Search

AIM: The study investigates patterns of cocaine powder and crack cocaine use of different groups in nine European cities. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS: Multi-centre cross-sectional study conducted in Barcelona, Budapest, Dublin, Hamburg, London, Paris, Rome, Vienna, and Zurich. Data were collected by structured face-to-face interviews. The sample comprises 1,855 cocaine users out of three subgroups: 632 cocaine users in addiction treatment, mainly maintenance treatment; 615 socially marginalized cocaine users not in treatment, and 608 socially integrated cocaine users not in treatment. MEASUREMENTS: Use of cocaine powder, crack cocaine and other substances in the last 30 days, routes of administration, and lifetime use of cocaine powder and crack cocaine. Findings: The marginalized group showed the highest intensity of cocaine use, the highest intensity of heroin use and of multiple substance use. 95% of the integrated group snorted cocaine powder, while in the two other groups, injecting was quite prevalent, but with huge differences between the cities. 96% of all participants had used at least one other substance in addition to cocaine in the last 30 days. CONCLUSIONS: The use of cocaine powder and crack cocaine varies widely between different groups and between cities. Nonetheless, multiple substance use is the predominating pattern of cocaine use, and the different routes of administration have to be taken into account.

An increase in the use of cocaine and crack in several parts of Europe has raised the question whether this trend is similar to that of the USA in the 1980s. However, research in the field of cocaine use in Europe has been only sporadic. Therefore, a European multi-centre and multi-modal project was designed to study specific aspects of cocaine and crack use in Europe, in order to develop guidelines for public health strategies. Data on prevalence rates were analysed for the general population and for specific subgroups. Despite large differences between countries in the prevalence of cocaine use in the general population, most countries show an increase in the last few years. The highest rate with a lifetime prevalence of 5.2% was found for the United Kingdom, although with a plateau effect around the year 2000. With regard to specific subgroups, three groups seem to show a higher prevalence than the general population: (1) youth, especially in the party scene; (2) socially marginalized groups, such as homeless and prostitutes or those found in open drug scenes; (3) opiate-dependent patients in maintenance treatment who additionally use cocaine. Specific strategies need to be developed to address problematic cocaine use in these subgroups.

AIM The study investigates patterns of cocaine powder and crack cocaine use of different groups in nine European cities. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS Multi-centre cross-sectional study conducted in Barcelona, Budapest, Dublin, Hamburg, London, Paris, Rome, Vienna, and Zurich. Data were collected by structured face-to-face interviews. The sample comprises 1,855 cocaine users out of three subgroups: 632 cocaine users in addiction treatment, mainly maintenance treatment; 615 socially marginalized cocaine users not in treatment, and 608 socially integrated cocaine users not in treatment. MEASUREMENTS Use of cocaine powder, crack cocaine and other substances in the last 30 days, routes of administration, and lifetime use of cocaine powder and crack cocaine. FINDINGS The marginalized group showed the highest intensity of cocaine use, the highest intensity of heroin use and of multiple substance use. 95% of the integrated group snorted cocaine powder, while in the two other groups, injecting was quite prevalent, but with huge differences between the cities. 96% of all participants had used at least one other substance in addition to cocaine in the last 30 days. CONCLUSIONS The use of cocaine powder and crack cocaine varies widely between different groups and between cities. Nonetheless, multiple substance use is the predominating pattern of cocaine use, and the different routes of administration have to be taken into account.