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










Base de datos
Intervalo de año de publicación
1.
PLoS One ; 15(6): e0234809, 2020.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32555667

RESUMEN

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.


Asunto(s)
Trastornos Relacionados con Sustancias/terapia , Acupuntura , Anticonvulsivantes/uso terapéutico , Antidepresivos/uso terapéutico , Antipsicóticos/uso terapéutico , Estimulantes del Sistema Nervioso Central/uso terapéutico , Terapia Cognitivo-Conductual , Agonistas de Dopamina/uso terapéutico , Humanos , Trastornos Relacionados con Sustancias/tratamiento farmacológico , Trastornos Relacionados con Sustancias/patología
2.
J Bioeth Inq ; 13(2): 239-49, 2016 Jun.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-27112489

RESUMEN

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.


Asunto(s)
Reducción del Daño , Promoción de la Salud , Trastornos Mentales/diagnóstico , Psicotrópicos/efectos adversos , Trastornos Relacionados con Sustancias/terapia , Reducción del Daño/ética , Política de Salud , Promoción de la Salud/ética , Humanos , Trastornos Mentales/terapia , Educación del Paciente como Asunto , Rol del Médico , Evaluación de Programas y Proyectos de Salud , Centros de Tratamiento de Abuso de Sustancias , Trastornos Relacionados con Sustancias/prevención & control , Trastornos Relacionados con Sustancias/psicología , Estados Unidos
SELECCIÓN DE REFERENCIAS
DETALLE DE LA BÚSQUEDA