The "Clubs against Drugs" program in Stockholm, Sweden: two cross-sectional surveys examining drug use among staff at licensed premises

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The objective of this study is to examine self-reported drug use among staff at licensed premises, types of drugs used, attitudes towards drugs, and observed drug use among guests. Results are presented from two measurement points (in 2001 and 2007/08). This study was carried out within the framework of the "Clubs against Drugs" program, which is a community-based multi-component intervention targeting licensed premises in Stockholm, Sweden.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Two cross-sectional surveys were conducted, the first in 2001 and the second in 2007/08. Staff at licensed premises attending server training were asked to participate in the anonymous survey. A survey was administered in a classroom setting and consisted of four sections: 1) demographics, 2) respondents' own drug use experience, 3) respondents' attitudes towards drug use, and 4) observed drug use among guests at licensed premises.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Data were collected from 446 staff in 2001 and 677 staff in 2007/08. The four most commonly used drugs among staff were cannabis, cocaine, amphetamine, and ecstasy. The highest rates of drug use were reported by staff in the two youngest age groups, i.e., those younger than 25 and those between the ages of 25 and 29. In 2007/08 staff reported significantly lower rates of drug use than staff in 2001. Last year drug use for the sample in 2007/08 was 19% compared to 27% for the 2001 sample. While drug-using staff compared to non drug-using staff reported more observations of drug use among guests, they were less inclined to intervene. Overall, staff reported restrictive attitudes towards drugs.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>The prevalence of life-time and last year drug use among staff at licensed premises is high compared to the general population in Sweden. Lower rates of self-reported drug use among staff were reported in 2007/08. The results of this study highlight that staff at licensed premises represent an important target population in club drug prevention programs.</p

Is stone radiodensity a useful parameter for predicting outcome of extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy for stones < 2 cm?

PURPOSE: Several factors determine the success of extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (SWL) for kidney stones: stone size, stone location within the collecting system, stone type, and the SWL machine used. It has been suggested that stone radiodensity, as determined either by plain radiography or computed tomography attenuation values, may be an independent predictor of SWL success. We examined the outcome of SWL for solitary stones less than or equal to 2 cm located within the renal pelvis, based on their radiodensity. MATERIALS AND METHODS: 211 patients with solitary renal pelvic stones measuring less than or equal to 2 cm were treated on a Dornier Doli 50 lithotriptor under general anesthesia. The radiodensity of the stone was determined to be either less than, equal to, or greater than the radiodensity of the ipsilateral 12th rib. Stone-free rates (SFR) were determined at 3 months by kidney, ureters and bladder (KUB) plain X-rays. Patients requiring re-treatment or auxiliary procedures were considered failures of SWL. RESULTS: Follow-up SFR information was available in all 211 patients. Stone composition was available in 158 (75%) treated patients, but no correlation was found between stone radiodensity and stone composition. For stones < 10 mm within the renal pelvis, the SFRs were similar (71 to 74% regardless of stone radiodensity). For stones between 11 and 20 mm, the SFR was 60% if the stone had a radiodensity > 12th rib compared to a SFR of 71% if the stone radiodensity was < 12th rib. However, these differences in SFRs were not statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: On the Doli machine, stone radiodensity alone does not predict lithotripsy treatment outcome for stones < 1 cm within the renal pelvis. This parameter is probably only useful as the stone size becomes larger than 1 cm, and should be used in conjunction with other stone parameters to select appropriate therapy