Suchergebnisse

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: There are concerns that national population‐based estimates of illicit drug use are underestimated. We investigated this by comparing estimates of illicit substance use at age 24 from the Crime Survey for England and Wales (CSEW) with a birth cohort (Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children, ALSPAC) and by comparing the Smoking and Alcohol Toolkit Studies (STS/ATS) to ALSPAC. DESIGN: Cross‐sectional household survey and cross‐sectional data from one wave of a longitudinal birth cohort. SETTING: England and Wales. PARTICIPANTS: Young adults aged 23–25 reporting on substance use in 2017 to CSEW (n = 1165), ALSPAC (n = 3389) and STS/ATS (n = 950). MEASUREMENTS: Lifetime and past‐year illicit drug use, smoking status and hazardous drinking at age 24. FINDINGS: The 2017 CSEW estimate of lifetime illicit drug use was 40.6%, compared with 62.8% in ALSPAC (risk difference % [RD%] = 22.2%; 95% CI = 18.9–25.5%; P ≤ 0.001). The RD in lifetime use between ALSPAC and the CSEW was 23.2% (95% CI = 20.0–26.4%) for cannabis, 16.9% (95% CI = 14.4–19.4%) for powder cocaine and 24.8% (95% CI = 22.6–27.0%) for amphetamine. Past‐year drug use was 16.4% in CSEW, compared with 36.7% in ALSPAC (RD% = 20.3%; 95% CI = 17.6–23.0%; P ≤ 0.001). For past‐year substance use, the RD between ALSPAC and the CSEW was 15.4% (95% CI = 12.9–17.9%) for cannabis, 14.8% (95% CI = 13.0%–16.6%) for powder cocaine and 15.9% (95% CI = 14.5–17.4%) for amphetamine. Levels of current smoking were similar between STS (27.4%) and ALSPAC (29.4%). Hazardous drinking was substantially higher in ALSPAC (60.3%) than the ATS (32.1%; RD% = 28.2%; 95% CI = 24.8–31.6%; P ≤ 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children provides one source of validation for measurements of drug use in government household surveys and indicates that illicit drug use may be underestimated in the Crime Survey for England and Wales.

Background and aims There are concerns that national population-based estimates of illicit drug use are underestimated. We investigated this by comparing estimates of illicit substance use at age 24 from the Crime Survey for England and Wales (CSEW) with a birth cohort (Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children, ALSPAC) and also comparing the Smoking and Alcohol Toolkit Studies (STS/ATS) to ALSPAC. Design Cross-sectional household survey, and cross-sectional data from one wave of a longitudinal birth cohort. Setting England and Wales. Participants Young adults aged 23-25 reporting on substance use in 2017 to CSEW (n=1165), ALSPAC (n=3389), and STS/ATS (n=950). Measurements Lifetime and past-year illicit drug use, smoking status and hazardous drinking at age 24. Findings The 2017 CSEW estimate of lifetime illicit drug use was 40.6%, compared with 62.8% in ALSPAC (Risk Difference % (RD%) =22.2% 95% CI 18.9%-25.5%, P≤0.001). The RD in lifetime use between ALSPAC and the CSEW was 23.2% (95% CI 20.0%-26.4%) for cannabis, 16.9% (95% CI 14.4%-19.4%) for powder cocaine and 24.8% (95% CI 22.6%-27.0%) for amphetamine. Past-year drug use was 16.4% in CSEW, compared with 36.7% in ALSPAC (RD%=20.3% 95% CI 17.6%-23.0%, P≤0.001). For past-year substance use, the RD between ALSPAC and the CSEW was 15.4% (95% CI 12.9%-17.9%) for cannabis, 14.8% (95% CI 13.0%-16.6%) for powder cocaine and 15.9% (95% CI 14.5%-17.4%) for amphetamine. Levels of current smoking were similar between STS (27.4%) and ALSPAC (29.4%). Hazardous drinking was substantially higher in ALSPAC (60.3%) than the ATS (32.1%, RD%=28.2% 95% CI 24.8%-31.6%, P≤0.001). Conclusions The Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children provides one source of validation for measurements of drug use in government household surveys and indicates that illicit drug use may be underestimated in the Crime Survey for England and Wales.

Despite the importance of public opinion in supporting the military and their missions, little is known about how the UK public perceive their Armed Forces. This article reviews and evaluates available research and opinion poll data of public attitudes toward the UK military and situates the evidence within the civil–military gap literature. Current evidence suggests public regard for the UK Armed Forces is high despite low levels of support for the Iraq and Afghanistan missions. Public understanding of the work of the Armed Forces is limited. Nonetheless, the United Kingdom's long history of military deployments may have given the public an "intuitive understanding" of the basic realities of the military compared with other European states. There are indications of differences in attitudes between the UK Armed Forces and wider British society, but no firm evidence that the civil–military "gap" has become a "gulf" as claimed by some military leaders.

Despite the importance of public opinion in supporting the military and their missions, little is known about how the UK public perceive their Armed Forces. This article reviews and evaluates available research and opinion poll data of public attitudes toward the UK military and situates the evidence within the civil–military gap literature. Current evidence suggests public regard for the UK Armed Forces is high despite low levels of support for the Iraq and Afghanistan missions. Public understanding of the work of the Armed Forces is limited. Nonetheless, the United Kingdom's long history of military deployments may have given the public an "intuitive understanding" of the basic realities of the military compared with other European states. There are indications of differences in attitudes between the UK Armed Forces and wider British society, but no firm evidence that the civil–military "gap" has become a "gulf" as claimed by some military leaders.

A large body of research has been produced in recent years investigating posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) among military personnel following deployment to Iraq and Afghanistan, resulting in apparent differences in PTSD prevalence. We compare prevalence estimates for current PTSD between military subgroups, providing insight into how groups may be differentially affected by deployment. Systematic literature searches using the terms PTSD, stress disorder, and acute stress, combined with terms relating to military personnel, identified 49 relevant papers. Studies with a sample size of less than 100 and studies based on data for treatment seeking or injured populations were excluded. Studies were categorized according to theatre of deployment (Iraq or Afghanistan), combat and noncombat deployed samples, sex, enlistment type (regular or reserve and [or] National Guard), and service branch (for example, army, navy, and air force). Meta-analysis was used to assess PTSD prevalence across subgroups. There was large variability in PTSD prevalence between studies, but, regardless of heterogeneity, prevalence rates of PTSD were higher among studies of Iraq-deployed personnel (12.9%; 95% CI 11.3% to 14.4%), compared with personnel deployed to Afghanistan (7.1%; 95% CI 4.6% to 9.6%), combat deployed personnel, and personnel serving in the Canadian, US, or UK army or the navy or marines (12.4%; 95% CI 10.9% to 13.4%), compared with the other services (4.9%; 95% CI 1.4% to 8.4%). Contrary to findings from within-study comparisons, we did not find a difference in PTSD prevalence for regular active-duty and reserve or National Guard personnel. Categorizing studies according to deployment location and branch of service identified differences among subgroups that provide further support for factors underlying the development of PTSD.