Historique
Article de Périodique
Perceived risk of using novel psychoactive substances in school students: lower in users compared to non-users (2016)
Auteur(s) :
MOUNSEY, S. J. ;
DARGAN, P. I. ;
STEWART, M. ;
BROWN, A. ;
NEWTON, N. ;
WOOD, D. M.
Année
2016
Page(s) :
323-326
Langue(s) :
Anglais
Domaine :
Drogues illicites / Illicit drugs
Discipline :
EPI (Epidémiologie / Epidemiology)
Thésaurus géographique
ETATS-UNIS
Thésaurus mots-clés
DROGUES DE SYNTHESE
;
MILIEU SCOLAIRE
;
FACTEUR DE RISQUE
;
PERCEPTION
;
COMPARAISON
;
ENQUETE
Résumé :
Background: There has been an increase in the availability of novel psychoactive substances (NPS) over the last decade. The 2013 US Monitoring the Future study suggested that the perceived risk of NPS use in US students was greater than for classical recreational drugs. This survey was undertaken to determine the perceived risk of NPS in adolescents in UK education.
Methods: Questionnaire survey of 917 students (15-18 years) collected the details of whether: (i) they had heard of NPS; (ii) they had taken an NPS; and (iii) their perceived risk of NPS use.
Results: Five-hundred and fifty-four (57.9%) had heard of NPS and 75 (8.2%) had previously used an NPS. The mean ± standard deviation perceived risk of using an NPS was 7.32 ± 2.07 (95% CI 7.18-7.46), where 1 is "completely safe" and 10 is "not safe at all"; those who had previously used an NPS had a lower perceived risk [6.11 ± 2.17 (95% CI 5.60-6.62)] compared to those who had not previously used an NPS [7.46 ± 2.00 (95% CI 7.31-7.61) (p < 0.0001)].
Discussion: Further work is needed to determine whether the lower perceived risk relates to having previously used NPS or whether those who perceive them as low risk are more likely to use NPS. It is important to determine whether this perceived risk is same across all NPS to inform the development of harm minimisation educational strategies.
Methods: Questionnaire survey of 917 students (15-18 years) collected the details of whether: (i) they had heard of NPS; (ii) they had taken an NPS; and (iii) their perceived risk of NPS use.
Results: Five-hundred and fifty-four (57.9%) had heard of NPS and 75 (8.2%) had previously used an NPS. The mean ± standard deviation perceived risk of using an NPS was 7.32 ± 2.07 (95% CI 7.18-7.46), where 1 is "completely safe" and 10 is "not safe at all"; those who had previously used an NPS had a lower perceived risk [6.11 ± 2.17 (95% CI 5.60-6.62)] compared to those who had not previously used an NPS [7.46 ± 2.00 (95% CI 7.31-7.61) (p < 0.0001)].
Discussion: Further work is needed to determine whether the lower perceived risk relates to having previously used NPS or whether those who perceive them as low risk are more likely to use NPS. It is important to determine whether this perceived risk is same across all NPS to inform the development of harm minimisation educational strategies.
Affiliation :
Department of Clinical Toxicology, Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust and King's Health Partners, London, UK