Historique
Rapport
PDU (Problem drug use) revision summary
Auteur(s) :
THANKI, D. ;
VICENTE, J.
Année
2013
Page(s) :
8 p.
Langue(s) :
Anglais
Éditeur(s) :
Lisbon : OEDT / EMCDDA
Domaine :
Drogues illicites / Illicit drugs
Discipline :
EPI (Epidémiologie / Epidemiology)
Thésaurus mots-clés
USAGE PROBLEMATIQUE
;
DEFINITION
;
CONCEPT
;
PREVALENCE
;
EPIDEMIOLOGIE DESCRIPTIVE
Organismes
OEDT
Résumé :
This document is a summary of the concepts and definitions in the revised area. Detailed background information about the process of revision can be found in two related documents. The changes are, for the most part, related to the theoretical component of the indicator. Data collection recommendations will remain mostly unchanged, with two exceptions: the addition of intensive cannabis use data collection based on general population surveys methodology; and making provision for interested countries to report on other - including new - drugs. However, most of the existing work will correspond to a subset of the revised indicator area. [...]
The main motives for the revision of the key indicator were:
1. A changing drug situation and the increasing importance of knowing the prevalence of new, or newly increased in size, groups of users (such as those with heavy cannabis use and heavy stimulants use without the presence of opioids use, users of new drugs, etc.).
2. Changes in the nature and availability of data sources: more detailed information is now often available, which makes more specific estimates possible.
3. To establish a conceptual framework, linked with operational definitions.
4. To clear up confusion around the area name (including unintended labelling). [Extracts]
The main motives for the revision of the key indicator were:
1. A changing drug situation and the increasing importance of knowing the prevalence of new, or newly increased in size, groups of users (such as those with heavy cannabis use and heavy stimulants use without the presence of opioids use, users of new drugs, etc.).
2. Changes in the nature and availability of data sources: more detailed information is now often available, which makes more specific estimates possible.
3. To establish a conceptual framework, linked with operational definitions.
4. To clear up confusion around the area name (including unintended labelling). [Extracts]