVPs are not permitted to be sold): (1) most restrictive policies (MRPs), not legal to be sold or marketed with strict enforcement: Australia, Brazil, Uruguay; (2) restrictive policies (RPs), not approved for sale or marketing with weak enforcement: Canada, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand; (3) less restrictive policies (LRPs), legal to be sold and marketed with regulations: England, the Netherlands, Republic of Korea, United States; and (4) no regulatory policies (NRPs), Bangladesh, China, Zambia. Countries were also grouped by World Bank Income Classifications. Country‐specific weighted logistic regression models estimated adjusted NVP prevalence estimates for: awareness, ever/current use, and frequency of use (daily versus non‐daily). Findings NVP awareness and use were lowest in NRP countries. Generally, ever‐ and current use of NVPs were lower in MRP countries (ever‐use = 7.1–48.9%; current use = 0.3–3.5%) relative to LRP countries (ever‐use = 38.9–66.6%; current use = 5.5–17.2%) and RP countries (ever‐use = 10.0–62.4%; current use = 1.4–15.5%). NVP use was highest among high‐income countries, followed by upper–middle‐income countries, and then by lower–middle‐income countries. Conclusions: With a few exceptions, awareness and use of nicotine vaping products varied by the strength of national regulations governing nicotine vaping product sales/marketing, and by country income. In countries with no regulatory policies, use rates were very low, suggesting that there was little availability, marketing and/or interest in nicotine vaping products in these countries where smoking populations are predominantly poorer. The higher awareness and use of nicotine vaping products in high income countries with moderately (e.g. Canada, New Zealand) and less (e.g. England, United States) restrictive policies, is likely due to the greater availability and affordability of nicotine vaping products. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper models the predicted impact of tobacco price increases proposed in the United States and Australia during 2009 on smoking prevalence in 2010 while taking account of the effects of financial stress among smokers on cessation rates. Two models of smoking prevalence were developed for each country. In model 1, prevalence rates were determined by price elasticity estimates. In model 2 price elasticity was moderated by financial stress. Each model was used to estimate smoking prevalence in 2010 in Australia and the United States. Proposed price increases resulted in a 1.89% and 7.84% decrease in smoking participation among low socio-economic status (SES) groups in the United States and Australia, respectively. Model 1 overestimated the number of individuals expected to quit in both the United States (0.13% of smokers) and Australia (0.36% of smokers) by failing to take account of the differential effects of the tax on financially stressed smokers. The proportion of low-income smokers under financial stress increased in both countries in 2010 (by 1.06% in the United States and 3.75% in Australia). The inclusion of financial stress when modelling the impact of price on smoking prevalence suggests that the population health returns of increased cigarette price will diminish over time. As it is likely that the proportion of low-income smokers under financial stress will also increase in 2010, future population-based approaches to reducing smoking will need to address this factor. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this article the author reflects on the sustainable expansion of harm reduction services for drug users in the U.S. He notes that one of the purposes of their paper is asking if it should occur within a separate health care system for drug users or within the mainstream health care system. He cites the concept of harm reduction in the European Union (EU), France, and Australia and states that continued cross-national research on the issue may be helpful.