• 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文期刊>Substance Abuse Treatment, Prevention, and Policy >Mandatory treatment for methamphetamine use in Australia
【24h】

Mandatory treatment for methamphetamine use in Australia

机译：澳大利亚甲基苯丙胺使用的强制性处理

获取原文
           
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

In 2016, following a flurry of government inquiries and taskforces including calls for mandatory treatment regimes, the Australian community nominated methamphetamine as the drug most likely to be associated as a problem substance. Mandatory treatment for alcohol and other drug problems in Australia consists of broadly two mechanisms compelling a person into treatment: involuntary treatment or civil commitment regimes; and coercive treatment regimes, usually associated with the criminal justice system. This paper aims to provide a review of the evidence for mandatory treatment regimes for people who use methamphetamines. Using a narrative review methodology, a comprehensive literature and citation search was conducted. Five hundred two search results were obtained resulting in 41 papers that had cited works of interest. Small, but robust results were found with coercive treatment programs in the criminal justice system. The evidence of these programs specifically with methamphetamine use disorders is even less promising. Systematic reviews of mandatory drug treatment regimes have consistently demonstrated limited, if any, benefit for civil commitment programs. Despite the growing popular enthusiasm for mandatory drug treatment programs, significant clinical and ethical challenges arise including determining decision making capacity in people with substance use disorders, the impact of self determination and motivation in drug treatment, current treatment effectiveness, cost effectiveness and unintended treatment harms associated with mandatory programs. The challenge for legislators, service providers and clinicians when considering mandatory treatment for methamphetamines is to proportionately balance the issue of human rights with effectiveness, safety, range and accessibility of both existing and novel mandatory treatment approaches.
机译：2016年，在一系列政府调查和合作伙伴外，包括呼吁强制性待遇制度，澳大利亚社区提名的甲基苯丙胺，因为最有可能与问题有关的药物。澳大利亚的酒精和其他毒品问题的强制性治疗包括广泛的两种机制，迫使一个人处理治疗：非自愿待遇或民事承诺制度;和强制治疗制度，通常与刑事司法系统相关联。本文旨在为使用甲基苯丙胺的人提供审查强制性治疗制度的证据。使用叙事评论方法，进行了全面的文学和引用搜索。获得了五百个搜索结果，导致41篇，其中引用了感兴趣的作品。在刑事司法系统中发现了小，但稳健的结果发现了强制治疗计划。具体含甲基苯丙胺使用障碍的这些程序的证据甚至更有前景。强制性药物治疗制度的系统审查一贯地证明有限公司，如果有的话，适用于民事承诺方案。尽管对强制性药物治疗方案的流行性越来越多，但出现了显着的临床和道德挑战，包括确定物质使用障碍的人的决策能力，自我决心和毒性治疗中的动机，当前治疗效果，成本效益和意外造成的危害。与强制性计划有关。立法者，服务提供商和临床医生的挑战在考虑对甲基苯丙胺的强制性治疗时是按比例平衡人权问题，以现有和新颖的强制性治疗方法的有效性，安全，范围和可达性平衡。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号