Search

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]

Background and aims: The World Health Organization's (WHO's) proposed International Classification of Diseases, 11th edition (ICD‐11) includes several major revisions to substance use disorder (SUD) diagnoses. It is essential to ensure the consistency of within‐subject diagnostic findings throughout countries, languages and cultures. To date, agreement analyses between different SUD diagnostic systems have largely been based in high‐income countries and clinical samples rather than general population samples. We aimed to evaluate the prevalence of, and concordance between diagnoses using the ICD‐11, The WHO's ICD 10th edition (ICD‐10) and the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th and 5th editions (DSM‐IV, DSM‐5); the prevalence of disaggregated ICD‐10 and ICD‐11 symptoms; and variation in clinical features across diagnostic groups. Design Cross‐sectional household surveys. Setting: Representative surveys of the general population in 10 countries (Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Colombia, Iraq, Northern Ireland, Poland, Portugal, Romania and Spain) of the World Mental Health Survey Initiative. Participants: Questions about SUDs were asked of 12 182 regular alcohol users and 1788 cannabis users. Measurements Each survey used the World Mental Health Survey Initiative version of the WHO Composite International Diagnostic Interview version 3.0 (WMH‐CIDI). Findings Among regular alcohol users, prevalence (95% confidence interval) of life‐time ICD‐11 alcohol harmful use and dependence were 21.6% (20.5–22.6%) and 7.0% (6.4–7.7%), respectively. Among cannabis users, 9.3% (7.4–11.1%) met criteria for ICD‐11 harmful use and 3.2% (2.3–4.0%) for dependence. For both substances, all comparisons of ICD‐11 with ICD‐10 and DSM‐IV showed excellent concordance (all κ ≥ 0.9). Concordance between ICD‐11 and DSM‐5 ranged from good (for SUD and comparisons of dependence and severe SUD) to poor (for comparisons of harmful use and mild SUD). Very low endorsement rates were observed for new ICD‐11 feature for harmful use ('harm to others'). Minimal variation in clinical features was observed across diagnostic systems. Conclusions: The World Health Organization's proposed International Classification of Diseases, 11th edition (ICD‐11) classifications for substance use disorder diagnoses are highly consistent with the ICD 10th edition and the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th edition (DSM‐IV). Concordance between ICD‐11 and the DSM 5th edition (DSM‐5) varies, due largely to low levels of agreement for the ICD harmful use and DSM‐5 mild use disorder. Diagnostic validity of self‐reported 'harm to others' is questionable. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

ABSTRACT Aims This study evaluated the effectiveness of a brief intervention (BI) for illicit drugs (cannabis, cocaine, amphetamine-type stimulants and opioids) linked to the World Health Organization (WHO) Alcohol, Smoking and Substance Involvement Screening Test (ASSIST). The ASSIST screens for problem or risky use of 10 psychoactive substances, producing a score for each substance that falls into either a low-, moderate- or high-risk category. Design Prospective, randomized controlled trial in which participants were either assigned to a 3-month waiting-list control condition or received brief motivational counselling lasting an average of 13.8 minutes for the drug receiving the highest ASSIST score. Setting Primary health-care settings in four countries: Australia, Brazil, India and the United States. Participants A total of 731 males and females scoring within the moderate-risk range of the ASSIST for cannabis, cocaine, amphetamine-type stimulants or opioids. Measurements ASSIST-specific substance involvement scores for cannabis, stimulants or opioids and ASSIST total illicit substance involvement score at baseline and 3 months post-randomization. Findings Omnibus analyses indicated that those receiving the BI had significantly reduced scores for all measures, compared with control participants. Country-specific analyses showed that, with the exception of the site in the United States, BI participants had significantly lower ASSIST total illicit substance involvement scores at follow-up compared with the control participants. The sites in India and Brazil demonstrated a very strong brief intervention effect for cannabis scores ( P < 0.005 for both sites), as did the sites in Australia ( P < 0.005) and Brazil ( P < 0.01) for stimulant scores and the Indian site for opioid scores ( P < 0.01). Conclusions The Alcohol, Smoking and Substance Involvement Screening Test-linked brief intervention aimed at reducing illicit substance use and related risks is effective, at least in the short term, and the effect generalizes across countries. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]