准确但有问题:芬兰服务系统中专业人士对基于大脑的成瘾的分歧看法

IF 1.5 4区 社会学 Q3 SUBSTANCE ABUSE
Nina Jokirinne, Matilda Hellman, Syaron Basnet, Petteri Koivula
{"title":"准确但有问题:芬兰服务系统中专业人士对基于大脑的成瘾的分歧看法","authors":"Nina Jokirinne, Matilda Hellman, Syaron Basnet, Petteri Koivula","doi":"10.1080/09687637.2023.2277659","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"AbstractBackground There is an ongoing debate regarding the value and applicability of brain-based understandings of addiction. This study examines how professionals in the Finnish addiction service system view this matter.Methods The study participants (n = 997) were recruited at different levels of policy-making, treatment, prevention work, education, administration and research. We created an online questionnaire containing both multiple-choice and open-ended questions. Quantitative and qualitative analyses were performed.Results There was a broad agreement among survey participants regarding the relevance and importance of brain-based understandings, per se. The support seemed to have increased a great deal in the past decades. On a closer view, a dichotomous attitude prevailed among the respondents: They expressed robust support for etiologies and ontologies of brain-based addiction, but simultaneously acknowledged some greater risks with neurocentrism and with wider implementations of neuroscientifically based interventions. New divisions of responsibility and the weakening of rights among concerned parties were presented as risk scenarios. The respondents feared that a medicalization of addiction would sideline social approaches.Conclusion The Finnish addiction service professionals were not prepared to let brain-based ideas of addiction guide the country’s addiction services but saw them as a useful supplementary hermeneutic and pedagogic tool.Keywords: Brain-based addiction paradigmaddiction service systemexpert viewsexpert perceptionssubstance use addictionaddiction Disclosure statementNo potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).Additional informationFundingThe research was funded through the ERA-NET NEURON ELSA-call [No. 01GP1823]. The consortium’s Finnish part was funded by the Academy of Finland. Two of the authors were also partly funded by a cooperation contract with the Finnish Institute for Welfare and Health (THL), based on Section 52 in the Lotteries act. The Signe and Ane Gyllenberg Foundation has co-funded the work of Hellman and Koivula.","PeriodicalId":11367,"journal":{"name":"Drugs: Education, Prevention and Policy","volume":" 11","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Accurate yet problematic: the divided sentiments regarding brain-based addiction by professionals in the Finnish service system\",\"authors\":\"Nina Jokirinne, Matilda Hellman, Syaron Basnet, Petteri Koivula\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/09687637.2023.2277659\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"AbstractBackground There is an ongoing debate regarding the value and applicability of brain-based understandings of addiction. This study examines how professionals in the Finnish addiction service system view this matter.Methods The study participants (n = 997) were recruited at different levels of policy-making, treatment, prevention work, education, administration and research. We created an online questionnaire containing both multiple-choice and open-ended questions. Quantitative and qualitative analyses were performed.Results There was a broad agreement among survey participants regarding the relevance and importance of brain-based understandings, per se. The support seemed to have increased a great deal in the past decades. On a closer view, a dichotomous attitude prevailed among the respondents: They expressed robust support for etiologies and ontologies of brain-based addiction, but simultaneously acknowledged some greater risks with neurocentrism and with wider implementations of neuroscientifically based interventions. New divisions of responsibility and the weakening of rights among concerned parties were presented as risk scenarios. The respondents feared that a medicalization of addiction would sideline social approaches.Conclusion The Finnish addiction service professionals were not prepared to let brain-based ideas of addiction guide the country’s addiction services but saw them as a useful supplementary hermeneutic and pedagogic tool.Keywords: Brain-based addiction paradigmaddiction service systemexpert viewsexpert perceptionssubstance use addictionaddiction Disclosure statementNo potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).Additional informationFundingThe research was funded through the ERA-NET NEURON ELSA-call [No. 01GP1823]. The consortium’s Finnish part was funded by the Academy of Finland. Two of the authors were also partly funded by a cooperation contract with the Finnish Institute for Welfare and Health (THL), based on Section 52 in the Lotteries act. The Signe and Ane Gyllenberg Foundation has co-funded the work of Hellman and Koivula.\",\"PeriodicalId\":11367,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Drugs: Education, Prevention and Policy\",\"volume\":\" 11\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-11-09\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Drugs: Education, Prevention and Policy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/09687637.2023.2277659\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"SUBSTANCE ABUSE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Drugs: Education, Prevention and Policy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/09687637.2023.2277659","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"SUBSTANCE ABUSE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

摘要背景关于基于大脑的成瘾理解的价值和适用性一直存在争论。本研究考察了芬兰成瘾服务系统的专业人员如何看待这一问题。方法从决策、治疗、预防、教育、行政和科研等不同层面招募997名研究对象。我们制作了一份包含多项选择题和开放式问题的在线问卷。进行了定量和定性分析。结果调查参与者对基于大脑的理解本身的相关性和重要性有广泛的共识。在过去的几十年里,这种支持似乎增加了很多。从更近的角度来看,两种态度在受访者中盛行:他们对基于大脑的成瘾的病因和本体论表示强烈支持,但同时承认神经中心主义和基于神经科学的干预措施的更广泛实施存在更大的风险。新的责任划分和有关各方之间权利的削弱被视为风险情景。受访者担心成瘾的医学化会使社会方法边缘化。芬兰的成瘾服务专家并不准备让基于大脑的成瘾观念指导该国的成瘾服务,而是将其视为一种有用的补充解释学和教学工具。关键词:脑基成瘾范式成瘾服务系统专家观点专家感知物质使用成瘾披露声明作者未报告潜在利益冲突。本研究由ERA-NET NEURON ELSA-call [No. 5]资助。01 gp1823]。该联盟的芬兰部分由芬兰科学院资助。其中两名作者还根据《彩票法》第52条与芬兰福利和健康研究所签订的合作合同获得了部分资助。Signe and Ane Gyllenberg基金会共同资助了Hellman和Koivula的工作。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Accurate yet problematic: the divided sentiments regarding brain-based addiction by professionals in the Finnish service system
AbstractBackground There is an ongoing debate regarding the value and applicability of brain-based understandings of addiction. This study examines how professionals in the Finnish addiction service system view this matter.Methods The study participants (n = 997) were recruited at different levels of policy-making, treatment, prevention work, education, administration and research. We created an online questionnaire containing both multiple-choice and open-ended questions. Quantitative and qualitative analyses were performed.Results There was a broad agreement among survey participants regarding the relevance and importance of brain-based understandings, per se. The support seemed to have increased a great deal in the past decades. On a closer view, a dichotomous attitude prevailed among the respondents: They expressed robust support for etiologies and ontologies of brain-based addiction, but simultaneously acknowledged some greater risks with neurocentrism and with wider implementations of neuroscientifically based interventions. New divisions of responsibility and the weakening of rights among concerned parties were presented as risk scenarios. The respondents feared that a medicalization of addiction would sideline social approaches.Conclusion The Finnish addiction service professionals were not prepared to let brain-based ideas of addiction guide the country’s addiction services but saw them as a useful supplementary hermeneutic and pedagogic tool.Keywords: Brain-based addiction paradigmaddiction service systemexpert viewsexpert perceptionssubstance use addictionaddiction Disclosure statementNo potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).Additional informationFundingThe research was funded through the ERA-NET NEURON ELSA-call [No. 01GP1823]. The consortium’s Finnish part was funded by the Academy of Finland. Two of the authors were also partly funded by a cooperation contract with the Finnish Institute for Welfare and Health (THL), based on Section 52 in the Lotteries act. The Signe and Ane Gyllenberg Foundation has co-funded the work of Hellman and Koivula.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.30
自引率
10.50%
发文量
64
期刊介绍: Drugs: education, prevention & policy is a refereed journal which aims to provide a forum for communication and debate between policy makers, practitioners and researchers concerned with social and health policy responses to legal and illicit drug use and drug-related harm. The journal publishes multi-disciplinary research papers, commentaries and reviews on policy, prevention and harm reduction issues regarding the use and misuse of alcohol, tobacco and other drugs. It is journal policy to encourage submissions which reflect different cultural, historical and theoretical approaches to the development of policy and practice.
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信