暂无摘要。

BACKGROUND: Policies to address substance use differ greatly between settings, where goals may range from zero-tolerance to harm reduction. Different approaches impact formats of care, policing, and even interpersonal interactions, and may play a role in the labelling and stigmatization of people who use drugs (PWUD). Where Sweden has a more restrictive policy, aiming to have a society free from drugs, Denmark has embraced harm reduction principles. The aim of this study was to explore PWUDs\' experiences of interpersonal interactions, policing, and service formats in the two countries.
METHODS: The data consists of 17 qualitative semi-structured interviews with Swedish PWUD who have been in both Sweden and Denmark. Recruitment took place at harm reduction sites in both countries, and through snowball sampling.
RESULTS: Participants reflected on how they were perceived by those in public spaces, and received by care systems and personnel. In public settings in Sweden, participants felt they were ignored, rendered invisible, and lost their humanity. In Denmark, they were perceived and acknowledged, valued as people. This was simultaneously linked to being embodied by the availability of differing service offerings and policing practices, which solidified their \"right to be out\" in public. Reflecting on their reception in the treatment system, strict formatting in Sweden caused participants to feel that an identity was projected upon them, limiting their opportunities or growth of new facets of identity. Care relations in Denmark fostered more opportunity for autonomy and trust.
CONCLUSIONS: A zero-tolerance policy and associated public discourses could solidify and universalize stigmatizing categorizations as a central feature of PWUD identity and reception from those around them, exacerbating social exclusion. Conversely, harm reduction-centered policies fostered positive interactions between individuals with care providers, public, and police, which may promote inclusion, empowerment, and wellbeing.

BACKGROUND: Access to anaesthesia and surgical care is a major problem for people living in Sub-Saharan Africa. In this region, ketamine is critical for the provision of anaesthesia care. However, efforts to control ketamine internationally as a controlled substance may significantly impact its accessibility. This research therefore aims to estimate the importance of ketamine for anaesthesia and surgical care in Sub-Saharan Africa and assess the potential impact on access to ketamine if it were to be scheduled.
METHODS: This research is a mixed-methods study, comprising of a cross-sectional survey at the hospital level in Rwanda, and key informant interviews with experts on anaesthesia care in Sub-Saharan Africa. Data on availability of four anaesthetic agents were collected from hospitals (n = 54) in Rwanda. Semi-structured interviews with 10 key informants were conducted, collecting information on the importance of ketamine, the potential impact of scheduling ketamine internationally, and opinions on misuse of ketamine. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and analysed using a thematic analysis approach.
RESULTS: The survey conducted in Rwanda found that availability of ketamine and propofol was comparable at around 80%, while thiopental and inhalational agents were available at only about half of the hospitals. Significant barriers impeding access to anaesthesia care were identified, including a general lack of attention given to the specialty by governments, a shortage of anaesthesiologists and migration of trained anaesthesiologists, and a scarcity of medicines and equipment. Ketamine was described as critical for the provision of anaesthesia care as a consequence of these barriers. Misuse of ketamine was not believed to be an issue by the informants.
CONCLUSIONS: Ketamine is critical for the provision of anaesthesia care in Sub-Saharan Africa, and its scheduling would have a significantly negative impact on its availability for anaesthesia care.

BACKGROUND: As of November 8, 2023, 24 states and the District of Columbia have legalized cannabis for both recreational and medical use (RMCL-states), 14 states have legalized cannabis for medical use only (MCL-states) and 12 states have no comprehensive cannabis legislation (NoCL-states). As more states legalize cannabis for recreational use, it is critical to understand the impact of such policies on driving safety.
METHODS: Using the 2019 and 2020 Fatality Analysis Reporting System data, we performed multivariable logistic regression modeling to explore the association between state level legalization status and cannabis positivity using toxicological testing data for 14,079 fatally injured drivers. We performed a sensitivity analysis by including multiply imputed toxicological testing data for the 14,876 eligible drivers with missing toxicological testing data.
RESULTS: Overall, 4702 (33.4%) of the 14,079 fatally injured drivers tested positive for cannabis use. The prevalence of cannabis positivity was 30.7% in NoCL-states, 32.8% in MCL-states, and 38.2% in RMCL-states (p < 0.001). Compared to drivers fatally injured in NoCL-states, the adjusted odds ratios of testing positive for cannabis were 1.09 (95% confidence interval: 0.99, 1.19) for those fatally injured in MCL-states and 1.54 (95% confidence interval: 1.34, 1.77) for those fatally injured in RMCL-states. Sensitivity analysis yielded similar results.
CONCLUSIONS: Over one-third of fatally injured drivers tested positive for cannabis use. Drivers fatally injured in states with laws permitting recreational use of cannabis were significantly more likely to test positive for cannabis use than those in states without such laws. State medical cannabis laws had little impact on the odds of cannabis positivity among fatally injured drivers.

In the Global South, young people who use drugs (YPWUD) are exposed to multiple interconnected social and health harms, with many low- and middle-income countries enforcing racist, prohibitionist-based drug policies that generate physical and structural violence. While harm reduction coverage for YPWUD is suboptimal globally, in low- and middle-income countries youth-focused harm reduction programs are particularly lacking. Those that do exist are often powerfully shaped by global health funding regimes that restrict progressive approaches and reach. In this commentary we highlight the efforts of young people, activists, allies, and organisations across some Global South settings to enact programs such as those focused on peer-to-peer information sharing and advocacy, overdose monitoring and response, and drug checking. We draw on our experiential knowledge and expertise to identify and discuss key challenges, opportunities, and recommendations for youth harm reduction movements, programs and practices in low- to middle-income countries and beyond, focusing on the need for youth-driven interventions. We conclude this commentary with several calls to action to advance harm reduction for YPWUD within and across Global South settings.

BACKGROUND: There is substantial geographic variability in local cannabis policies within states that have legalized recreational cannabis. This study develops an interpretable machine learning model that uses county-level population demographics, sociopolitical factors, and estimates of substance use and mental illness prevalences to predict the legality of recreational cannabis sales within each U.S. county.
METHODS: We merged data and selected 14 model inputs from the 2010 Census, 2012 County Presidential Data from the MIT Elections Lab, and Small Area Estimates from the National Surveys on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH) from 2010 to 2012 at the county level. County policies were labeled as having recreational cannabis legal (RCL) if the sale of recreational cannabis was allowed anywhere in the county in 2014, resulting in 92 RCL and 3002 non-RCL counties. We used synthetic data augmentation and minority oversampling techniques to build an ensemble of 1000 logistic regressions on random sub-samples of the data, withholding one state at a time and building models from all remaining states. Performance was evaluated by comparing the predicted policy conditions with the actual outcomes in 2014.
RESULTS: When compared to the actual RCL policies in 2014, the ensemble estimated predictions of counties transitioning to RCL had a macro f1 average score of 0.61. The main factors associated with legalizing county-level recreational cannabis sales were the prevalences of past-month cannabis use and past-year cocaine use.
CONCLUSIONS: By leveraging publicly available data from 2010 to 2012, our model was able to achieve appreciable discrimination in predicting counties with legal recreational cannabis sales in 2014, however, there is room for improvement. Having demonstrated model performance in the first handful of states to legalize cannabis, additional testing with more recent data using time to event models is warranted.

BACKGROUND: Prosecutorial use of drug-induced homicide (DIH) laws varies, and their public health impacts are poorly understood. This mixed-methods study explores associations between the number of DIH charges filed in North Carolina\'s 42 prosecutorial districts and district-level characteristics. Further, it documents the experience and views of North Carolina prosecutors on DIH cases.
METHODS: We conducted a descriptive, exploratory analysis of DIH enforcement by prosecutorial district in North Carolina to assess associations between overdose deaths, number of prosecutors employed, and rurality of the district. We also sent a survey to all N.C. prosecutors requesting that they detail their experience with and views on DIH prosecutions.
RESULTS: We found no association between overdose deaths or the number of prosecutors and DIH charges within a district. Survey data suggests that perceived justice for the deceased and perceived imperatives to \"do something\" about overdose influence prosecutorial use of DIH charges. Prosecutors generally appeared to agree that DIH cases had the potential to reduce substance use and/or drug dealing and/or fentanyl dealing and/or drug overdose in their districts, though how DIH cases would produce those effects was not clarified. Many prosecutors framed people who use drugs as helpless victims and forged categorical distinctions between (1) people who use drugs and sell drugs to support their addiction and (2) people who use drugs and sell drugs and are motivated by profit. Several prosecutors suggested that charging one person with homicide for another person\'s consensual acts may not appear logical to all jurors.
CONCLUSIONS: DIH prosecutions do not appear to be predicted by district characteristics commonly believed to shape prosecutorial action. Many prosecutors endorsed claims about the community-level impacts of DIH prosecutions that are unproven and generally contradict the available evidence. More research on the implementation and community-level outcomes of DIH prosecutions is needed.

Background: This study, using a nationally representative dataset of the U.S. workforce, examines how punitive workplace drug policies relate to opioid use/misuse and psychological distress. Methods: The sample included adults aged ≥18 years who participated in the National Survey on Drug Use and Health and were employed in 2020. Hierarchical multivariate logistical models were constructed to address the research questions. Results: The weighted, design-based estimates indicate that of 147 831 081 workers, 3.38% reported misusing opioids in the last 12 months. Having a punitive workplace policy was associated with higher rates of opioid use/misuse among workers aged ≤ 34 compared to their same-aged counterparts in nonpunitive workplaces, and among workers identifying as Black, Indigenous, or Person of Color who also experienced severe psychological distress the past year. Conclusion: Some employers may think drug testing policies are net-beneficial to worker well-being; these findings indicate such policies may interact in harmful ways with psychological distress.

BACKGROUND: In January 2023, British Columbia implemented a three-year exemption to Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, as granted by the federal government of Canada, to decriminalize the personal possession of small amounts of certain illegal drugs. This decriminalization policy, the first in Canada, was announced in response to the overdose emergency in British Columbia as a public health intervention that could help curb overdose deaths by reducing the impact of criminalization and increasing access to health and social services through stigma reduction.
METHODS: The current multi-method study examines people who use drugs\' awareness and knowledge of British Columbia\'s decriminalization model through cross-sectional quantitative surveys and qualitative interviews among people who use drugs from September-November 2022, immediately prior to the implementation of decriminalization.
RESULTS: Quantitative findings show that two-thirds (63%) of people who use drugs were aware of the policy, but substantial knowledge gaps existed about the legal protections afforded (threshold amount, substances included, drug trafficking, confiscation). The qualitative findings suggest that people who use drugs misunderstood the details of the provincial decriminalization model and often conflated it with regulation. Results suggest that information sharing about decriminalization were minimal pre-implementation, highlighting areas for knowledge dissemination about people who use drugs\' rights under this policy.
CONCLUSIONS: Given that decriminalization in British Columbia is a new and landmark reform, and that the success of decriminalization and its benefits may be undermined by poor awareness and knowledge of it, efforts to share information, increase understanding, and empower the community, may be required to promote its implementation and benefits for the community.

UNASSIGNED: The 2022 Inflation Reduction Act authorizes Medicare to negotiate the prices of 10 drugs in 2026 and additional drugs thereafter. Understanding the sociodemographic and spending characteristics of beneficiaries taking these specific drugs could be important describing the impact of the legislation.
UNASSIGNED: To describe sociodemographic and spending characteristics of Medicare beneficiaries who use the 10 prescription drugs (\"negotiated drugs\") that will face Medicare drug price negotiations in 2026.
UNASSIGNED: A 20% sample of Medicare Part D beneficiaries from 2020 (n = 10,224,642) was used. Sociodemographic and spending characteristics were descriptively reported for beneficiaries taking the negotiated drugs, including subgroups by low-income subsidy (LIS) status and by drug, and for Part D beneficiaries not taking negotiated drugs.
UNASSIGNED: Part D beneficiaries taking a negotiated drug compared with Part D beneficiaries not taking a negotiated drug overall had similar sociodemographic characteristics, more comorbidities (3.9 vs 2.2) and higher mean [median] Medicare ($33,882 [$18,251] vs $12,366 [$3,429]) and out-of-pocket (OOP) spending ($813 [$307] vs $441 [$160]). There was variation in characteristics by LIS status. The mean age was highest among non-LIS beneficiaries taking a negotiated drug compared with LIS beneficiaries taking a negotiated drug and beneficiaries not taking a negotiated drug (76.2 vs 69.9 vs 71.4). Among beneficiaries using negotiated drugs, a higher percentage of LIS beneficiaries compared with non-LIS was female (59.7% vs 48.0%), was Black (20.9% vs 6.6%), and resided in lower-income areas (39.1% vs 20.3%). Mean [median] annual Part D OOP spending for negotiated drugs was $115 [$59] for beneficiaries with LIS and $1,475 [$1,204] for beneficiaries without LIS. There were also differences depending on which negotiated drug was used. Drugs for cancer and blood clots had the highest proportions of White users, whereas type 2 diabetes and heart failure drugs had the highest proportions of Black users and beneficiaries residing in lower-income areas. Annual Part D OOP costs were lowest for sitagliptin (LIS: $104 [$60], non-LIS: $1,391 [$1,153]) and highest for ibrutinib (LIS: $649 [$649], non-LIS: $6,449 [$6,867]). Among non-LIS beneficiaries, 24% (22% to 76%) had more than $2,000 in OOP costs.
UNASSIGNED: Inflation Reduction Act OOP spending caps and LIS expansion will lower prescription drug costs for beneficiaries with OOP costs exceeding $2,000 who are mostly White and live in higher-income areas, insulin users who are disproportionately Black with multiple chronic conditions, and beneficiaries with low incomes. However, these provisions will not impact the 76% of non-LIS beneficiaries using negotiated drugs who have OOP costs that are still substantial but below $2,000. Negotiations could reduce OOP costs through reduced coinsurance payments for this group, which is older and has more chronic conditions compared with beneficiaries not taking negotiated drugs. Part D plan design, spending, and utilization changes should be monitored after negotiation to determine if further solutions are needed to lower OOP costs for this group.