ArticlePDF AvailableLiterature Review

What Constitutes Prescription Drug Misuse? Problems and Pitfalls of Current Conceptualizations

Authors:

Abstract

Many medications with sedative, anxiolytic, analgesic, or stimulant properties have the potential to be inappropriately used. However, because these substances have beneficial effects, many issues pertinent to understanding prescription drug misuse may differ from those associated with other misused substances. There is currently a lack of consensus about what constitutes prescription misuse and a wide range of operational criteria have been proposed. Inappropriate medication use is frequently defined on the basis of user characteristics (i.e. any non-prescribed use), the reason for use (i.e. use for recreational purposes), the presence of clinically significant symptoms (i.e. meeting diagnostic criteria for abuse and dependence) or on the presence of any of these factors. In cases where multiple criteria are used to define misuse there is often a lack of differentiation among them, while studies that use more specific criteria tend to exclude certain types of misuse from consideration altogether. In addition, in some cases there are a number of potential ways that a single operational criterion can be met and many of these may be associated with substantially different risks, harms, and predictors. Due to considerable variability in the classification of medication misuse both within and between studies, it is currently difficult to interpret the clinical significance of existing findings or to determine the true magnitude of problems associated with any particular form of misuse. In the present review many of the problems and challenges for adequately defining prescription drug misuse will be overviewed and recommendations will be made on how to better characterize this phenomenon.
Current Drug Abuse Reviews, 2008, 1, 255-262 255
1874-4737/08 $55.00+.00 © 2008 Bentham Science Publishers Ltd.
What Constitutes Prescription Drug Misuse? Problems and Pitfalls of
Current Conceptualizations
Sean P. Barrett*,1,2, Jessica R. Meisner1 and Sherry H. Stewart1,2
Departments of 1Psychology and 2Psychiatry, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada
Abstract: Many medications with sedative, anxiolytic, analgesic, or stimulant properties have the potential to be inappro-
priately used. However, because these substances have beneficial effects, many issues pertinent to understanding prescrip-
tion drug misuse may differ from those associated with other misused substances. There is currently a lack of consensus
about what constitutes prescription misuse and a wide range of operational criteria have been proposed. Inappropriate
medication use is frequently defined on the basis of user characteristics (i.e. any non-prescribed use), the reason for use
(i.e. use for recreational purposes), the presence of clinically significant symptoms (i.e. meeting diagnostic criteria for
abuse and dependence) or on the presence of any of these factors. In cases where multiple criteria are used to define mis-
use there is often a lack of differentiation among them, while studies that use more specific criteria tend to exclude certain
types of misuse from consideration altogether. In addition, in some cases there are a number of potential ways that a sin-
gle operational criterion can be met and many of these may be associated with substantially different risks, harms, and
predictors. Due to considerable variability in the classification of medication misuse both within and between studies, it is
currently difficult to interpret the clinical significance of existing findings or to determine the true magnitude of problems
associated with any particular form of misuse. In the present review many of the problems and challenges for adequately
defining prescription drug misuse will be overviewed and recommendations will be made on how to better characterize
this phenomenon.
Keywords: Prescription drug misuse, drug dependence, addiction, drug abuse.
INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW
The inappropriate use of prescription medications is an
issue of increasing concern [1-4]. Many psychiatric medica-
tions with sedative, anxiolytic, analgesic, or stimulant prop-
erties have the potential to be misused and the inappropriate
use of such medications has been linked to a number of seri-
ous adverse outcomes (e.g. [5-7]). While demand for, and
availability of, such medications have been rising steadily in
recent years, so too have documented cases of their non-
sanctioned use (e.g. [8, 9]). Despite this, prescription medi-
cation misuse remains poorly characterized and understood.
Because these drugs have legitimate therapeutic benefits in
addition to their potential problematic properties, many is-
sues pertinent to defining and characterising their inappro-
priate use may not be adequately addressed by frameworks
that have been developed to describe the use and misuse of
alcohol and illicit substances.
Currently, there is no universally-accepted standard for
what constitutes prescription medication misuse, and a wide
range of operational criteria have been used throughout the
literature. Prescription misuse has been variously defined in
terms prescription status (e.g. any medication uses that occur
without a prescription) [10-22], reasons for use (e.g. any
intentional uses for intoxicating and/or euphoric effects) [8,
12, 16, 19, 23-26], the presence or absence of symptoms of
abuse or dependence [27-31], or some combination of these
factors [8-9, 32-45]. Often in cases where multiple criteria
*Address correspondence to this author at the Department of Psychology,
Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia Canada, B3H 4J1; Tel: 902-
494-2956; Fax: 902-494-6585;
E-mail: sean.barrett@dal.ca
are used, there is a lack of differentiation among them (e.g.,
statistics are given for the broad category of prescription
drug misuse while failing to report [or often to even meas-
ure] how many individuals were so categorized according to
each criterion employed). In contrast, studies that use more
specific criteria tend to exclude certain types of misuse from
consideration altogether. Matters are further complicated by
the fact that often a single criterion will encompass several
behaviours and/or patterns of use that may be associated
with substantially different risks and harms and fail to dis-
tinguish among them. For example, there are numerous po-
tential ways that a medication can be used without a pre-
scription (e.g. use for therapeutic benefits vs use for intoxi-
cating properties), for its intoxicating effects (different pat-
terns and routes of administration), or that an individual can
become dependent on a medication (e.g. using medication as
prescribed for extended periods vs substituting medication
for an illicit substance with similar pharmacologic proper-
ties). Due to the heterogeneity in individuals classified as
‘misusers’, both within and between studies, it is often diffi-
cult to interpret the clinical significance of existing findings
or to determine the true magnitude of problems associated
with any particular form of inappropriate medication use.
The primary purpose of this paper is to overview the
problems and challenges for defining prescription drug mis-
use. Emphasis is placed on difficulties posed by various con-
ceptualizations commonly found in the scientific literature
(i.e. any non-prescribed use; recreational use; meeting diag-
nostic criteria for a substance use disorder; and the criteria
used by the American National Survey on Drug Use and
Health [A-NSDUH] [9]; a summary operational definitions
used in the literature is presented in Table 1). Because there
is often a lack of consistency and precision in the terminol-
256 Current Drug Abuse Reviews, 2008, Vol. 1, No. 3 Barrett et al.
ogy used to describe inappropriate medication use, it is not
always possible to coherently compare results from studies
using their original language. In the present paper we will
address past research on the basis of how medication misuse
is operationalized rather than on the original terminology
used. Throughout the paper, the terms “misuse” and “inap-
propriate use” will be used interchangeably to refer to the
various forms of non-sanctioned or illegitimate prescription
medication uses reported irrespective of how the terms are
used in the literature cited. In addition, unless otherwise
specified, the terms ‘abuse’ and ‘dependence’ will be strictly
used in adherence to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual
of Mental Disorders - Fourth Edition (DSM IV) [45] sub-
stance use disorder categories.
NON-PRESCRIBED MEDICATION USE
Prescription drug misuse has often been defined in terms
of ‘any use of a target medication with-out a prescription’
[10-22]. Such definitions have been extensively used in sur-
vey research (e.g. [17]), perhaps in part, because the criterion
is relatively straightforward and amenable to dichotomous
classification. By definition, all non-prescribed uses of
medications that require prescriptions are unsanctioned and
thus constitute forms of inappropriate use. However, such
conceptualizations of misuse exclude from consideration
individuals that inappropriately use their own prescriptions
(e.g. use of higher than recommended doses; recreation use)
as well as those who have prescriptions for illegitimate rea-
sons (e.g. procurement of a prescription to divert or for rec-
reational purposes). Because evidence suggests that pre-
scribed users may represent a significant proportion of cases
of medication misuse [24, 25], the generalizability of find-
ings specific to non-prescribed users might be questioned.
Motives for Non-Prescribed Medication Use
In addition, a growing body of evidence suggests that
‘non-prescribed’ medication use can involve a wide-range of
behaviors and motives that might be associated with very
distinct user characteristics and risks [12, 14, 16, 19, 23, 35,
36, 41, 43]. For example, non-prescribed uses of the same
medication might include very hazardous uses for intoxicat-
ing purposes (e.g. use of high doses intravenously and in
combination with alcohol or other drugs) as well as thera-
peutic use for a bona fide condition outside of a physician’s
supervision (e.g. taking a single therapeutic oral dose of a
friend or relative’s medication to treat symptoms for which
the prescription is normally indicated). While each of these
forms of misuse may be of clinical interest, they likely pose
very different risks and have very different associated fea-
tures. Because most studies that define prescription drug
misuse in terms of ‘non-prescribed use’ only report on over-
all rates of ‘misuse’ without any attempt to separate different
possible motives for use, the results of such studies may give
misleading impressions about the prevalence of the problem.
Although very few studies have attempted to distinguish
among different non-prescribed use motives, the evidence
that does exist suggests that at least among university and
college students, the most commonly endorsed reasons for
the non-prescribed use of stimulants [12, 14] and opiate an-
algesics [19], are related to the medication’s therapeutic
benefits (i.e. to improve concentration for stimulants; to help
relieve pain for analgesics). A recent study using an adoles-
cent sample found that endorsed motives for non-prescribed
use tended to vary by class of medication. For example while
motives for non-prescribed sedative and analgesic use tended
to be associated with the medication’s therapeutic effects
(i.e., to help with sleep; to reduce pain), non-prescribed use
of stimulant medications was more likely to be associated
with recreational motives (i.e., to get high) [35]. It is impor-
tant to note that non-prescribed use with therapeutic inten-
tions may be problematic since it is not medically super-
vised, and often a diagnosis has not been made to support the
particular treatment being administered. However, it likely
does not yield the same level of risk as many forms of inap-
propriate recreational medication uses (discussed in detail in
the ‘recreational use’ section below).
There are numerous potential quasi-legitimate reasons
why an individual might chose to illicitly seek a prescription
medication for its therapeutic benefits. For example, in some
cases the medication may be sought from a friend or relative
with a prescription for an immediate or acute need when it is
not be feasible to seek a formal medical consultation. In
other cases, medications may be illicitly procured due to
socio-economic, geographic, or temporal barriers to access to
the medical system or to a reluctance of physicians to pre-
scribe the most efficacious medications on the grounds that
they have been identified as having the potential to be mis-
used (e.g. [46]).
In cases where the medication has a wide margin of
safety and is used as it would be if it were to be prescribed,
the actual risks and harms associated with non-prescribed
use are often likely no greater than with the legitimate use of
the medication. On the other hand, the non-prescribed thera-
peutic use of a medication in the absence of doctor’s pre-
scription might be extremely risky, especially in circum-
stances where there is a lack of knowledge of appropriate
dosing, potential side-effects and/or interactions, as well as
precautions for use. Ironically, in contrast to medication that
is used for intoxicating purposes, this form of medication
‘misuse’ often may stem from a propensity to under-
medicate certain individuals or conditions with medications
that have identified as having a potential for misuse. Such
misuse would be expected to decrease if there was increased
access to legitimate sources of medication. Because different
non-prescribed medication uses may have opposing implica-
tions for policy, prevention, and treatment, it is important
that investigations using ‘any non-prescribed use’ as a crite-
rion for defining ‘misuse’, begin to systematically identify
how non-prescribed medications are being used as well as
unique characteristics and features associated with different
motives for non-prescribed use.
RECREATIONAL USE
An alternative to defining prescription drug misuse on
the basis of prescription status has been to define it on the
basis of its deliberate use for recreational purposes in order
to achieve intoxicating or euphoric psychoactive effects,
irrespective of prescription status (e.g. [23-26]). This con-
ceptualisation of prescription drug misuse is akin to the use
of illicit substances and is how the issue of prescription mis-
use is often portrayed by the media. Moreover, because
many forms of recreational use have also been associated
with serious adverse outcomes (i.e. overdose, development
What Constitutes Prescription Drug Misuse? Current Drug Abuse Reviews, 2008, Vol. 1, No. 3 257
of symptoms of abuse or dependence), it has also garnered
considerable clinical interest [30, 32]. Unfortunately, how-
ever, there is no single universally-accepted means of assess-
ing the use of prescription medications for recreational pur-
poses developed to date. Instead, there is considerable varia-
tion in the operational criteria used throughout the literature
as well as inconsistencies in the terminology used to describe
the phenomenon (e.g. the term ‘abuse’ is often used to refer
to any recreational use of a medication (e.g. [10, 29]), but is
also sometimes used specifically in reference to DSM diag-
nostic criteria (e.g. [8, 32, 48]). To complicate matters fur-
ther, it is not uncommon for findings to be discussed in terms
of recreational use when they are based on operational defi-
nitions that are not specific to this form of misuse (i.e. infer-
ring recreational use from broad operational definitions of
misuse that encompass various forms of prescribed and non-
prescribed medication use).
Table 1. Varied Operational Definitions for Prescription Drug Misuse
Operational Definitions Ref.
Non-prescribed use (use without having a doctor’s prescription for the medication) Teter et al. (2005) [12]
Teter et al. (2003) [15]
Low & Gendasezek (2002) [16]
McCabe et al. (2004) [20]
McCabe et al. (2005) [13]
McCabe et al. (2007) [19]
Boyd et al. (2006) [35]
Kaloyanides et al. (2007) [10]
McCabe (2005) [18]
Poulin (2001) [11]
NSDUH criteria: Use of any form of prescription drugs that were not prescribed for the respondent or that the
respondent took only for the experience of feeling they caused (SAMSHA, 2006 [9]). DSM IV criteria for
abuse and dependence are also assessed.
Kroutil et al. (2006) [8]
Sung et al. (2005) [37]
Wu et al. (2007) [38]
Becker et al. (2007) [32]
Smith & Woody (2005) [34]
Arria et al. In press [45]
Meeting DSM-IV criteria for abuse and/or dependence. Simoni-Wastila & Strickler, (2005) [27]
O’Brien (2005) [29]
“How often do you use stimulant medications in ways not prescribed? “ White et al. (2006) [14]
Individuals were asked whether they had ever used a sedative on their own, without having been prescribed
one or if they had used more than the amount prescribed by the physician. Goodwin & Hasin (2002) [33]
“…without a prescription, in greater amounts, more often, or longer than prescribed, or for a reason other than
a doctor said you should use them.” Blanco et al. (2007) [30]
“…when you are prescribed a drug by a doctor for a specific condition, but then use the drug in a way that is
not consistent with the doctor's orders, like using too much or too frequently... when you do not have a
prescription, but obtain the drug from someone else…
Arria et al. (2008) [44]
“…life-time non-medical use of prescription drugs that were not prescribed to them by a doctor or used in a
manner not intended by the prescribing clinician (e.g. more often than prescribed, longer than prescribed or for
a reason other than prescribed, such as to get high).”
McCabe et al. (2007) [42]
“Nonmedical use, prescription drug abuse, and/ or illicit use of prescription medications (drugs) is defined as
‘the use of prescription medication to create an altered state, to ‘get high,’ or for reasons (or by people) other
than those (or for whom) intended by the prescribing clinician.’ Medical misuse and/or non-compliant use is
defined as ‘the use of a prescribed medication by a person (and for the purpose) intended by the prescribing
clinician’; however, in the case of misuse (unlike medical use), the medication is not used in the prescribed
dose and/or is not taken within a prescribed time interval
Boyd et al. (2006) [35]
“…lifetime use it in a way that was not prescribed…” Darredeau et al. (2007) [24]
“(1) Have you sold your prescribed medication?
(2) Have you used too much of your medication? (3) Have you gotten high on your medication? (4) Have you
misused your medication? (5) Have you skipped your medication to use alcohol or drugs? (6) Have you used
your medication with alcohol or drugs? (7) Have you experienced a reaction with your medication and alcohol
or drugs?”
Wilens et al. (2006) [25]
“use of any personal prescription medication used other than as prescribed by dose, frequency or route or the
use of someone else’s prescribed medication in any way.” Marsh et al. (2000) [39]
Concomitant use of methylphenidate with alcohol. Barrett & Phil (2002) [26]
Any recreational or non-prescribed use. Barrett et al. (2005) [23]
“Have you ever taken Ritalin for fun?” Babcock & Byrne (2000) [52]
Any non-medical use, including prescribed use. Davis & Johnson (2008) [41]
Unspecified or unclear. Lankenau et al. (2007) [43]
Steinmiller & Greenwald (2007) [36]
258 Current Drug Abuse Reviews, 2008, Vol. 1, No. 3 Barrett et al.
Notwithstanding issues related to discrepancies in how
recreational prescription drug use is defined and discussed in
the literature, there appears to be considerable variability in
the ways that various medications are used for their intoxi-
cating or euphoric effects. Although many misused medica-
tions fall into the same pharmacological classes as misused
illicit substances, when they are used as prescribed, their rate
of onset of action and dosages are generally thought to be
insufficient to produce psychoactive effects that are desirable
for recreational use [48], and it is often necessary for users to
alter a substance’s normal rate of delivery and/or availability
to the brain when using it recreationally. Ingestion of a sub-
stance through injection, smoking, or inhalation results in a
much more rapid entry of a drug into the brain than oral ad-
ministration, and there have been numerous reports of medi-
cations with stimulant, analgesic, anxiolytic, or sedative
properties being recreationally used through alternative
routes of administration.
There have also been several reports of recreational oral
use of medications from different classes being co-
administered with alcohol and/or other substances [26, 49-
52]. The simultaneous use of multiple substances can lead to:
pharmacokinetic changes that affect a substance’s metabo-
lism, concentration and/or rate of delivery to the brain;
pharmacodynamic changes that affect its actions in the brain;
and/or the production of new psychoactive metabolites (e.g.
the production of ethylphenidate following alcohol-
methylphenidate co-administration [53]) that might have
different effects than the individual or additive effects of the
parent compounds. Polysubstance users often appear to seek
medications that have particular pharmacologic actions that
will complement the actions of the other substances they are
using, and different combinations of substances might be
deliberately sought to achieve specific purposes. For exam-
ple, medications may be mixed with other substances to
augment desirable psychoactive effects (e.g. the co-
administration of opiates and stimulants has been reported to
produce greater euphoric effects than either drug alone (e.g.
[50]), counteract or diminish certain undesirable effects (e.g.
sedatives have been reported to be mixed with stimulants to
reduce insomnia [49]) or to facilitate continuous consump-
tion (e.g. methylphenidate has been reported to be used to
prolong alcohol drinking sessions [26, 52]). While there are
often different motives for co-administering prescription
drugs and other substances for recreational purposes, differ-
ent combinations of substances are likely to be associated
with very different levels of risk. For example, a normally
therapeutic dose of a sedative or anxiolytic medication might
have lethal consequences when used in combination with
some other substances (e.g. increased risk of overdose with
heroin or alcohol (e.g. [5, 6]), while it might help mitigate an
adverse reaction to another substance (e.g. decreased am-
phetamine- or cocaine-induced agitation (e.g. [29, 32]).
Despite the variability in behaviours considered to be
recreational prescription drug use as well as in their associ-
ated risks, most studies that address recreational use fail to
distinguish among them. To date, most information about the
different ways prescription medications are recreationally
used comes from studies that have used targeted sampling
methods [23-25] or that have relied exclusively on anecdotal
reports [26, 49, 52, 54]. Although such investigations have
been very valuable for documenting various possible forms
of misuse, they are typically not able to provide reliable es-
timates of their relative rates of occurrence or relative risks.
In addition, it is also possible that different forms of recrea-
tional medication use require different targets for prevention.
For example, the use of tamper-proof formulations may be
effective in preventing use of medications through different
routes of administration (e.g. [55]) but may be less effective
in preventing polysubstance users from inappropriately using
medications to alter or enhance certain other substance-
related effects.
DSM CRITERIA
A third method for defining prescription drug misuse that
has been employed in the extant literature has been to make
use of established criteria for diagnosing a disorder of clini-
cal significance associated with use of these medications [8,
32, 34]. Most often, such definitions make use of the diag-
nostic criteria for substance use disorders available in the
DSM. The most recent version of this manual is the DSM
Fourth edition, text revision (DSM-IV-TR; American Psychi-
atric Association, 2000). Most mental health professionals
and psychopathology researchers use the classification sys-
tem contained in the DSM-IV-TR [47]. It is the official sys-
tem for classification of mental health and addictive disor-
ders in North America and it is a system used widely around
the world. While the International Classification of Disease
[56] has a comparable system of classification of problem-
atic substance use, to date, the bulk of the research that has
defined problematic prescription drug use in terms of diag-
nostic criteria has utilized the DSM criteria. Use of the diag-
nostic criteria within a system like the DSM allows for con-
sistency in assessment, facilitates communication between
scientists/practitioners, and assists with the advancement of
knowledge [57]. The DSM-IV-TR recognizes two forms of
substance use disorders – abuse and dependence – which
vary in severity. Dependence is the more severe of the two
types of disorder.
Abuse
The DSM defines substance abuse as a pattern of mal-
adaptive substance use that is associated with recurrent and
significant adverse consequences. A diagnosis of substance
abuse requires meeting at least one of the following four
criteria due to recurrent substance use: 1) failure to fulfill
obligations at home/school/work; 2) use in situations that are
physically hazardous; 3) legal problems; and/or 4) social or
interpersonal problems [47]. Although numerous studies
purport to discuss prescription medication abuse (e.g. [7, 10,
14, 28, 34, 49-50, 54]), few actually assess it. And those that
have assessed it according to DSM criteria suggest that it is
actually a relatively rare occurrence. For example, fewer
than 4% of individuals reporting past year misuse of stimu-
lant medications (using the A-NSDUH criteria discussed
below) met the diagnostic criteria for abuse [8], and less than
10% of past year sedative and anxiolytic misusers met the
criteria for either abuse or dependence [32]. Unfortunately
data was not separately reported for each diagnosis or for
each class of drug so it is impossible to know the exact rates
of abuse vs dependence (see next section for discussion of
prescription drug dependence). It is important to note how-
ever that because a user must perceive their behaviour as
dangerous or problematic to receive a diagnosis of abuse,
What Constitutes Prescription Drug Misuse? Current Drug Abuse Reviews, 2008, Vol. 1, No. 3 259
many potentially hazardous medication uses (e.g. infrequent
mediation use in a polysubstance context) may not be ade-
quately assessed with these criteria.
Dependence
According to the DSM-IV [47], substance dependence is
defined as a compulsive pattern of substance use character-
ized by a loss of control over substance use and continued
use despite the significant substance-related problems. The
diagnostic criteria for dependence require the presence of
three or more of the following symptoms: tolerance (i.e., the
need to use increased amounts of substance for effect or a
diminished effect with use of same amount), withdrawal,
taking the substance in greater amounts or over a longer pe-
riod of time than intended, unsuccessful attempts to cut back
use, spending excessive time procuring, using, or recovering
from the effects of the substance, giving up important activi-
ties in order to use the substance, and continued use of the
substance despite evidence that it is causing serious physical
and/or psychological problems. When the diagnostic criteria
for dependence are met and symptoms of either withdrawal
or tolerance are present, the dependence diagnosis can be
further specified as involving ‘physical dependence’ on the
substance.
Development of dependence typically requires prolonged
and sustained exposure to a substance. In many cases this
can occur when the medication is taken exactly as prescribed
and in the absence of intentional misuse (e.g., opioid pain
management during hospital care [58]; use of benzodiazepi-
nes for the management of anxiety disorders [31]). Alterna-
tively, many individuals who develop tolerance to the same
psychotherapeutic medications do so completely outside of a
legitimate context. For example, illicit drug users may ha-
bitually use a prescribed opiate medication as a substitute for
an illicit drug that is more expensive or difficult to obtain,
such as heroin. Individuals who become dependent on a
medication during the course of treatment for a bona-fide
medical or psychiatric condition might be expected to differ
from those developing dependence through varied forms of
illicit use in terms of their risk factors, and symptom expres-
sions. Evidence suggests that individuals who develop symp-
toms of dependence during the course of a legitimate treat-
ment appear to be particularly prone to the development of
some symptoms (e.g. use for longer periods than intended;
withdrawal upon cessation) but not others (e.g. dose escala-
tion due to tolerance), while this different susceptibility to
symptoms does not appear to occur in recreational users [29,
59]. Moreover, although past research has linked dependence
on analgesic and anxiolytic medications to distinct diagnos-
tic [31, 32], personality [59], and demographic features [27],
due to the existence of distinct pathways to dependence, it is
not clear to what extent these factors are associated with the
pathologies the medications are intended to treat or with the
propensity to deliberately misuse the medications. Because
different pathways to dependence may be associated with
distinct risk factors and symptom expressions as well as hav-
ing different optimal targets for treatment, information about
the pathogenesis of symptom development is of considerable
clinical importance. Unfortunately, to date, the vast majority
of studies of prescription drug dependence fail to distinguish
among different possible trajectories to symptom onset.
A-NSDUH CRITERIA
Perhaps the most widely cited source of datum used to
define and describe inappropriate medication misuse in the
Americas is the National Survey on Drug Use and Health
(A-NSDUH). The A-NSDUH is an annual epidemiological
study that, in part, documents the non-medical use of pre-
scription stimulant, analgesic, anxiolytic, and sedative medi-
cations in a civilian, non-institutionalized American popula-
tion aged 12 years or older [9]. It is important to note that the
A-NSDUH was formerly known as the National Household
Survey of Drug Abuse (NHSDA); however they represent
two different surveys and thus cannot be directly compared].
The data collected through this survey is publicly available
for research purposes and it has been used extensively in
recent years to describe the prevalence and patterns of pre-
scription drug misuse in the United States [8, 27-28, 30, 32,
34, 45]. For A-NSDUH purposes, prescription drug misuse
is defined as “use of the target medication (or class of medi-
cations) without a prescription or that was taken only for the
experience or feeling the medication causes”, while DSM IV
criteria for substance abuse and substance dependence are
used to infer problematic use. Thus, the A-NSDUH criteria
encompasses each of the more specific criteria discussed in
detail above.
Unfortunately, however, although broader in its overall
coverage, the A-NSDUH retains perhaps the most serious
limitation of more specific conceptualisations of prescription
medication use in that it does not adequately distinguish be-
tween inappropriate medication uses for therapeutic vs rec-
reational purposes, or among most forms of recreational use
(the A-NSDUH currently collects limited data about the in-
travenous use of some substances but no information is col-
lected about other routes of administration or about simulta-
neous polysubstance use). In addition, because A-NSDUH
prevalence data is typically reported in terms of ‘any use’
during a particular timeframe, vastly different behaviors and
patterns of use can be given the same weight for determining
overall rates of misuse (e.g. a solitary non-prescribed thera-
peutic oral dose of codeine is treated in the same way as
chronic intravenous administration of OxyContin when de-
termining the rates of analgesic misuse) making it difficult to
interpret the clinical significance of the findings. Interpreta-
tion of A-NSDUH data may also be limited by a degree of
ambiguity in exactly what constitutes “use of the medication
for the experience or feeling it causes” as the A-NSDUH
does not specify what it includes [36]. Does it include using
a prescribed medication at a higher than recommended dose,
or using a medication to counteract the effects of another
substance? What about using a medication appropriately to
“experience” relief from a condition for which it is pre-
scribed or to “feel” better? The A-NSDUH leaves it for re-
spondents to decide.
Despite its limitations, the A-NSDUH provides perhaps
the most comprehensive definition for inappropriate medica-
tion use currently found in the literature, and it enables esti-
mates of both the overall prevalence of any form of misuse
medication, as well as of the prevalence of medication abuse
and dependence. In addition, recent versions of this survey
have begun to collect more details about certain forms of
hazardous use (e.g. intravenous administration) for at least
some substances (e.g. methamphetamine). Although such
260 Current Drug Abuse Reviews, 2008, Vol. 1, No. 3 Barrett et al.
efforts have not been exhaustive, and information regarding
motives for misuse is currently entirely lacking, the A-
NSDUH appears to have the potential to provide both vast
coverage as well as some insight into more specific forms of
prescription medication misuse. Because it would likely not
be feasible for the A-NSDUH to systematically examine
every possible form of inappropriate medication use, it is
important that the most prevalent, pervasive, and/or harmful
forms of misuse are identified through examining targeted
populations so that their inclusion in larger scale studies can
be justified.
CONCLUSIONS
Given the wide range of behaviors and characteristics
that can be considered inappropriate medication uses, as well
as the ever-growing array of psychoactive medications that
may be liable for misuse, it may prove difficult to achieve
both complete coverage and specificity for all potentially
clinically relevant forms of misuse within the same assess-
ment instrument. There are innumerable potential ways a
medication can be misused in a polysubstance context by an
individual. And for each combination of substances there
may be variations in the routes of administration as well as
in the user characteristics (e.g. prescribed users vs non-
prescribed users) and in the motives for use (e.g. to increase
intoxication vs medication of unpleasant side-effects). Thus
it may not always be feasible to systematically examine all
possible combinations of medications, administration pat-
terns, user characteristics, and motives for use in the same
investigation. Moreover since certain methods of data collec-
tion do not easily lend themselves to delineating such details
(e.g. self-report questionnaires) and other approaches may be
time and/or cost prohibitive (e.g. in-depth semi-structured
interviews), it may not be reasonable to expect that all inves-
tigations will be able to provide the same degree of coverage
or specificity. However, it is important, irrespective of the
approach used, that all operational definitions are clearly
stated, that the precise meaning of the terms used in the
study are specified, and that the limits to the generalizability
and specificity of findings be clearly and directly acknowl-
edged.
Because many inappropriate medication uses may in-
clude non-sanctioned therapeutic usage as well as use for
recreational/intoxicating purposes, it is also important that,
whenever possible, efforts be made to distinguish between
these potentially distinct clinical populations. Knowledge of
why an individual is misusing a specific type of prescription
medication can be critical for targeting prevention efforts as
well as for designing the most effective interventions. An
individual who developed dependence on a prescription anx-
iolytic in the context of treatment for an anxiety disorder
presumably has a very different trajectory to dependence as
well as very different treatment needs for discontinuing this
medication [60] than does an individual who developed de-
pendence on a prescription anxiolytic in the context of poly-
substance abuse (e.g., use of the anxiolytic to manage un-
pleasant side effects of stimulant drugs). In fact, recent re-
search suggests that matching treatments to the underlying
motivations for substance misuse improves treatment out-
comes for those with substance use disorders, including for
those with prescription drug abuse/dependence [61, 62].
Another issue, which is beyond the scope of this review,
although pertinent to note, is the health care system’s contri-
bution to prescription drug misuse. Misuse of psychoactive
medications, particularly in the case of prescribed users, may
not only stem from individual factors, but from a lack of
quality health care service. According to the Agency for
Health Care Research and Quality, quality health care
means, “doing the right thing at the right time, in the right
way, for the right person-and having the best possible re-
sults” [63]. Health care providers may play a role in prescrip-
tion drug misuse behaviors through disregard for this quality
of care (e.g., failing to recognize a patients’ potential for
developing a substance abuse/dependence disorder, misdiag-
nosing the patient, over-prescribing the medication; see a
journal article by Chasin and colleagues [64] for a broad
description of the problems surrounding provision of quality
health care). In acknowledging the health care system as an
additional contributing factor to prescription drug misuse, in
addition to the extensive conceptualization problems in-
volved in defining individuals’ prescription drug misuse ad-
dressed in this review, prescription drug misuse clearly
emerges as a complex phenonemenon that requires much
additional research attention.
Key Learning Objectives:
1. To become familiar with different commonly used operational
definitions for prescription medication misuse.
2. To gain knowledge about the different user characteristics, and
medication-related behaviors and problems that are sometimes
used to define prescription drug misuse.
3. To identify strengths and limitations of different conceptualizations
of inappropriate prescription drug use.
4. To understand the clinical importance of assessing different poten-
tial motives for non-sanctioned medication use.
Future Research Questions:
1. In what ways can one achieve both breadth and depth of coverage
when attempting to define and characterize prescription drug mis-
use?
2. What are the clinical implications of different forms of misuse?
3. To what extent would systematically identifying the reasons for
misuse improve prognosis and treatment planning?
REFERENCES
[1] Haydon E, Monga N, Rehm J, Adlaf E, Fischer B. Prescription
drug abuse in Canada and the diversion of prescription drugs into
the illicit drug market. Can J Public Health 2005; 96: 459-61.
[2] Hertz JA, Knight JR. Prescription drug misuse: A growing national
problem. Adolesc Med 2006; 17: 751-69.
[3] 2002 National Report: Drug Trends and the CCENDU Network.
Ottawa, ON: Canadian Community Epidemiology Network on
Drug Use (CCENDU). [Online]. 2003 [cited 2007 July 7]. Avail-
able from: URL: www.ccsa.ca/ccendu.
[4] Report of the International Narcotics Control Board for 2005. New
York, NY: International Narcotics Control Board (INCB). [Online].
2006 [cited 2007 June 20]. Available from: URL:
http://www.incb.org/incb/annual_report_2005.html.
[5] Gutiérrez-Cebollada J, de la Torre R, Ortuño J, Garcés, JM, Camí,
J. Psychotropic drug consumption and other factors associated with
heroin overdose. Drug Alcohol Depend 1994; 35: 169-74.
[6]
Mueller M, Shah N, Landen M. Unintentional prescription drug
overdose deaths in New Mexico, 1994-2003. Am J Prev Med 2006;
30: 423-29.
What Constitutes Prescription Drug Misuse? Current Drug Abuse Reviews, 2008, Vol. 1, No. 3 261
[7] Manchikanti L. National drug control policy and prescription drug
abuse: Facts and fallacies. Pain Physician 2007; 10: 399-424.
[8] Kroutil LA, Van Brunt DL, Herman-Stahl MA, Heller DC, Bray
RM, Penne MA. Nonmedical use of prescription stimulants in the
United States. Drug Alcohol Depend 2006; 84: 135-43.
[9] Results from the 2006 National Survey on Drug Use and Health:
National Findings. Rockville (MD): Substance Abuse and Mental
Health Services Administration (Office of Applied Studies,
NSDUH Series H-30, DHHS Publication No. SMA 06-4194). [On-
line]. 2006 [cited 2007 June]. Available from: URL:
http://oas.samhsa.gov/nsduh/2k6nsduh/2k6Results.pdf.
[10] Kaloyanides KB, McCabe SE, Cranford JA, Teter CJ. Prevalence
of illicit use and abuse of prescription stimulants, alcohol, and other
drugs among college students: Relationship with age at initiation of
prescription stimulants. Pharmacotherapy 2007; 27: 666-74.
[11] Poulin C. Medical and nonmedical stimulant use among adoles-
cents: From sanctioned to unsanctioned use. Can Med Assoc J
2001; 165: 1039-44.
[12] Teter CJ, McCabe SE, Cranford JA, Boyd CJ, Guthrie SK. Preva-
lence and motives for illicit use of prescription stimulants in an un-
dergraduate student sample. J Am Coll Health 2005; 53: 253-62.
[13] McCabe SE, Knight JR, Teter CJ, Wechsler H. Non-medical use of
prescription stimulants among US college students: prevalence and
correlates from a national survey. Addiction 2005; 99: 96-106.
[14] White BP, Becker-Blease KA, Grace-Bishop K. Stimulant medica-
tion use, misuse, and abuse in an undergraduate and graduate stu-
dent sample. J Am Coll Health 2006; 54: 261-68.
[15] Teter CJ, McCabe SE, Boyd CJ, Guthrie SK. Illicit Methylpheni-
date use in an undergraduate student sample: Prevalence and risk
factors. Pharmacotherapy 2003; 23: 609-617.
[16] Low KG, Gendaszek AE. Illicit use of psychostimulants among
college students: A preliminary study. Psychol Health Med 2002;
7: 283-87.
[17] Poulin C. Nova Scotia student drug use 2002: Technical report.
Halifax, NS: Addiction Services, Nova Scotia Department of
Health and Dalhousie University. [Online]. 2002 [cited 2007 May].
Available from: URL: http://www.gov.ns.ca/health/downloads/
2002_NSDrugTechnical.pdf.
[18] McCabe SE. Correlates of nonmedical use of prescription benzodi-
azepine anxiolytics: Results from a national survey of U. S. college
students. Drug Alcohol Depend 2005; 79: 53-62.
[19] McCabe SE, Cranford JA, Boyd CJ, Teter CJ. Motives, diversion
and routes of administration associated with nonmedical use of pre-
scription opioids. Addict Behav 2007; 32: 562-575.
[20] McCabe SE, Teter CJ, Boyd CJ. The use, misuse and diversion of
prescription stimulants among middle and high school students.
Subst Use Misuse 2004; 39: 1095-116.
[21] McCabe SE, Teter CJ. Drug use related problems among nonmedi-
cal users of prescription stimulants: A web-based survey of college
students from a Midwestern university. Drug Alcohol Depend
2007; 91: 69-76.
[22] Boyd CJ, McCabe SE, Teter CJ. Medical and nonmedical use of
prescription pain medication by youth in a Detroit-area public
school. Drug Alcohol Depend 2006; 81: 37-45.
[23] Barrett SP, Darredeau C, Bordy LE, Pihl RO. Characteristics of
methylphenidate misuse in a university student sample. Can J Psy-
chiatry 2005; 50: 457- 61.
[24] Darredeau C, Barrett SP, Jardin B, Pihl RO. Patterns and predictors
of medication compliance, diversion and misuse in adult prescribed
methylphenidate users. Hum Psychopharmacol 2007; 22: 529-536.
[25] Wilens TE, Gignac M, Swezey A, Monuteaux MC, Biederman J.
Characteristics of adolescents and young adults with ADHD who
divert or misuse their prescribed medications. J Am Acad Child
Adolsec Psychiatry 2007; 45: 408-14.
[26] Barrett SP, Pihl RO. Oral methylphenidate-alcohol co-abuse. J Clin
Psychopharmacol 2002; 22: 633-34.
[27] Simoni-Wastila L, Stirckler G. Risk factors associated with prob-
lem use of prescription drugs. Am J Public Health 2004; 94: 266-
268.
[28] Simoni-Wastila L, Yang HK. Psychoactive drug abuse in older
adults. Am J Geriat Pharmacother 2006; 4: 380-94.
[29] O’Brien CP. Benzodiazepine use, abuse, and dependence. J Clin
Psychiatry 2005; 66: 28-33.
[30]
Blanco C, Alderson D, Ogburn E, et al. Changes in the prevalence
of non-medical prescription drug use and drug use disorders in the
United States: 1991–1992 and 2001–2002. Drug Alcohol Depend
2007; 90: 128-134.
[31] Griffiths RR, Johnson MW. Relative abuse liability of hypnotic
drugs: A conceptual framework and algorithm for differentiating
among compounds. J Clin Psychiatry 2005; 66: 31-41.
[32] Becker WC, Fiellin DA, Desai RA. Non-medical use, abuse and
dependence on sedatives and tranquilizers among U.S. adults: Psy-
chiatric and socio-demographic correlates. Drug Alcohol Depend
2007; 90: 280-7.
[33] Goodwin RD, Hasin DS. Sedative use and misuse in the United
States. Addiction 2002; 97: 555-62.
[34] Smith MY, Woody G. Nonmedical use and abuse of scheduled
medications prescribed for pain, pain-related symptoms, and psy-
chiatric disorders: Patterns, user characteristics, and management
options. Curr Psychiatry Rep 2005; 7: 337-43.
[35] Boyd CJ, McCabe SE, Cranford JA, Young A. Adolescents’ moti-
vation to abuse prescription medications. Pediatrics 2006; 118:
2472-80.
[36] Steinmiller CL, Greenwald M. Factors associated with nonmedical
use of prescription opioids among heroin abusing research volun-
teers. Exp Clin Psychopharmacol 2007; 15: 492-500.
[37] Sung H, Ritcher L, Vaughan R, Johnson PB, Thom B. Nonmedical
use of prescription opioids among teenagers in the United States:
Trends and correlates. J Adolescent Health 2005; 37: 44-51.
[38] Wu L, Pilowsky DJ, Schlenger WE, Galvin DM. Misuse of meth-
amphetamine and prescription stimulants among youths and young
adults in the community. Drug Alcohol Depend 2007; 89: 195 -
205.
[39] Marsh LD, Key JD, Payne TP. Methylphenidate misuse in sub-
stance abusing adolescents. J Child Adoles Subst 2000; 9: 1-14.
[40] Wilens TE, Adler LA, Adams J, et al. Misuse and diversion of
stimulants prescribed for ADHD: A systematic review of the litera-
ture. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry 2008; 47: 21-31.
[41] Davis RW, Johnson BD. Prescription opioid use, misuse, and di-
version among street drug users in New York City. Drug Alcohol
Depend 2008; 92: 267-276.
[42] McCabe SE, West BT, Morales M, Cranford JA, Boyd CJ. Does
early onset of non-medical use of prescription drugs predict subse-
quent prescription drug abuse and dependence? Results from a na-
tional study. Addiction 2007; 102: 1920-1930.
[43] Lankenau SE, Sanders B, Bloom JJ, et al. Prevalence and patterns
of prescription drug misuse among young ketamine injectors. J
Drug Issues 2007; 22: 717-736.
[44] Arria AM, Caldeira KM, O’Grady KE, et al. Nonmedical use of
prescription stimulants among college students: Associations with
attention-deficit-hyperactivity disorder and polydrug use. Pharam-
cotherapy 2008; 156-169.
[45] Arria AM, O’Grady KE, Caldeira KM, Vincent KB, Wish ED.
Nonmedical use of prescription stimulants and analgesics: Associa-
tions with social and academic behaviors among college students. J
Drug Issues: In press 2008.
[46] Ger LP, Ho ST, Wang JJ. Physicians' knowledge and attitudes
toward the use of analgesics for cancer pain management: a survey
of two medical centers in Taiwan. J Pain Symptom Manage 2000;
20: 335-44.
[47] American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and Statistical Man-
ual of Mental Disorders, 4th ed. American Psychiatric Press, 1994
Washington DC.
[48] Compton WM, Volkow, ND. Abuse of prescription drugs and the
risk of addiction. Drug Alcohol Depend 2006; 83: 4-7.
[49] Kurtz SP, Inciardi JA, Surratt HL, Cottler L. Prescription drug
abuse among ecstasy users in Miami. J Addict Dis 2005; 24: 1-16.
[50] Barrett SP, Darredeau C, Pihl RO. Patterns of simultaneous poly-
substance use in drug using university students. Hum Psychophar-
macol 2006; 21: 255-63.
[51] Dasgupta N, Kramer D, Zalman M, et al. Association between non-
medical and prescriptive usage of opioids. Drug Alcohol Depend
2006; 82: 135-42.
[52] Babcock Q, Byrne T. Student perceptions of methylphenidate
abuse at a public liberal arts college. J Am Coll Health 2000; 49:
143-45.
[53] Markowitz JS, DeVane CL, Boulton DW, et al. Ethylphenidate
formation in human subjects after the administration of a single
dose of methlyphenidate and ethanol. Drug Metab Dispos 2000; 28:
620-4.
262 Current Drug Abuse Reviews, 2008, Vol. 1, No. 3 Barrett et al.
[54] Parran TV, Jasinski DR. Intravenous methylphenidate abuse: proto-
type for prescription drug abuse. Arch Intern Med 1991; 15: 781-3.
[55] Fudala PJ, Johnson RE. Development of opioid formulations with
limited diversion and abuse potential. Drug Alcohol Depend 2006;
83:S40-S47.
[56] Hasin D, Hatzenbuehler ML, Keyes K, Ogburn E. Substance use
disorders: Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders,
fourth edition (DSM-IV) and International Classification of Dis-
eases, tenth edition (ICD-10). Addiction 2006; 101:59-75.
[57] Durand M, Barlow DH, Stewart SH. Essentials of abnormal psy-
chology. 1st Canadian Edition. Toronto, ON: Thomson-Nelson;
2008.
[58] Ballantyne JC, LaForge KS. Opioid dependence and addiction
during opioid treatment of chronic pain. Pain 2007; 129: 235-55.
[59] Conrod PJ, Pihl RO, Stewart SH, Dongier M. Validation of a sys-
tem of classifying female substance abusers on the basis of person-
ality and motivational risk factors for substance abuse. Psychol
Addict Behav 2000; 14: 243-56.
[60] Otto MW, Pollack MH, Sachs GS, O'Neil CA, Rosenbaum JF.
Alcohol dependence in panic disorder patients. J Psychiatr Res
1992; 26: 29-38.
[61] Conrod PJ, Stewart SH, Pihl RO, Côté S, Fontaine V, Dongier M.
Efficacy of brief coping skills interventions that match different
personality profiles of female substance abusers. Psychol Addict
Behav 2000; 14: 231-242.
[62] Watt MC, Stewart SH, Conrod PJ, Schmidt NB. Personality-based
approaches to treatment of co-morbid anxiety and substance use
disorder. In: Stewart SH, Conrod PJ, Eds, The Vicious Cycle:
Theoretical and Treatment Issues in Co-Morbid Anxiety and Sub-
stance Use Disorders. New York, NY: Springer; in press.
[63] Agency for Healthcare and Research Quality. Your guide to choos-
ing quality health care: Summary. [Online]. 2002 Sept [cited 2008
Feb 18]; Available from: URL: http://www.ahrq.gov/consumer/qnt/
qntqlook.htm.
[64] Chassin MR, Glavin R. The urgent need to improve health care
quality: Institute of Medicine National Roundtable on Health Care
Quality. JAMA 1999; 280: 1000-1006.
Received: November 30, 2007 Revised: January 25, 2008 Accepted: March 3, 2008
... However, despite their clinical benefits, PMed constitute a unique group of medicinal products given their high risk of misuse. The concept of medicines' misuse varies in the literature (Barrett et al., 2008), namely as non-medical use (consumption of a medication not prescribed, or in a manner not intended by the prescriber [Araújo et al., 2022Novak et al., 2016;Smith et al., 2017), abuse (intentional excessive use accompanied by harmful physical or psychological effects [European Medicines Agency, 2017]) and doctor shopping (intentional use of a dose higher than prescribed by seeking multiple clinicians to obtain several prescriptions [Biernikiewicz et al., 2019]). Chronic use of medicines intended for shortterm treatments was also considered in our definition of misuse. ...
Article
Full-text available
Introduction Although psychoactive medicines (PMed) are needed in several psychiatric conditions, their use and misuse bear risks. We aimed at estimating the prevalence of PMed use and misuse. Methods Data on all PMed prescribed in 2017 and dispensed in community pharmacies of the Lisbon and Tagus Valley region of Portugal (ARSLVT) were extracted from ARSLVT medicines’ dispensing database. For 21 PMed among prescription opioids, benzodiazepines and z-drugs (BZDR), antidepressants (AD) and anticonvulsants (AC), we estimated the number of users of each PMed, and assessed PMed misuse by a set of proxy indicators for studying this practice: chronic use (use of ≥180 DDD during the study period) of PMed intended for short-term treatments, concomitant use of several PMed, in particular if involving long-term (≥ 30 days) opioid analgesic (OA) use, and doctor shopping (patients consulting several physicians in order to have access to a quantity higher than intended by each prescriber). Data were analysed using descriptive statistics and hypothesis testing, and multivariate logistic regression was used to explore potential factors affecting long-term concomitant treatment of chronic OA with other PMed. Results PMed use prevalence was 21.7%: 6.6% for OA, 12.7% for benzodiazepines (BZD), 5.3% for AD and 2.8% for AC. BZDR were mainly prescribed in primary care and OA in hospital outpatients. Chronic use of PMed was observed in 25%, especially with sertraline and buprenorphine for opioid use disorder (long-term treatment), and lorazepam (short-term treatment). About 56.6% of OA chronic users were long-term concurrent users with other PMed, mainly BZDR. Risk of abuse was low for BZDR, whilst four opioids had meaningful doctor shopping indicators – fentanyl, opioid use disorder buprenorphine, morphine and hydromorphone. Conclusions BZD are the main PMed used in ARSLVT, often chronically, especially lorazepam. Prevalence of OA use is low, although with higher risk of misuse than BZDR. Concomitant use of several PMed is frequent.
... Misuse, or nonmedical use of prescription drugs refers to the intentional repurposing of prescribed drugs outside of their intended indication, or to the use of illicitly sourced prescription drugs [1][2][3]. Drugs identified with the greatest potential for misuse are prescription opioids, benzodiazepines, Z-drugs and gabapentinoids [1,4,5]. The International Narcotics Control Board warned, over a decade ago, that the misuse of these prescription drugs could exceed illicit drug use [6]. ...
Article
Full-text available
Background Pharmacotherapy is essential for the delivery of an equivalent standard of care in prison. Prescribing can be challenging due to the complex health needs of prisoners and the risk of misuse of prescription drugs. This study examines prescribing trends for drugs with potential for misuse (opioids, benzodiazepines, Z-drugs, and gabapentinoids) in Irish prisons and whether trends vary by gender and history of opioid use disorder (OUD). Methods A repeated cross-sectional study between 2012 and 2020 using electronic prescribing records from the Irish Prison Services, covering all prisons in the Republic of Ireland was carried out. Prescribing rates per 1,000 prison population were calculated. Negative binomial (presenting adjusted rate ratios (ARR) per year and 95% confidence intervals) and joinpoint regressions were used to estimate time trends adjusting for gender, and for gender specific analyses of prescribing trends over time by history of OUD. Results A total of 10,371 individuals were prescribed opioid agonist treatment (OAT), opioids, benzodiazepines, Z-drugs or gabapentinoids during study period. History of OUD was higher in women, with a median rate of 597 per 1,000 female prisoners, compared to 161 per 1,000 male prisoners. Prescribing time trends, adjusted for gender, showed prescribing rates decreased over time for prescription opioids (ARR 0.82, 95% CI 0.80–0.85), benzodiazepines (ARR 0.99, 95% CI 0.98–0.999), Z-drugs (ARR 0.90, 95% CI 0.88–0.92), but increased for gabapentinoids (ARR 1.07, 95% CI 1.05–1.08). However, prescribing rates declined for each drug class between 2019 and 2020. Women were significantly more likely to be prescribed benzodiazepines, Z-drugs and gabapentinoids relative to men. Gender-specific analyses found that men with OUD, relative to men without, were more likely to be prescribed benzodiazepines (ARR 1.49, 95% CI 1.41–1.58), Z-drugs (ARR 10.09, 95% CI 9.0-11.31), gabapentinoids (ARR 2.81, 95% CI 2.66–2.97). For women, history of OUD was associated with reduced gabapentinoid prescribing (ARR 0.33, 95% CI 0.28–0.39). Conclusions While the observed reductions in prescription opioid, benzodiazepine and Z-drug prescribing is consistent with guidance for safe prescribing in prisons, the increase in gabapentinoid (primarily pregabalin) prescribing and the high level of prescribing to women is concerning. Our findings suggest targeted interventions may be needed to address prescribing in women, and men with a history of OUD.
... For the purpose of this review, gabapentinoid misuse is defined as any use that is either (a) without a prescription, (b) in a manner or dose other than prescribed or (c) for reasons other than prescribed, regardless of the motive for use (ie, therapeutic or non-therapeutic). 28 This may include using someone else's prescribed medication, using medication purchased without prescription (ie, online or on 'the street'), using higher than prescribed doses, using more frequently than prescribed, using outside of the prescribed duration, using via a route of administration other than prescribed, using for recreational purposes (ie, to experience euphoria or intoxication), using for self-harm or using in combination with other drugs to alter or enhance the effects of the drugs. This definition is purposefully broad in an effort to capture all forms of misuse that may be associated with harms. ...
Article
Full-text available
Introduction Gabapentinoids are among the most widely prescribed pain medications. However, there is growing evidence to suggest that gabapentinoids may be associated with dependence and misuse. The aim of this systematic review is to synthesise the qualitative literature on gabapentinoid misuse and symptoms of dependence. The findings of this study will inform efforts to mitigate emerging harms. Methods and analysis A systematic review of qualitative research will explore lived experiences of misuse and symptoms of dependence among people who use gabapentinoids. Six databases (MEDLINE, Scopus, Web of Science, CINAHL, EMBASE and PsycINFO) and grey literature sources will be searched from inception to May 2023. Qualitative studies that include people with lived experiences of gabapentinoid misuse and symptoms of gabapentinoid dependence will be included. Reference lists of included studies will also be screened for additional studies. The methodological quality of included studies will be appraised using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme qualitative checklist, and higher quality studies will be prioritised in the thematic synthesis. The GRADE-CERQual approach will be used to assess confidence in the overall findings of the review. Ethics and dissemination Ethical approval is not required for this systematic review. The findings of this review will be disseminated in peer-reviewed journals, at conferences and on social media. PROSPERO registration number CRD42023401832.
Article
Objective Adolescent (12–17 years) and young adult (18–25 years) prescription opioid misuse (POM) is linked to poor health outcomes. We investigated how POM motives vary across these ages and the potential links between motives and other substance use, mental health, and sociodemographic characteristics to help guide screening and prevention. Methods Pooled 2015–2019 US National Survey on Drug Use and Health data were used, with 137,858 participants. Cross-tabulations estimated prevalence of individual motives and motive category by age. Mutually exclusive motive categories were no past-year POM, pain relief only, pain/sleep/relax (ie, some combination of only these motives), and any non–self-treatment motives (eg, get high, experiment). Logistic regression models evaluated links between motive category and sociodemographic, mental health, and substance use (eg, alcohol, cannabis, nicotine, other prescription misuse) outcomes by age group, versus reference groups of no past-year POM or pain relief only. Results Pain relief was the most common POM motive (estimated at >50% at all ages), but POM for non–self-treatment motives was the most common category after 14 years. POM for non–self-treatment motives had the highest adjusted odds ratios (aORs) of all substance use and mental health characteristics (eg, past-year substance use disorder aORs of 6.11 in adolescents [95% confidence interval (CI), 4.23–8.85] and 4.81 [95% CI, 4.01–5.77] in young adults, versus the pain relief only reference). Conclusions POM for any non–self-treatment motives is linked to the highest prevalence of other substance use and mental health concerns, whereas POM for pain relief also signals a need for substance use and mental health screening.
Article
Full-text available
Objectives This study aimed to (1) to describe trends of tranquilliser and sedative (TS) misuse in Estonia during 2003–2019 and (2) to analyse the associations between TS misuse and explanatory factors (perceived access to TS, medical use of TS, family-related, friends-related, school-related factors, risk behaviour and leisure time physical activity). Design A cross-sectional study. Setting Data were collected from the European School Survey Project on Alcohol and Other Drugs (ESPAD) from 2003 to 2019 in Estonia. Participants Estonian schoolchildren aged 15–16 years old (n=11 328), 48.6% were boys. Outcome measures Prevalence, crude and adjusted ORs with 95% CIs for TS misuse. Results The prevalence of lifetime TS misuse significantly increased from 2003 (5.0% of boys and 12.6% of girls) to 2019 (11.3% and 17.5%, respectively) (p<0.001). Among boys, TS misuse increased significantly among those reporting medical use of TS from 21.1% to 41.4% in 2003–2019 (p=0.006). Medical use of TS multiplied the odds of misuse by 6.89 (95% CI 5.15 to 9.24) for boys and by 4.53 (95% CI 3.58 to 5.73) for girls. Perceived easy access to TS increased the odds of misuse by 6.57 (95% CI 4.13 to 10.46) times for boys and by 4.66 (95% CI 3.25 to 6.70) times for girls. Having many friends who misuse TS increased the odds of misuse by 3.27 (95% CI 2.16 to 4.95) times for boys and by 5.07 (95% CI 3.79 to 6.77) times for girls. Furthermore, higher odds of TS misuse were observed among adolescents who smoked cigarettes and engaged in less sports. Conclusions TS misuse prevalence among Estonian adolescents increased significantly from 2003 to 2019. Misuse was strongly associated with medical use, perceived easy access and friends’ TS misuse. These findings emphasise the need for targeted prevention strategies, including improving prescription practices, limiting TS access and promoting healthy behaviours and positive peer relationships among adolescents.
Preprint
Full-text available
Background Less is known about the underlying role of social support in the association between non-medical use of prescription drugs (NUMPD) and emotional and behavioral Problems (EBPs). This study sought to explore association among NMUPD, social support and EBPs in Chinese youth. Methods A multi-stage, stratified-cluster, random-sampling method was utilized to invite 23,364 adolescents aged 10–21 years from Guangdong province to complete standard questionnaires. Data on EBPs and social support were collected using the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ) and the Adolescent Social Support Scale. Results The reported prevalence of sedative misuse, opioid misuse and any prescription drug use (APDU) was 1.3%, 0.4% and 1.5%, respectively. Multivariable linear regression models showed that non-medical use of opioid (adjusted β estimate = 2.06, 95%CI = 1.53–2.60), sedative (adjusted β estimate = 2.15, 95%CI = 1.20–3.09) and APDU (adjusted β estimate = 1.89, 95%CI = 1.40–2.37) maintained a positive association with total difficulties. Mediation analyses showed that the standardized indirect effects of NMUPD on total difficulties mediated by social support had statistical significance (P < 0.001) and mediating effect was between 14.75% and 27.50%. Conclusions Significant associations exist between NMUPD and EBPs. Social support significantly mediated association between NMUPD and EBPs. Drug abuse monitoring system targeted at adolescents could be established and social support from parents, teachers and peers are highly recommended to facilitate the mental health of adolescents.
Article
Introduction Over the counter and prescription-only medication misuse is of concern. Little is known about the impact on friends/family who provide individuals with support. It is important to increase understanding to identify how substance misuse services (SMS) and others can better meet their needs. The aim is to explore the impact of over the counter and prescription-only medication misuse on friends/family and improve an understanding of how this may be reduced. Methods Ethical approval was obtained and confidential semi-structured interviews were undertaken with a modified grounded theory approach. Participants were recruited from community adult SMS in England. Verbatim transcripts underwent thematic analysis using NVIVO, and findings are reported in line with COREQ. Results Eight telephone interviews (62.5% female) included a variety of different friend/relative relationships. Data saturation was felt to have been achieved, and identified that friends/family were significantly impacted, in long-standing and varying negative ways. Five themes were identified: impact on finances; impact of managing side-effects/withdrawal symptoms; impact on relationships; treatment interventions and personal support. Especially due to the psychological burden, friends/family benefit from holistic support, including improved awareness of over the counter and prescription-only medication misuse and interventions from healthcare/SMS providers, social services, affected others and their personal support network. Relationships where honesty and openness are encouraged, enable friends/family to provide more support and advocacy. Conclusions Care providers should include friends/family when delivering holistic interventions. They should be vigilant for safeguarding issues and the impact on children, and improve approaches to withdrawal symptom/side-effect management, medicines optimisation and service responsiveness. Future research should include more participants and other SMS.
Article
Full-text available
Introduction: There is an increasing concern about the misuse of prescription drugs. Misuse refers to the intentional repurposing of prescribed drugs and/or the use of illicitly sourced prescription drugs, which may be counterfeit or contaminated. Drugs with the greatest potential for misuse are prescription opioids, gabapentinoids, benzodiazepines, Z-drugs and stimulants. Objective: The aim of this study is to provide a comprehensive analysis of the supply, patterns of use and health burden associated with prescription drugs with potential for misuse (PDPM) in Ireland between 2010 and 2020. Three inter-related studies will be carried out. The first study will describe trends in supply of PDPM using law enforcement drug seizures data and national prescription records from national community and prison settings. The second study aims to estimate trends in the detection of PDPM across multiple early warning systems using national forensic toxicology data. The third study aims to quantify the health burden associated with PDPM nationally, using epidemiological indicators of drug-poisoning deaths, non-fatal intentional drug overdose presentations to hospitals and drug treatment demand. Methods and analysis: A retrospective observational study design, with repeated cross-sectional analyses, using negative binomial regression models or, where appropriate, joinpoint regression. Ethics and dissemination: The study has received approval from the RCSI Ethics Committee (REC202202020). Results will be disseminated in peer-reviewed journals, scientific and drug policy meetings and with key stakeholders via research briefs.
Article
Full-text available
Female substance abusers recruited from the community were randomly assigned to receive 1 of 3 brief interventions that differentially targeted their personality and reasons for drug use. The 90-min interventions were: (a) a motivation-matched intervention involving personality-specific motivational and coping skills training, (b) a motivational control intervention involving a motivational film and a supportive discussion with a therapist, and (c) a motivation-mismatched intervention targeting a theoretically different personality profile. Assessment 6 months later (N = 198) indicated that only the matched intervention proved to be more effective than the motivational control intervention in reducing frequency and severity of problematic alcohol and drug use and preventing use of multiple medical services. These findings indicate promise for a client-treatment matching strategy that focuses on personality-specific motives for substance abuse.
Article
Aims To examine the prevalence rates and correlates of non-medical use of prescription stimulants (Ritalin, Dexedrine or Adderall) among US college students in terms of student and college characteristics. Design A self-administered mail survey. Setting One hundred and nineteen nationally representative 4-year colleges in the United States. Participants A representative sample of 10 904 randomly selected college students in 2001. Measurements Self-reports of non-medical use of prescription stimulants and other substance use behaviors. Findings The life-time prevalence of non-medical prescription stimulant use was 6.9%, past year prevalence was 4.1% and past month prevalence was 2.1%. Past year rates of non-medical use ranged from zero to 25% at individual colleges. Multivariate regression analyses indicated non-medical use was higher among college students who were male, white, members of fraternities and sororities and earned lower grade point averages. Rates were higher at colleges located in the north-eastern region of the US and colleges with more competitive admission standards. Non-medical prescription stimulant users were more likely to report use of alcohol, cigarettes, marijuana, ecstasy, cocaine and other risky behaviors. Conclusions The findings of the present study provide evidence that nonmedical use of prescription stimulants is more prevalent among particular subgroups of US college students and types of colleges. The non-medical use of prescription stimulants represents a high-risk behavior that should be monitored further and intervention efforts are needed to curb this form of drug use.
Article
Article
There is little recent research on the illicit use of prescription stimulants such as methylphenidate on college campuses. Given the increasing number of amphetamine prescriptions for attention deficit-hyperactivity disorder in older adolescents, non-medical use seems likely to occur. The present study surveyed undergraduates at a small college in the USA on their use of both legal and illegal stimulants; 35.5% of undergraduates who were convenience-sampled had used prescription amphetamines illicitly (defined as use without a prescription), with men reporting more use than women. Motivations were primarily academic, but 19.3% of students reported using prescription stimulants in combination with alcohol for recreational reasons. In addition, 34% of the sample reported using either cocaine or MDMA in the previous year. Motivations for use of illegal stimulants were primarily recreational. Sensation seeking appears to be a correlate of both types of stimulant use; for abuse of prescription drugs, being both high in sensation seeking and more perfectionistic is associated with greater use. Abuse of prescription and illegal stimulants appears to be widespread in this college sample.
Article
In clinical or forensic practice there are few studies assessing which risk factors are associated with heroin overdoses. A series of 76 consecutive non-fatal heroin overdoses were compared to 22 consecutive subjects who self-injected heroin within 1 h before admission to the emergency room. Whereas blood levels of alcohol and IgE and urinary cocaine metabolite levels were similar in both groups, higher benzodiazepine plasma levels were detected in the heroin overdose group. The assessment of methadone, dextropropoxyphene, amphetamines and cannabis in urine analysis did not show differences between both groups. The interview revealed that only 48% of subjects in the heroin overdose group self-administered the last dose of heroin before admission in the usual setting as compared to 100% of subjects in the non-overdose group. The application of a log-linear regression model identified self-injection of heroin in an unusual place and plasma concentrations of total morphine and benzodiazepines as risk factors for heroin overdose.
Article
To identify issues related to the quality of health care in the United States, including its measurement, assessment, and improvement, requiring action by health care professionals or other constituencies in the public or private sectors. The National Roundtable on Health Care Quality, convened by the Institute of Medicine, a component of the National Academy of Sciences, comprised 20 representatives of the private and public sectors, practicing medicine and nursing, representing academia, business, consumer advocacy, and the health media, and including the heads of federal health programs. The roundtable met 6 times between February 1996 and January 1998. It explored ongoing, rapid changes in health care and the implications of these changes for the quality of health and health care in the United States. Roundtable members held discussions with a wide variety of experts, convened conferences, commissioned papers, and drew on their individual professional experience. At the end of its deliberations, roundtable members reached consensus on the conclusions described in this article by a series of discussions at committee meetings and reviews of successive draft documents, the first of which was created by the listed authors and the Institute of Medicine project director. The drafts were revised following these discussions, and the final document was approved according to the formal report review procedures of the National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences. The quality of health care can be precisely defined and measured with a degree of scientific accuracy comparable with that of most measures used in clinical medicine. Serious and widespread quality problems exist throughout American medicine. These problems, which may be classified as underuse, overuse, or misuse, occur in small and large communities alike, in all parts of the country, and with approximately equal frequency in managed care and fee-for-service systems of care. Very large numbers of Americans are harmed as a direct result. Quality of care is the problem, not managed care. Current efforts to improve will not succeed unless we undertake a major, systematic effort to overhaul how we deliver health care services, educate and train clinicians, and assess and improve quality.
Article
The past decade has seen a generalized upward trend in the prevalence of adolescent use of substances, including stimulants. The purpose of this article was to determine the prevalence of and risk factors for the medical and nonmedical use of stimulants, and the diversion of prescribed stimulants among adolescent students, and to demonstrate links between medical use, nonmedical use and the diversion of stimulants. A self-reported anonymous questionnaire was administered in 1998 to a random sample of students in grades 7, 9, 10 and 12 in New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, and Newfoundland and Labrador about their medical and nonmedical use of stimulants (Benzedrine, Dexedrine, Ritalin, Cylert, diet pills, "speed," "uppers," "bennies" and "pep pills"). A total of 13,549 students completed the questionnaire, representing a 99% participation rate among the students present at school on the day of the survey. Of the 5.3% of students who reported medical use of stimulants in the 12 months before the survey, 14.7% reported having given some of their medication, 7.3% having sold some of their medication, 4.3% having experienced theft and 3.0% having been forced to give up some of their medication. Nonmedical stimulant use by students who did not have a prescription for stimulants was significantly related to increased numbers of students who gave or sold some of their prescribed stimulants, at both the school class and individual student levels (p < 0.001). Although the vast majority of adolescent students taking prescribed stimulants appeared to be using their medication as sanctioned, a link was found between medical and nonmedical stimulant use and the diversion of medication from sanctioned to unsanctioned use.
Article
To assess the prevalence of illicit methylphenidate use among undergraduate college students at a large university, and to identify alcohol and other drug use behaviors, as well as the negative consequences and risk factors, associated with illicit methylphenidate use. Internet survey. Large public university. Thirty-five hundred randomly selected undergraduate students. Of the 2250 students who completed the survey, 3% reported past-year illicit methylphenidate use. Illicit methylphenidate users were significantly more likely to use alcohol and drugs and report adverse alcohol- and drug-related consequences than prescription stimulant users or students who did not use stimulants. Undergraduate men and women were equally likely to report past-year illicit methylphenidate use. Weekly party behavior was significantly associated with past-year illicit methylphenidate use. Illicit use of prescription-only stimulants on college campuses is a potentially serious public health issue. More work is needed to promote understanding and awareness of this problem among clinicians and researchers.
Article
This present study investigated the prevalence and the factors associated with the use, misuse, and diversion of prescribed stimulant medication for attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in a sample of middle and high school students. As part of a school-based, self-administered web survey in May 2002, students from a Midwestern public school district in the United States in grades six through eleven (n = 1536) reported on three aspects of prescription stimulants; they reported on their use, misuse, and diversion (e.g. trading, selling, offering) of stimulant medication for ADHD. The total student sample was 57% White, 40% African American, and 3% other racial and ethnic groups. Gender and school level were approximately equally distributed in the student sample, and 81% of students had plans to attend college. The illicit use of stimulant medication was reported by 4.5% of the overall sample. Of the students who reported prescription stimulant use, 23.3% reported being approached to sell, give, or trade their prescription drugs. After adjusting for socio-demographic factors, the odds for illicit use of stimulant medication was lower among African American students and higher among those students with no plans for attending college. When compared with students who did not use stimulants or who did not misuse stimulant medications also reported significantly higher rates of alcohol and other drug use. High schools students had the highest rates of alcohol and other drug use. High schools students had the highest odds for being approached to divert their stimulant medications. Our findings suggest that community-based approaches are needed to reduce the illicit use and diversion of stimulant medications within middle and high school student populations.