ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Addiction is increasingly considered a chronic, relapsing brain disease; however, many scholars still disagree with the brain disease model of addiction. We set out to provide evidence of attorneys' and physicians' beliefs regarding the model. First, we asked the following question: do attorneys and physicians affirm the full brain disease model, or its modified form, or do they believe that addiction is driven by deficits in self-control or moral weakness? Second, we evaluated the extent to which such beliefs correspond to attitudes toward individuals with substance use disorders (SUDs). METHODS: A questionnaire was sent to resident physicians (N = 301) and criminal defense attorneys (N = 483) practicing in the United States. It was comprised of (i) an attitudes measure, (ii) a measure regarding conceptions of addiction, and (iii) demographic questions. RESULTS: Attorneys were more likely to believe that individuals with SUDs had "practically no choice" about whether to seek and use, whereas physicians were more likely to believe that such individuals had "genuine choice." For both groups of participants, the rejection of the full brain disease model of addiction was associated with more negative attitudes toward individuals with SUDs. CONCLUSION AND SCIENTIFIC SIGNIFICANCE: These results represent an important advance, as past research has neglected attorneys' attitudes and is inconclusive regarding the manner in which beliefs about the brain disease model of addiction are related to attitudes toward individuals with SUDs. Educating practitioners regarding this relationship would raise awareness regarding when and to what extent stigma is likely to be present, which may in turn provide a foundation from which to address stigma. (Am J Addict 2020;00:00-00).
Subject(s)
Attitude , Behavior, Addictive/physiopathology , Brain Diseases/psychology , Lawyers , Physicians , Substance-Related Disorders/psychology , Culture , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Models, Theoretical , Social Perception , Surveys and Questionnaires , United StatesABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: GARFIELD-AF is a non-interventional worldwide study of adults with atrial fibrillation. AIMS: To analyse the characteristics of the 1399 patients recruited in France from August 2010 to July 2015, their 1-year outcomes and healthcare resource utilization. METHOD: Patients aged ≥18 years with newly diagnosed atrial fibrillation (≤6 weeks' duration) and ≥1 stroke risk factor were eligible. Patient demographics, medical history and antithrombotic treatment were recorded at baseline. The incidences of stroke/systemic embolism, major bleeding, all-cause mortality, cardiovascular and non-cardiovascular mortality, new acute coronary syndrome and congestive heart failure were recorded during a 1-year follow-up. RESULTS: The median age was 76.0 years; 44.5% of patients were female. The median CHA2DS2-VASc and HAS-BLED scores were 4.0 and 2.0, respectively. At diagnosis, 78.9% of patients received anticoagulant therapy±antiplatelet therapy; more patients received vitamin K antagonists (VKAs; 46.0%) than direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs; 32.9%). The median proportion of time in the therapeutic range for VKAs was 65.6%. Between 2010 and 2015, anticoagulant prescription increased, driven by the growing use of DOACs±antiplatelet therapy (1.1% to 50.0%), whereas prescription of VKAs±antiplatelet therapy decreased (74.4% to 32.3%). All-cause mortality was the most frequent event (6.75 per 100 person-years). Risk-adjusted event rates for France showed that stroke/systemic embolism and all-cause mortality occurred more frequently than in GARFIELD-AF overall, whereas the rates of major bleeding were similar. In terms of healthcare resource utilization, the highest cost was associated with inpatients. CONCLUSIONS: Patients enrolled in France had higher rates of mortality and stroke/systemic embolism than in GARFIELD-AF overall. Conversely, the risk of major bleeding was not higher.
