Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 2 de 2
Filtrar
Mais filtros










Base de dados
Intervalo de ano de publicação
1.
PLoS One ; 15(6): e0234809, 2020.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32555667

RESUMO

AIMS: Stimulant use disorder contributes to a substantial worldwide burden of disease, although evidence-based treatment options are limited. This systematic review of reviews aims to: (i) synthesize the available evidence on both psychosocial and pharmacological interventions for the treatment of stimulant use disorder; (ii) identify the most effective therapies to guide clinical practice, and (iii) highlight gaps for future study. METHODS: A systematic database search was conducted to identify systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Eligible studies were those that followed standard systematic review methodology and assessed randomized controlled trials focused on the efficacy of interventions for stimulant use disorder. Articles were critically appraised using an assessment tool adapted from Palmeteer et al. and categorized for quality as 'core' or 'supplementary' reviews. Evidence from the included reviews were further synthesized according to pharmacological or non-pharmacological management themes. RESULTS: Of 476 identified records, 29 systematic reviews examining eleven intervention modalities were included. The interventions identified include: contingency management, cognitive behavioural therapy, acupuncture, antidepressants, dopamine agonists, antipsychotics, anticonvulsants, disulfiram, opioid agonists, N-Acetylcysteine, and psychostimulants. There was sufficient evidence to support the efficacy of contingency management programs for treatment of stimulant use disorder. Psychostimulants, n-acetylcysteine, opioid agonist therapy, disulfiram and antidepressant pharmacological interventions were found to have insufficient evidence to support or discount their use. Results of this review do not support the use of all other treatment options. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this review supports the use of contingency management interventions for the treatment of stimulant use disorder. Although evidence to date is insufficient to support the clinical use of psychostimulants, our results demonstrate potential for future research in this area. Given the urgent need for effective pharmacological treatments for stimulant use disorder, high-quality primary research focused on the role of psychostimulant medications for the treatment of stimulant use disorder is needed.


Assuntos
Transtornos Relacionados ao Uso de Substâncias/terapia , Acupuntura , Anticonvulsivantes/uso terapêutico , Antidepressivos/uso terapêutico , Antipsicóticos/uso terapêutico , Estimulantes do Sistema Nervoso Central/uso terapêutico , Terapia Cognitivo-Comportamental , Agonistas de Dopamina/uso terapêutico , Humanos , Transtornos Relacionados ao Uso de Substâncias/tratamento farmacológico , Transtornos Relacionados ao Uso de Substâncias/patologia
2.
J Bioeth Inq ; 13(2): 239-49, 2016 Jun.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-27112489

RESUMO

This paper examines the role of clinical practitioners and clinical researchers internationally in establishing the utility of harm-reduction approaches to substance use. It thus illustrates the potential for clinicians to play a pivotal role in health promoting structural interventions based on harm-reduction goals and public health models. Popular media images of drug use as uniformly damaging, and abstinence as the only acceptable goal of treatment, threaten to distort clinical care away from a basis in evidence, which shows that some ways of using drugs are far more harmful than others and that punitive approaches and insistence on total abstinence as the only goal of treatment often increases the harms of drug use rather than reducing drug use. Therefore the leadership and scientific authority of clinicians who understand the health impact of harm-reduction strategies is needed. Through a review of harm-reduction interventions in Canada, the United Kingdom, the United States, Australia, Switzerland, and the Netherlands, we identify three ways that clinicians have helped to achieve a paradigm shift from punitive approaches to harm-reduction principles in clinical care and in drug policy: (1) through clinical research to provide data establishing the effectiveness and feasibility of harm-reduction approaches, (2) by developing innovative clinical programmes that employ harm reduction, and thereby (3) changing the standard of care to include routine use of these evidence-based (but often misunderstood) approaches in their practices. We argue that through promotion of harm-reduction goals and methods, clinicians have unique opportunities to improve the health outcomes of vulnerable populations.


Assuntos
Redução do Dano , Promoção da Saúde , Transtornos Mentais/diagnóstico , Psicotrópicos/efeitos adversos , Transtornos Relacionados ao Uso de Substâncias/terapia , Redução do Dano/ética , Política de Saúde , Promoção da Saúde/ética , Humanos , Transtornos Mentais/terapia , Educação de Pacientes como Assunto , Papel do Médico , Avaliação de Programas e Projetos de Saúde , Centros de Tratamento de Abuso de Substâncias , Transtornos Relacionados ao Uso de Substâncias/prevenção & controle , Transtornos Relacionados ao Uso de Substâncias/psicologia , Estados Unidos
SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA
...