首页> 美国卫生研究院文献>Frontiers in Pharmacology >Toward an Improved Multi-Criteria Drug Harm Assessment Process and Evidence-Based Drug Policies
【2h】

Toward an Improved Multi-Criteria Drug Harm Assessment Process and Evidence-Based Drug Policies

机译:改进多标准药物危害评估程序和循证药物政策

代理获取
本网站仅为用户提供外文OA文献查询和代理获取服务,本网站没有原文。下单后我们将采用程序或人工为您竭诚获取高质量的原文,但由于OA文献来源多样且变更频繁,仍可能出现获取不到、文献不完整或与标题不符等情况,如果获取不到我们将提供退款服务。请知悉。

摘要

Drug scheduling within the international system of drug control and national legislation has been recently criticized as having insufficient footing in scientific evidence. The legal harms related to non-medical uses of certain drugs (e.g., cannabis) have arguably exceeded their physiological and social harmfulness compared to legally available substances (e.g., tobacco), which prompted some states to explore alternative regulation policies, similar to the drug regime in the Netherlands. Other legally prescribed drugs (e.g., stimulants) created a surge of interest for “better than well” uses, while yet others (e.g., opioids) caused an epidemic of dramatic proportions in North America. The evidence-based multi-criteria drug harm scale (MCDHS) has been proposed as a way of grounding policy in the actual degree of harmfulness of drugs. Indeed, the scale has had great ramifications in several areas of policy, and it has been used extensively in distinct lines of interdisciplinary research. However, some aspects of MCDHS remain disputed. For example, the way the data has been generated has been criticized as suffering from “expert bias.” This article reviews strengths and weaknesses of evidence provided with the use of MCDHS. Furthermore, the author argues that the shortcomings of MCDHS can be resolved by offering methodological improvements. These include (1) dissociating the harms of use from harms of abuse, (2) adding the perspectives of people who use drugs, pharmacists, and general medical practitioners along with the expert assessments, and (3) focusing on subsets of drugs to allow for comparison without mixing different social contexts of drug use. The paper concludes with outlines of substance subset-specific extensions of the MCDHS and related policy proposals in the four areas identified as generating the most controversy: non-medical use of opioids, “study aid” uses of stimulants, shifting trends in nicotine containing products, and regulation of medical and recreational uses of cannabis.
机译:最近,有人批评国际药物管制和国家立法体系内的药物调度工作缺乏科学依据。与合法可用物质(例如烟草)相比,与某些药物(例如大麻)的非医疗用途有关的法律危害可以说已经超过其生理和社会危害,这促使一些州探索类似于该药物的替代性监管政策。荷兰政权。其他法律规定的药物(例如兴奋剂)引起了对“好于一般”用途的兴趣激增,而其他药物(例如阿片类药物)则在北美引起了极大的流行。已经提出了基于证据的多标准药物危害量表(MCDHS),作为在药物实际危害程度上扎根政策的一种方法。的确,该规模在政策的几个领域产生了巨大的影响,并且已广泛用于跨学科研究的不同领域。但是,MCDHS的某些方面仍存在争议。例如,数据的生成方式被批评为“专家偏见”。本文回顾了使用MCDHS提供的证据的优缺点。此外,作者认为,可以通过提供方法上的改进来解决MCDHS的缺点。其中包括(1)将使用的危害与滥用的危害区分开来;(2)结合使用毒品的人,药剂师和全科医生的观点以及专家评估,以及(3)专注于允许使用的药物子集进行比较,而不会混淆药物使用的不同社会背景。本文最后概述了MCDHS的特定于物质子集的扩展以及相关的政策建议,这些领域被确定为引起争议最大的四个领域:阿片类药物的非医学用途,兴奋剂的“研究援助”用途,含尼古丁产品的变化趋势,以及对大麻的医疗和娱乐用途的管制。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
代理获取

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号