Prevalence of nonmedical methamphetamine use in the United States

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Illicit methamphetamine use continues to be a public health concern in the United States. The goal of the current study was to use a relatively inexpensive methodology to examine the prevalence and demographic correlates of nonmedical methamphetamine use in the United States.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>The sample was obtained through an internet survey of noninstitutionalized adults (n = 4,297) aged 18 to 49 in the United States in 2005. Propensity weighting methods using information from the U.S. Census and the 2003 National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH) were used to estimate national-level prevalence rates.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The overall prevalence of current nonmedical methamphetamine use was estimated to be 0.27%. Lifetime use was estimated to be 8.6%. Current use rates for men (0.32%) and women (0.23%) did not differ, although men had a higher 3-year prevalence rate (3.1%) than women (1.1%). Within the age subgroup with the highest overall methamphetamine use (18 to 25 year olds), non-students had substantially higher methamphetamine use (0.85% current; 2.4% past year) than students (0.23% current; 0.79% past year). Methamphetamine use was not constrained to those with publicly funded health care insurance.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Through the use of an internet panel weighted to reflect U.S. population norms, the estimated lifetime prevalence of methamphetamine use among 18 to 49 year olds was 8.6%. These findings give rates of use comparable to those reported in the 2005 NSDUH. Internet surveys are a relatively inexpensive way to provide complimentary data to telephone or in-person interviews.</p

Social Media, Gender and the Mediatisation of War: Exploring the German Armed Forces’ Visual Representation of the Afghanistan Operation on Facebook

Studies on the mediatisation of war point to attempts of governments to regulate the visual perspective of their involvements in armed conflict – the most notable example being the practice of ‘embedded reporting’ in Iraq and Afghanistan. This paper focuses on a different strategy of visual meaning-making, namely, the publication of images on social media by armed forces themselves. Specifically, we argue that the mediatisation of war literature could profit from an increased engagement with feminist research, both within Critical Security/Critical Military Studies and within Science and Technology Studies that highlight the close connection between masculinity, technology and control. The article examines the German military mission in Afghanistan as represented on the German armed forces’ official Facebook page. Germany constitutes an interesting, and largely neglected, case for the growing literature on the mediatisation of war: its strong antimilitarist political culture makes the representation of war particularly delicate. The paper examines specific representational patterns of Germany’s involvement in Afghanistan and discusses the implications which arise from what is placed inside the frame of visibility and what remains out of its view

ADVANCE integrated group intervention to address both substance use and intimate partner abuse perpetration by men in substance use treatment: a feasibility randomised controlled trial

Background: Substance use is a risk factor for intimate partner abuse (IPA) perpetration. Delivering perpetrator interventions concurrently with substance use treatment shows promise. Methods: The feasibility of conducting an efficacy and cost-effectiveness trial of the ADVANCE 16-week intervention to reduce IPA by men in substance use treatment was explored. A multicentre, parallel group individually randomised controlled feasibility trial and formative evaluation was conducted. Over three temporal cycles, 104 men who had perpetrated IPA towards a female (ex) partner in the past year were randomly allocated to receive the ADVANCE intervention + substance use treatment as usual (TAU) (n = 54) or TAU only (n = 50) and assessed 16-weeks post-randomisation. Participants’ (ex) partners were offered support and 27 provided outcome data. Thirty-one staff and 12 men who attended the intervention participated in focus groups or interviews that were analysed using the framework approach. Pre-specified criteria assessed the feasibility of progression to a definitive trial: 1) ≥ 60% of eligible male participants recruited; 2) intervention acceptable to staff and male participants; 3) ≥ 70% of participants followed-up and 4) levels of substance use and 5) IPA perpetrated by men in the intervention arm did not increase from average baseline level at 16-weeks post-randomisation. Results: 70.7% (104/147) of eligible men were recruited. The formative evaluation confirmed the intervention’s acceptability. Therapeutic alliance and session satisfaction were rated highly. The overall median rate of intervention session attendance (of 14 compulsory sessions) was 28.6% (range 14.3–64.3% by the third cycle). 49.0% (51/104) of men and 63.0% (17/27) of their (ex) partners were followed-up 16-weeks post-randomisation. This increased to 100% of men and women by cycle three. At follow-up, neither substance use nor IPA perpetration had worsened for men in the intervention arm. Conclusions: It was feasible to deliver the ADVANCE intervention in substance use treatment services, although it proved difficult to collect data from female (ex)partners. While some progression criteria were met, others were not, although improvements were demonstrated by the third cycle. Lessons learned will be implemented into the study design for a definitive trial of the ADVANCE intervention