Abuso e dependência de maconha: comparação entre sexos e preparação para mudanças comportamentais entre usuários que iniciam a busca por tratamento

Abstract

ResumoObjetivos: Descrever o perfi l sociodemográfi co de usuários de maconha que iniciam tratamento e comparar os sexos dos indivíduos em relação aos estágios de prontidão para mudança e uso associado de outras drogas. Método: Estudo transversal descritivo, com amostra não probabilística de indivíduos que ligaram para um teleatendimento especializado em dependência química. Resultados: A amostra se constituiu de 72% de indivíduos do sexo masculino na faixa etária de 12 a 25 anos. Um percentual de 85,5% fazia uso associado de outras drogas. O estágio motivacional predominante foi de ação (56%), sem diferenças entre sexos (p = 0,4). Os homens mais frequentemente procuraram auxílio para o tratamento do uso de maconha. Conclusão: Com base nesses dados, foi possível delinear o perfi l dos usuários de maconha para auxiliar no direcionamento de informações e atendimento adequado. Descritores: Droga, maconha, dependência, sexo, comportamento. AbstractObjectives: To describe the social and demographic profi le of cannabis users seeking treatment and to compare differences between sex in relation to readiness to behavior change and in relation to associated use of marijuana and other drugs. Methods: A cross-sectional, descriptive study including a nonprobability sample of individuals who called a chemical dependency hotline. Results: The sample comprised 72% male individuals aged between 12 and 25 years. 85.5% used other drugs in association with cannabis. The action stage was the most frequent stage of readiness to behavior change observed, in 56% of the callers, with no differences between sexes (p = 0.4). Men more frequently sought treatment for the use of cannabis. Conclusions: Our fi ndings allowed delineating a profi le of cannabis users, so as to better guide the provision of adequate information and treatment services.

Introducing the evidence-based population health tool of the Lower-Risk Cannabis Use Guidelines to Brazil

“…While non-medical cannabis use is currently not legally permitted in Brazil58 – and we do not seek to take explicit positions here on specific policy reform options for consideration – it nevertheless is a common activity, particularly among young adults. Different evidence-based options along the continuum of interventions are required to most effectively reduce the burden of cannabis-related health harms in the Brazilian population.…”

“…Furthermore, there are distinct features of cannabis-related behaviors relevant for adaptive consideration. For example, most cannabis use in Brazil occurs through smoking of combusted cannabis products, most of which involves products of unknown or low quality 58,59. “Safer” alternatives for use methods considered by the LRCUG, like non-smoked products, are typically not available, and vaporizers or e-cigarette devices themselves are even illegal in Brazil, and therefore face additional barriers for utilization in practice 60,61.…”

Motivation for Change in Men and Women Crack Addicts

“…Mulheres geralmente começam a autoadministração de drogas lícitas e/ou ilícitas em doses menores do que os homens. Contudo, a frequência de uso nas mulheres aumenta mais rapidamente podendo levar a dependência química, e tendo mais risco de recaídas (Fernandes et al, 2010;Hochgraf & Brasiliano, 2010). O crack tem potencial para gerar diversos danos ao sujeito, dentre eles, sintomas de ansiedade e depressão, decorrentes da comorbidade ou do consumo da substância.…”

Cross-cultural adaptation of the drug-taking confidence questionnaire drug version for use in Brazil

“…However, some methodological studies of cross-cultural adaptation and translation do not report the sociodemographic of their targeted population and focus solely on the gender [44] and other aspects of the study [45]. These studies demonstrate that the emphasis on methodological studies is the same as that of the method used in cross-cultural adaptations [46–48], which, in the present study, was the guideline by Beaton et al (2007) [30].…”