Barriers to women's disclosure of and treatment for substance use during pregnancy: A qualitative study

INTRODUCTION

The use of alcohol and or illicit drugs during pregnancy is a complex public health issue. There are many adverse short- and long-term health implications of substance use during pregnancy that can potentially affect the mother-foetal dyad. Although prevention and treatment options - such as counselling, pharmacotherapy, rehabilitation, support and case management and withdrawal management - are available, a range of barriers impedes women's ability to disclose their substance use, which limits access and engagement with available services.

OBJECTIVE

This research explored barriers women encountered in disclosing substance use and accessing substance use treatment in pregnancy.

METHODS

Participants were recruited from a longitudinal cohort study of people with a history of injecting drug use from metropolitan Melbourne. One-on-one in-depth interviews with 15 participants were conducted using a semi-structured interview guide. To be included in this study, participants must have reported a history of substance use during one or more of their pregnancies.

RESULTS

The fear of losing child custody associated with the involvement of the child protection services was one of the main barriers to disclosing substance use during pregnancy and accessing treatment and rehabilitation services. Other barriers including stigma and perceived limited treatment options impacted women in various ways.

CONCLUSION

Pregnancy is an important time for women and offers opportunities for service providers to support women who are using substances. While not all barriers can be removed, careful consideration of individual cases and circumstances may help service providers to tailor interventions that are likely to be more successful.

Causal inference multiple imputation investigation of the impact of cannabinoids and other substances on ethnic differentials in US testicular cancer incidence

Background

Ethnic differences in testicular cancer rates (TCRs) are recognized internationally. Cannabis is a known risk factor for testicular cancer (TC) in multiple studies with dose-response effects demonstrated, however the interaction between ancestral and environmental mutagenic effects has not been characterized. We examined the effects of this presumed gene-environment interaction across US states.

Methods

State based TCR was downloaded from the Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) website via SEERStat. Drug use data for cigarettes, alcohol use disorder, analgesics, cannabis and cocaine was taken from the National Survey of Drug Use and Health a nationally representative study conducted annually by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) with a 74.1% response rate. Cannabinoid concentrations derived from Drug Enforcement Agency publications. Median household income and ethnicity data (Caucasian-American, African-American, Hispanic-American, Asian-American, American-Indian-Alaska-Native-American, Native-Hawaiian-Pacific-Islander-American) was from the US Census Bureau. Data were processed in R using instrumental regression, causal inference and multiple imputation.

Results

1975–2017 TCR rose 41% in African-Americans and 78.1% in Caucasian-Americans; 2003–2017 TCR rose 36.1% in Hispanic-Americans and 102.9% in Asian-Pacific-Islander-Americans. Ethnicity-based scatterplot-time and boxplots for cannabis use and TCR closely mirrored each other. At inverse probability-weighted interactive robust regression including drugs, income and ethnicity, ethnic THC exposure was the most significant factor and was independently significant (β-estimate = 4.72 (2.04, 7.41), P = 0.0018). In a similar model THC, and cannabigerol were also significant (both β-estimate = 13.87 (6.33, 21.41), P = 0.0017). In additive instrumental models the interaction of ethnic THC exposure with Asian-American, Hispanic-American, and Native-Hawaiian-Pacific-Islander-American ethnicities was significant (β-estimate = − 0.63 (− 0.74, − 0.52), P = 3.6 × 10^− 29, β-estimate = − 0.25 (− 0.32, − 0.18), P = 4.2 × 10^− 13, β-estimate = − 0.19 (− 0.25, − 0.13), P = 3.4 × 10^− 9). After multiple imputation, ethnic THC exposure became more significant (β-estimate = 0.68 (0.62, 0.74), P = 1.80 × 10^− 92). 25/33 e-Values > 1.25 ranging up to 1.07 × 10⁵. Liberalization of cannabis laws was linked with higher TCR’s in Caucasian-Americans (β-estimate = 0.09 (0.06, 0.12), P = 6.5 × 10^− 10) and African-Americans (β-estimate = 0.22 (0.12, 0.32), P = 4.4 × 10^− 5) and when dichotomized to illegal v. others (t = 6.195, P = 1.18 × 10^− 9 and t = 4.50, P = 3.33 × 10^− 5).

Conclusion

Cannabis is shown to be a TC risk factor for all ethnicities including Caucasian-American and African-American ancestries, albeit at different rates. For both ancestries cannabis legalization elevated TCR. Dose-response and causal relationships are demonstrated.

Physical activity and the prevention, reduction, and treatment of alcohol and other drug use across the lifespan (The PHASE review): A systematic review

The aim of this review is to systematically describe and quantify the effects of PA interventions on alcohol and other drug use outcomes, and to identify any apparent effect of PA dose and type, possible mechanisms of effect, and any other aspect of intervention delivery (e.g. key behaviour change processes), within a framework to inform the design and evaluation of future interventions. Systematic searches were designed to identify published and grey literature on the role of PA for reducing the risk of progression to alcohol and other drug use (PREVENTION), supporting individuals to reduce alcohol and other drug use for harm reduction (REDUCTION), and promote abstinence and relapse prevention during and after treatment of alcohol and other drug use (TREATMENT). Searches identified 49,518 records, with 49,342 excluded on title and abstract. We screened 176 full text articles from which we included 32 studies in 32 papers with quantitative results of relevance to this review. Meta-analysis of two studies showed a significant effect of PA on prevention of alcohol initiation (risk ratio [RR]: 0.72, 95%CI: 0.61 to 0.85). Meta-analysis of four studies showed no clear evidence for an effect of PA on alcohol consumption (Standardised Mean Difference [SMD]: 0.19, 95%, Confidence Interval -0.57 to 0.18). We were unable to quantitatively examine the effects of PA interventions on other drug use alone, or in combination with alcohol use, for prevention, reduction or treatment. Among the 19 treatment studies with an alcohol and other drug use outcome, there was a trend for promising short-term effect but with limited information about intervention fidelity and exercise dose, there was a moderate to high risk of bias. We identified no studies reporting the cost-effectiveness of interventions. More rigorous and well-designed research is needed. Our novel approach to the review provides a clearer guide to achieve this in future research questions addressed to inform policy and practice for different populations and settings.