Looking for the Best Way to Come Off Steroids Safely? Exploring Post-Cycle Therapy, Cessation, and Recovery Discourse and Practice in Australian Steroid Consumer Forums.

IF 2.6 3区 医学 Q2 SUBSTANCE ABUSE
Jonathan Easton, Bonnie Grant, Geoffrey Spurling, Raphael Magnolini, Timothy Piatkowski
{"title":"Looking for the Best Way to Come Off Steroids Safely? Exploring Post-Cycle Therapy, Cessation, and Recovery Discourse and Practice in Australian Steroid Consumer Forums.","authors":"Jonathan Easton, Bonnie Grant, Geoffrey Spurling, Raphael Magnolini, Timothy Piatkowski","doi":"10.1111/dar.70042","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Anabolic-androgenic steroid (AAS) use is rising in Australia; however, discontinuation poses challenges due to withdrawal symptoms and a lack of clinical guidance. Therefore, the aim of this study was to explore online discourses around post-cycle therapy (PCT), including perceived health risks, benefits and barriers, among people who use AAS.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This study employed a digital ethnographic approach to explore Australian 'steroid forums' discussing PCT. Data were collected by extracting posts containing relevant keywords across four selected forums, with analysis guided by the Health Belief Model to identify barriers, facilitators and perceptions related to PCT.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 150 threads and 5059 posts from 580 unique forum users were analysed. Key barriers to PCT engagement included social influences, aggressive anti-PCT discourse and regulatory constraints. Benefits of PCT were recognised in preventing side effects and preserving muscle gains. Consumers shared concerns about hormonal imbalance, sexual health and long-term damage, which were driving forces behind seeking advice on PCT.</p><p><strong>Discussion and conclusions: </strong>This study highlights the role of online forums in shaping AAS consumers' understanding of PCT, where peer-driven knowledge networks facilitate harm reduction. However, inconsistent advice and the lack of clear clinical guidelines, compounded by the lack of prospective studies, contribute to uncertainty and risk. This underscores the need for evidence-based, non-stigmatising support in healthcare.</p>","PeriodicalId":11318,"journal":{"name":"Drug and alcohol review","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Drug and alcohol review","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/dar.70042","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SUBSTANCE ABUSE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: Anabolic-androgenic steroid (AAS) use is rising in Australia; however, discontinuation poses challenges due to withdrawal symptoms and a lack of clinical guidance. Therefore, the aim of this study was to explore online discourses around post-cycle therapy (PCT), including perceived health risks, benefits and barriers, among people who use AAS.

Methods: This study employed a digital ethnographic approach to explore Australian 'steroid forums' discussing PCT. Data were collected by extracting posts containing relevant keywords across four selected forums, with analysis guided by the Health Belief Model to identify barriers, facilitators and perceptions related to PCT.

Results: A total of 150 threads and 5059 posts from 580 unique forum users were analysed. Key barriers to PCT engagement included social influences, aggressive anti-PCT discourse and regulatory constraints. Benefits of PCT were recognised in preventing side effects and preserving muscle gains. Consumers shared concerns about hormonal imbalance, sexual health and long-term damage, which were driving forces behind seeking advice on PCT.

Discussion and conclusions: This study highlights the role of online forums in shaping AAS consumers' understanding of PCT, where peer-driven knowledge networks facilitate harm reduction. However, inconsistent advice and the lack of clear clinical guidelines, compounded by the lack of prospective studies, contribute to uncertainty and risk. This underscores the need for evidence-based, non-stigmatising support in healthcare.

寻找安全停用类固醇的最佳方法?在澳大利亚类固醇消费者论坛上探索周期后治疗、停止和恢复的话语和实践。
简介:合成代谢雄激素类固醇(AAS)的使用在澳大利亚正在上升;然而,由于戒断症状和缺乏临床指导,停药会带来挑战。因此,本研究的目的是探讨在使用AAS的人群中围绕月经后治疗(PCT)的在线话语,包括感知到的健康风险、益处和障碍。方法:本研究采用数字人种志方法来探索澳大利亚讨论PCT的“类固醇论坛”,通过在四个选定的论坛中提取包含相关关键词的帖子来收集数据,并在健康信念模型的指导下进行分析,以确定与PCT相关的障碍、促进因素和认知。结果:共分析了来自580个独立论坛用户的150个帖子和5059个帖子。参与PCT的主要障碍包括社会影响、激进的反PCT言论和监管限制。PCT在预防副作用和保持肌肉增长方面的益处得到了认可。消费者对荷尔蒙失衡、性健康和长期损害的担忧是寻求PCT建议的推动力。讨论和结论:本研究强调了在线论坛在塑造AAS消费者对PCT的理解方面的作用,其中同行驱动的知识网络有助于减少危害。然而,不一致的建议和缺乏明确的临床指南,再加上缺乏前瞻性研究,导致了不确定性和风险。这强调了在医疗保健中需要循证、非污名化的支持。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Drug and alcohol review
Drug and alcohol review SUBSTANCE ABUSE-
CiteScore
4.80
自引率
10.50%
发文量
151
期刊介绍: Drug and Alcohol Review is an international meeting ground for the views, expertise and experience of all those involved in studying alcohol, tobacco and drug problems. Contributors to the Journal examine and report on alcohol and drug use from a wide range of clinical, biomedical, epidemiological, psychological and sociological perspectives. Drug and Alcohol Review particularly encourages the submission of papers which have a harm reduction perspective. However, all philosophies will find a place in the Journal: the principal criterion for publication of papers is their quality.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信