4.2 Article

Clinical and psychological characteristics of propofol abusers in Korea: a survey of propofol abuse in 38, non-healthcare professionals

期刊

KOREAN JOURNAL OF ANESTHESIOLOGY
卷 68, 期 6, 页码 586-593

出版社

KOREAN SOC ANESTHESIOLOGISTS
DOI: 10.4097/kjae.2015.68.6.586

关键词

Abuse; General population; Propofol

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: The aim of this study is to investigate the characteristics of propofol abuse based on the results of a survey analysis of abusers among non-healthcare professionals in Korea. Methods: Thirty-eight propofol abusers were questioned between October and December 2010, and were enrolled and voluntarily participated in a structured survey consisting of an interview and completing a previously prepared questionnaire. The questionnaire was divided into three distinct parts: part 1 dealt with the history of propofol abuse; part 2 highlighted the problems caused by propofol abuse; and part 3 enquired regarding demographics of abusers. Results: Thirty-one (81.6%) of the 38 interviewees abused propofol for more than one year. During the last 12 months, 34 (89.0%) received propofol at two or three times a week. The minimum and maximum amounts of propofol (median, range) administered each time were 500 (100, 1000) and 2000 (500, 4000) mg, respectively. Stress relief and the maintenance of a sense of well-being were quoted the most important reasons for the first-time administration of propofol and its subsequent abuse, respectively. The majority of abusers (36.0, 97.3%) reported a sense of pleasure or euphoria at the time of their propofol injection. Withdrawal symptoms occurred in five abusers (13.2%). Thirteen (36.1%) reported disruptions in their work life. None of the respondents had previously admitted to and or reported abuse of any other controlled substances. Conclusions: These results provided reference data for the regulation of propofol in Korea as a controlled substance and may also be of interest to international agencies in other countries.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据