4.6 Article

Crack cocaine trajectories among users in a midwestern American city

期刊

ADDICTION
卷 102, 期 9, 页码 1421-1431

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1360-0443.2007.01915.x

关键词

addiction; abstinence; cocaine; comorbidity; crack cocaine; drug dependence; DSM-IV disorders; group-based modeling; natural history; substance abuse

资金

  1. NIDA NIH HHS [R01 DA010099] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Aims Although crack cocaine first appeared in cities in the United States in the mid-1980s, little is known about its use over long periods of time. This study identified crack cocaine user groups on the basis of long-term trajectories. Design Following a natural history approach, data were collected periodically from 1996 to 2005. Group-based modeling assessed the probability of a crack smoker becoming abstinent during the observation period. Settings A targeted sampling plan guided the recruitment of a community sample of crack cocaine users in Dayton, Ohio. Participants Crack smokers (n = 430) 18 years or older whose urine tested positive for cocaine metabolites at the baseline interview. Measurements Interviewer-administered and audio computer self-administered, structured questionnaires were used to collect data on a range of variables, including frequency of crack use. Abstinence was defined as not having used crack for at least 6 consecutive months during the study. Findings Three trajectory-based groups were identified: (1) No Change, characterized by a very low probability of abstinence; (2) Some Change, characterized by a low to moderate probability of abstinence; and (3) Dramatic Change, characterized by a high probability of abstinence. African Americans and men were significantly less likely to become abstinent. For the majority of the people (63.6%), crack use was uninterrupted by extended periods of abstinence during the study. Conclusion Crack cocaine use that persists for a decade or longer may well be the norm for a large proportion of people who have experience with the drug.

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

4.6
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