Talk:Substance dependence
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Substance dependence article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL |
This level-4 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
inactive . |
Sociology High‑importance | |||||||
|
Psychology High‑importance | |||||||
|
Ideal sources for Wikipedia's health content are defined in the guideline Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and are typically review articles. Here are links to possibly useful sources of information about Substance dependence.
|
Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 27 September 2018 and 14 December 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Shirderp, Victoriayi, Bcpham549, Noragwam. Peer reviewers: AilinKim, AnnChen17.
Above undated message substituted from
Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 18 August 2021 and 18 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jasm!ne100.
Above undated message substituted from
Add to Page
Substance dependence and Substance are a clearly defined in the DSM IV however, addiction is not a term commonly used within the framework of diagnoising an individual nor in measuring the severity of an individuals condition. Addiction could be charactorized by either of these sub catergories. Substance dependence or Substance abuse. While there is disagreement on which of these catorgoies is addiction, it is widely excepted in the recovery community that either may describe an "ADDICT" Habit, dependence, and addiction, are three very real things, that can occur simultaneously, but indeed they are different. Lumping them together merely muddies the perception of each of the conditions. The World Health Organization started this foolish endeavor, to make the term 'addiction' meet what the layman's term meant. The short story, we lost real medical definition, so we could have talk shows about people being 'addicted' to anything they wished to produce. There is *dire* need for the distinction between them. And, the public needs made aware of this.
"Addict" is more of a term for those whom are addicted, or those who crave a drug, and will seek drugs, (drug seeking behavior), when they do not have any more to take, the same as any other addictive disease, and they could be said to have an addictive personality. However, some whom are on medications to stop long term chronic pain, etc, do not crave the drug, even while having withdrawal symptoms if the drug is stopped, and only take the drug to feel normal, and live without constant pain. There should always be a difference shown, even though there are still some hard-line physicians whom say everyone are addicts, when that is not so, as pain specialists/rehab physicians say differently. In other words, one can be substance dependent, (including the long term use of steroids), and not be an addict, but still need to be weaned off a medication if it is no longer needed. Ref: American Pain Foundation, American Chronic Pain Association, and The National Pain Foundation.Craxd (talk) 20:25, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
Citations
Several theories of drug addiction exist, some of the main ones are genetic predisposition, the self medication theory, and factors involved with social/economic development.
Epidemiological studies estimate that genetic factors account for 40-60% of the risk factors for alcoholism. Similar rates of heritability for other types of drug addiction have been indicated by other studies (Kendler, 1994). Knestler hypothesized in 1964 that a gene or group of genes might contribute to predisposition to addiction in several ways. For example, altered levels of a normal protein due to environmental factors could then change the structure or functioning of specific brain circuits during development. These altered brain circuits could change the susceptibility of an individual to an initial drug use experience. In support of this hypothesis, animal studies have shown that environmental factors such as stress can affect an animal's genotype (Knestler, 1996). The self-medication hypotheses espoused by both psychoanalysts and biological researchers, predicts that certain individuals abuse drugs in an attempt to self-medicate their unique and seemingly intolerable states of mind (Khantzian, 1985). The self medication theory has a long history. Freud in 1884, first raised this concept in noting the anti-depressing properties of cocaine. Stress has long been recognized as a major contributor for drug cravings and relapse and is therefore supportive of the self-medication theory. In line with this theory, a person's use of a particular drug of choice is not an accident, but rather it is chosen for its pharmacological affect in relieving stressful symptoms or unwanted feelings. Research has shown that people who survive disasters are prone to stress related disorders such as Post Trauma Stress Disorder (PTSD) and depression. People who experience major trauma in their life experiences may self-medicate with drugs or alcohol to relieve the symptoms of PTSD and depression (Vlahov, 2002).jnewguy
Kendler, K.S., et al., (1994). A twin family study of alcoholism in women. In: Am J. Psychiatry 151, (pp707-715).
Khantzian, E.J. (1985). The Self-medication hypothesis of addictive disorders: Focus on heroin and cocaine dependence. In: Am. L. Psychiatry 142: (pp. 1259-1264).
Knestler, E.J., Berhow, M.T. & Brodkin, E.S. (1996). Molecular mechanisms of drug addiction: adaptations in signal transduction pathways. In: Mol. Psychiatry 1, (pp. 190-199).
Vlahov, D., et al. (2002). Increased use of cigarettes, alcohol, and marijuana among Manhattan,
New York, residents after the September 11 terrorist attacks. American Journal of
Epidemiology 155(11): 988-996, (2002).
- Is the editor posting these citations suggesting we add them? the text was copypasted so would have to be rewritten to avoid copyright violation, i believe.66.80.6.163 (talk) 16:46, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Remove Nils Bejerot/Public Health
There is no reason to have such a long discussion of the theories of Nils Bejerot (he was influential in his time within Sweden, but not much elsewhere, and his theories are not well-regarded today). All this information is already on the Nils Bejerot page, and Bejerot is already mentioned earlier on the Substance dependence page. As the entire "Public Health" section is currently entirely about Bejerot, I propose to remove the entire Public Health section. Likiva (talk) 09:10, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
- Bejerots have been portrayed as a propagandist giving the Swedish police munition in its lobbying campaigns for harsher drug policies (see "Zero Tolerance Wins the Argument?" by Lenke and Olsson in "European drug policies and enforcement" for an example) and it is a shame that he is quoted as an authority on wikipedia. I concur with the previous speaker. Remove the section. Steinberger (talk) 19:33, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
- I brought the issue up in August last year. I think those opposed to removal have had ample opportunity to come up with a reason. Deleted. --GSchjetne (talk) 01:46, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
"List of countries by drugs consumption"
Should be created a list of countries by drugs consumption.--Nekrox (talk) 09:23, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
what's this rubbish!!!!!!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.176.151.253 (talk) 08:14, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
References
what is with the long chinese character Digital object identifier? does that need to be visible?(mercurywoodrose)66.80.6.163 (talk) 16:49, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Substance addictiveness chart
I believe that this chart is highly suspect. For Tobacco, it has 2.3, 2.6, and 3.0 as pleasure, psychological addictiveness, and physiological addictiveness respectively, but then the mean for those three is listed as 2.23! I went and looked at the source, and found that the physiological addictiveness for tobacco is cited as a mere 1.8! This seems to imply that people smoke for the pleasure, not because it's a habit they can't kick, which has been my impression from personal experience. I just wanted to point this out, as it seems to throw the validity of the whole study under question(Other studies I've seen rank nicotine as being almost as physiologically addictive(or more) as heroin). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.212.245.182 (talk) 16:26, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
I agree. It is also strange that they say Cannabis and LSD are physically addictive. They ascribe low numbers, suggesting that they cause minimal physiological dependence, but I have never heard of one person who is physically addicted to LSD or cannabis. I doubt it is even possible. What does it mean to say that LSD is a .3 on the scale if it doesnt happen at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.204.24.212 (talk) 15:59, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
It is incorrect to say that LSD and cannabis and not associated with physiological dependence. Physiological dependence is defined by the presence of tolerance and/or withdrawal. Both tolerance and withdrawal have been documented with cannabis dependent individuals. Tolerance also rapidly develops with LSD; however, there is not a withdrawal syndrome for LSD. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kelseybananas (talk • contribs) 16:16, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
A common class of drugs that has been left out of this list is the steroids group. Corticosteroids like prednisolone, (Prednisone), taken for a week can cause withdrawal symptoms if stopped abruptly. There are several groups of steroids, and about all can cause severe reactions if suddenly stopped after they have been administered for a while, thus the patient must be weaned from the drug. There is no difference from these withdrawal symptoms than there are with narcotics, except that the symptoms may differ.Craxd (talk) 20:51, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
- Came here for this. Ecstasy 1.5 pleasure and both tobacco and alcohol 2.3? Makes absolutely no sense.
‘Substance’ use
The article’s use of ‘substance’ strikes me as bizarre
Does it represent denial that ethanol and nicotine are drugs?
Or generally muddled thinking about drugs by supposed authorities?
Or am I substance dependent, within the meaning intended by the article, because air and water are substances?
Laurel Bush (talk) 15:31, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
drug use make people think indepentenly and makes them what you say ' clam '.
- 'Substance' is the medical term. Paint thinner is a substance, but one would hardly consider it a drug. -Highspam (talk) 19:09, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
- What evidence is there, that medical professionals use terms like substance abuse or substance dependence instead of drug abuse and drug addiction? If that is really how the speak and write, we should include some information about word usage. If not, we should move the article (back?) to ]
Lead
I just added the "lead" clean-up template. Seems to me that the lead needs to be rewritten in the "Substance dependence is" format rather than just diving in to the DSMMD's non-use of the term "addiction". Unfortunately, I am a complete layman in this area, so cannot do it myself. – ukexpat (talk) 15:13, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
WP:NOADS
WP:NOADS |
---|
Add Recovery Sources for Treatment Seekers 24 Hour Addiction Helplines By State:
|
Esctacy/MDMA as sever addiction potential>
It seems there is some bias in the addictive potential section, with the opening paragraph stating that MDMA has can result in severe addiction but it the table below, it is claimed to be less addictive than the famously non-addictive cannabis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.12.237.254 (talk) 19:48, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
Work of Carl Hart
I smell the work of carl hart has been greatly under emphasized when it comes to the evidence for chemical dependency. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xyn1 (talk • contribs) 23:18, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
If you link the relevant research reviews that include the research you're talking about, those reviews satisfy
- I've removed this along with a lot of other non-medical sources. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 13:09, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
"Defining terms" section
I came here via this
- I agree that it'd be useful to have a definition section; most of the content in that section was on past definitions, which would be more suitable for a history section. That's really the only reason I cut a lot of it out. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 06:25, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
There appear to be a bunch of circular references of terms that do no not have the same meaning. Tolerance, dependance and addiction are not the same thing. Tolerance is strictly pharmacological. Dependance can be both pharmacological and psychological. Addiction is behavior. Cancer patients on fentanyl patches will become opioid tolerant. They may experience anxiety and withdrawal if not medicated correctly ibluding the treatment of both chronic and breakthrough pain. They are not, however, "addicted." Addiction is continuing an often uncontrollable destructive behavior despite adverse affects. Lumping addiction in with dependance is medically inaccurate. It's important for people seeking to understand palliative care to know the difference. --DHeyward (talk) 13:01, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
Article size
This article is way too large (82k). Let's break it up into separate articles or in a different way, reduce the size. --WikiTryHardDieHard (talk) 15:59, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
Agree, it could use some paring down. Also it touches on 12 step programs but not some of the new non 12 step recommendations that have a higher success rate. That seems to be very conspicuously lacking on wikipedia as a whole-- References to that type treatment and commentary about it and given the prevalence of it, it would seem to be something we should be doing, or am I just missing it in the mix? Ladymacbeth9 (talk) 20:45, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
FOSB etc.
While the FOSB stuff looks plausible, I think it's radically oversimplifying things to state that it is the mechanism of addiction, as if the matter was settled beyond doubt, and these massive text dumps go way beyond what's needed. At the moment, I think it can best be regarded as a hypothesis.
The current text dump and huge transcluded table, is way too large for the context, discounts all the other theories, and, I believe, doesn't meet the requitements of the
What would make more sense, and would meet the
- @The Anome: I didn't notice this earlier. I've corrected the poor summary in the lead you pointed out. If you know of any competing theories in molecular biology, I'd be okay with with making the changes you're proposing. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 03:26, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
- Nevermind - I'm assuming we've resolved this. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 07:25, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
Article split into Drug addiction
Addiction and dependence glossary[1][2][3] | |||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| |||||||||
Of all the articles written on a dependence- or addiction-related phenomenon, this article is by far the most borked. The current article title reflects both the DSM terminology for addiction and a synonym for drug dependence. Since this article is literally written (rather hapharzardly) about both drug dependence (both concepts redirect here), this is a rather significant disambiguation issue (dependence vs addiction) and an undue weight issue (toward the DSM's terminology in the article title). It's actually quite laughable that there isn't any coverage at all of the DSM model (or any other diagnostic model) outside the lead where it just describes their confused definition of "dependence".
The only solution I can think of to address both of these problems simultaneously is to split the article into two articles on the aforementioned distinct neuropsychological concepts covered in this one, then redirect this page to drug dependence. I'm going to proceed with this at some point within the next 30 days; appropriately splitting the relevant content in the article to the two new articles will require a lot of work on my part. If anyone has any alternative solutions in mind, please let me know. For context, the article lead and the glossary to the right indicate what "dependence" and "addiction" actually refer to when not using the DSM's borked definition/model of the concepts. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 13:29, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
@ If you really think this article should remain, it should be confined to its correct scope (the diagnosis of [an amalgamation of] dependence/addiction within the context of the DSM's disease classification - note the D; this is a much smaller scope than that of the present article). Fortunately, there's been an out-of-place section at addiction - addiction#DSM classification - entirely on this scope that could be copied or moved here to retain it as a stub. The appropriate scope of this article is not the parent article of dependence and addiction topics. I also don't think the DSM is confusing, I think it's stupid, and I'm not alone on that.[4] The biomolecular mechanisms of addiction and dependence are not the same (read the review linked in citation #2 below for a primer). There are quite a few examples of drugs that induce addiction but not a dependence syndrome and vice versa as well (e.g., caffeine and... expand the reference list below, then read the quote[4]). Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 20:09, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
As I just said before, if you wish, we can simply cover the diagnostics of drug addiction/dependence/whatever the blob of disease processes "substance dependence" collectively refers to nowadays (it's not 1 disease, as explained in the review below) in this article using addiction#DSM classification + any relevant diagnostics additions.
His Noodliness . They don’t even identify something new; they describe something known to medical researchers for clinicians, since knowledge of pathology doesn’t accrue in a vacuum. The APA defers to medical researchers in cases like this because they don’t have a staff of all the world’s leading experts on hand. In this case, it's the people conducting this research I've been pointing out, as there is no "competing" biomolecular model for addiction.
Anyway MOS:MED's guidance on the scope of disease diagnostics and fixes the DAB problem. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 10:11, 9 January 2015 (UTC) ]
Edit: Copying the addiction#DSM classification material the 2 new drug dependence/addiction articles would be an appropriate start for their diagnostic sections. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 10:31, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
Restructuring plan@WholeNewJourney: Going forward, I think it would be best to include the material I mentioned above in this article as well as a section on epidemiology, management, and history/society/culture since these are more related to the diagnostic models than the particular disease states. I'll probably end up transcluding some of this article into the 2 new articles (drug addiction/drug dependence) to cover diagnostics for those disease states. I'm going to split anything from this article which is not about the diagnostics of addiction or dependence and I'm going to make clear in the lead that substance dependence is a nonspecific blanket diagnosis for a dependence-withdrawal syndrome or an addiction. I intend to leave this article with the layout as follows:
So... besides those 3 sections (Risk factors, Mechanism, and Management), no other parts of this article are going to be split out or pruned. How do you feel about this? Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 02:18, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Nevermind, I ended up just merging "drug addiction" content to addiction. Keeping the 2 dependence topics together here and addiction topics over there at least makes the scope of the articles reflect the titles now. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 07:10, 12 February 2015 (UTC) Merge discussiondifference or mergedSubstance_use_disorder= substance dependence?? Merger proposalI propose that "Substance-related disorder" be merged into "Substance dependence". For Checkwiki, I just finished cleaning up several interwiki links that were specified in "Substance-related disorder". I tried to add these interwiki links to WikiData for "Substance-related disorder", but every interwiki link failed because they had already been properly specified in WikiData for "Substance dependence". Clearly, "Substance dependence" is being conscientiously maintained; "Substance-related disorder " is not.
Another example: "Substance-related disorder" has a "This page is a new unreviewed article" template at the top of the page. I have no idea why. Another example: Both articles contain the same image--"Development of a rational scale to assess the harm of drugs of potential misuse (physical harm and dependence, NA free means).svg" Knife-in-the-drawer (talk) 06:45, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
That seems reasonable; I'll look into this and merge the articles that are more or less redundant diagnostic classifications sometime within the next few weeks. I have a lot on my editing plate at the moment. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 16:00, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Requested move 21 June 2015
The result of the move request was: not moved. talk) 20:09, 30 June 2015 (UTC) ]
separation anxiety describes a form of non-drug dependence in which withdrawal is associated with removal of exposure to the stimuli of another individual. Another example is given above for exercise dependence. As there are no other "Dependence" entries on "Dependency", following this page move, there will be no ambiguity between the page title and the potential article scopes associated with the title. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 06:14, 21 June 2015 (UTC) ]
The only two outcomes of this requested move are that this page goes to one of the two following page titles:
For context, this topic is just as general as – and involves the mirror opposite form of ]
Risk Factors chartsThe tables / charts in this section seem to distort that the information contained in them are the results of 1 study and not some sort of generally accepted information. Perhaps adding a citation to each cell or presenting the information in a normal paragraph would help... but I am not sure. Maybe find information from other studies.
References
Plans to add to page1. Under the "Society and Culture" section, we plan to add:
2. Under the "Legislation" section, we plan to add:
3. Under the "Treatment and issues" section, we plan to add:
4. Under "Alternative therapies" section, we plan to add:
Preliminary Edits to Treatment and issues1. Added the Comer reference to the references list in order to cite it in-text; will work on researching the proper citation sources for the other works mentioned in the section currently and do the same with the rest. 2. Added sub-headings to separate into cognitive/behavioral and medicinal approaches; will add more medicinal approaches such as naloxone and naltrexone in the future. 3. Edited first two paragraphs to reflect a more unbiased wording (for example removed phrases such as "therefore psychologists should") 4. Added links to other Wikipedia articles, such as to Pavlov and Classical conditioning. -Shirley Ng Shirderp (talk) 05:24, 30 October 2018 (UTC) Preliminary Edits to Legislation Section1. Added a section for the shift in legislation about drug abuse in the United States. 2. Planning on adding another section for another country. 3. Planning on editing citations to be uniform. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Victoriayi (talk • contribs) 06:52, 2 November 2018 (UTC) Edits Made under Society and Culture1. Added Demographics section 2. Added tables and supporting text on national demographics for the US 3. Briefly described demographics on a sub-regional level in US 4. Briefly mentioned demographics on a global level -Nikki Oragwam--Noragwam (talk) 11:06, 2 November 2018 (UTC) Does the draft submission reflect a neutral point of view? If not, specify…This draft submission does seem to reflect a neutral point of view. The demographics data pulled from SAMHSA are reputable and provide important background information regarding the prevalence of substance dependence. However, in the US legislation section, there is a comprehensive background on regulation, but the only legislation that is cited is in CA - to ensure a broader scope of information, perhaps legislation in those other 9 states could be mentioned. Information presented about acupuncture as an alternative therapy provides balanced information in its role in treating substance dependence. Spang11 (talk) 07:38, 7 November 2018 (UTC) Neutrality is present throughout the article. The edits proposed are also cited properly and don't reflect the author's viewpoints on any type or treatment of substance dependence. For example the demographics table and discussion on demographics is pulled from the national substance abuse and mental health services administration and very objective. Edits provided by Noragwam There is no opinion present about treatment of substance abuse and alternatives such as acupuncture provided by spang11 reflected empirical treatments with sources well cited. ChristopherOng (talk) 17:37, 8 November 2018 (UTC) Is there any evidence of plagiarism or copyright violation?I did not detect any evidence of plagiarism or copyright violation. The group did a good job of using their own words and cited all of the necessary statements. Pharmacy9876 (talk) 23:05, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
AnnChen17 (talk) 17:41, 8 November 2018 (UTC) Peer Review: Validity of sourcesI reviewed some of the recent additions. Looking at the "Legislation" portion, there should be some sources in order to support the text. Under the demographic subheading, the sources are from reputable sources, relatively recent, and is a good addition to the section. I am not super sure if it would be best to cite the "Our World in Data" source versus the original source that they got it from such as "Institute of Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME), Global Burden of Disease (GBD)" or "WHO" listed within their article. I see that there are still works in progress for the "Treatment and Issues" section, so I will not be redundant other than to possibly remove the parenthetical citations in place of the traditional cite notes. Allison Nguyen (talk) 00:54, 8 November 2018 (UTC) The table added to the Demographics section under "Society and culture" adds valuable data from the study done by Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. However, the citation should include a link that directs the user to the survey results. AilinKim (talk) 17:47, 8 November 2018 (UTC) Are the edits formatted consistent with Wikipedia’s manual of style?The students' edits are consistent with Wiki's manual of style. The article title, section headings, and organization of headings, table of contents are appropriate, make it easy for readers to navigate the page, and help us understand the cause, symptoms, diagnosis, and treatment/management. Everyone contributed to using precise language, eliminating complex wording, and providing supporting text and citations. The use of tables under Demographics was a great way to effectively present data so that readers do not have to search through all the text get the breakdown of substance abuse among different ethnic, age, and gender groups. Ereca (talk) 18:11, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
Final edits [Health Policy]Made final edits to the "Treatment and issues" section: 1. Reworded to make the section more neutral and less implicative of what medical professionals do in practice (for example, taking out phrases such as "should," "always," etc.) 2. Fixed grammatical errors 3. Added examples of medications used and linked to internal Wikipedia articles 4. Following the advice of my peer review from Allison Nguyen above, fixed citations to comply with standard citations instead of having parenthetical in-text citations; all citations were from one book upon further investigation so linked them back to that book. -Shirley Ng Shirderp (talk) 05:56, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
Because there were no edits suggested regarding the "United States" section from the peer reviews, my final edits consisted of linking other relevant Wikipedia pages to further improve this section. Victoriayi (talk) 05:31, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
1. Included citation for table labeled "Substance Use in Different Genders w/Respect to Age." 2. Included link to survey results in the citation for the tables. 3. Decided to keep "Our World in Data" citation since the original sources cited were for different results being surveyed. Noragwam (talk) 07:53, 22 November 2018 (UTC) " |