Pathways through opiate use and offending: A systematic review.
Pathways through opiate use and offending: A systematic review.
复制标题
DOI：
10.1016/j.drugpo.2016.08.015
复制
发表时间：
2017-01
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Millar T
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Hayhurst KP;Pierce M;Hickman M;Seddon T;Dunn G;Keane J;Millar T
尽管有证据表明非法药物使用与犯罪之间存在密切联系，但关于这种关系的时间顺序的有力证据却很少。我们进行了一项系统综述，以评估阿片类药物/快克可卡因使用和犯罪途径的证据，以确定时间顺序。系统回顾了五个数据库，三个在线资源，参考书目和引文映射。纳入标准是：关注阿片类药物/快克使用和犯罪；吸毒前信息；纵向设计;确凿的官方犯罪记录。采用随机效应荟萃分析，汇总吸毒后开始用药与吸毒前开始用药的比率比。纳入20项研究；英国(9)和美国（11）。所有人都使用过鸦片剂。（记录）开始犯罪的平均年龄（16.7岁）早于开始使用阿片类药物的平均年龄（19.6岁）。实质性的异质性（超过80%：无法通过meta回归解释）意味着rr没有汇总。总（记录的）冒犯的RR范围从0.71到25.7（10项研究；22个亚样本：正相关，4个：模棱两可，1个：负相关）。在14/15个独立样本中观察到正相关；不太可能是偶然发现（符号检验p = 0.001）。个体犯罪类型：盗窃（RR 0.63-8.3, 13个子样本：阳性，9个子样本：模棱两可，1个子样本：阴性）；入室盗窃（RR 0.74-50.0, 9个子样本：阳性，13个子样本：模棱两可）；暴力（RR 0.39-16.0, 6个子样本：阳性，15个子样本：不确定）；抢劫（RR 0.50-5.0, 5个子样本：阳性，15个子样本：模棱两可）。现有证据表明，开始使用阿片类药物会加速已经存在的犯罪，尤其是盗窃。然而，证据已经过时，研究的特点是异质性和未能使用匹配的非阿片类药物使用者对照组来更好地确定阿片类药物的发作是否与额外犯罪有关。
Although evidence points to a strong link between illicit drug use and crime, robust evidence for temporal order in the relationship is scant. We carried out a systematic review to assess the evidence for pathways through opiate/crack cocaine use and offending to determine temporal order. A systematic review sourced five databases, three online sources, bibliographies and citation mapping. Inclusion criteria were: focus on opiate/crack use, and offending; pre-drug use information; longitudinal design; corroborative official crime records. Rate ratios (RR) of post-drug use initiation to pre-drug use initiation were pooled using random effects meta-analysis. 20 studies were included; UK (9) and US (11). All were of opiate use. Mean age at (recorded) offending onset (16.7 yrs) preceded mean age at opiate-use onset (19.6 yrs). Substantial heterogeneity (over 80%: unexplained by meta-regression) meant that RRs were not pooled. The RR for total (recorded) offending ranged from 0.71 to 25.7 (10 studies; 22 subsamples: positive association, 4: equivocal, 1: negative association). Positive associations were observed in 14/15 independent samples; unlikely to be a chance finding (sign test p = 0.001). Individual offence types were examined: theft (RR 0.63–8.3, 13 subsamples: positive, 9: equivocal, 1 negative); burglary (RR 0.74–50.0, 9 subsamples: positive, 13: equivocal); violence (RR 0.39–16.0, 6 subsamples: positive, 15: equivocal); and robbery (RR 0.50–5.0, 5 subsamples: positive, 15: equivocal). Available evidence suggests that onset-opiate use accelerates already-existing offending, particularly for theft. However, evidence is out of date, with studies characterised by heterogeneity and failure to use a matched non-opiate-user comparison group to better-establish whether onset-opiate use is associated with additional crime.