作者: Hannah L.F. Cooper , Barbara Tempalski
DOI: 10.1016/J.DRUGPO.2014.03.004
关键词: Poison control 、 Law 、 Health policy 、 Criminology 、 Context (language use) 、 Suicide prevention 、 Social determinants of health 、 Sociology 、 Poverty 、 Social structure 、 Social movement
摘要: Over the past 15 years, place has become increasingly prominent in research on drug use, users’ health, and policy. This line of inquiry, however, is not new. Interest ways which characteristics shape use health varied over time, often tandem with paradigm shifts extent to contextual factors have figured as possible determinants well-being. The 1800s witnessed an intensification interest how other shaped general substance misuse particular. In 1826, for example, Villerme analyzed tax death records Parisian arondissements concluded that mortality rates were highest impoverished neighborhoods.(Susser & Stein, 2009) Twenty years later, Virchow attributed typhus epidemic Upper Silesia (Prussia) local confluence several sociopolitical factors, including rise plutocracy immiseration working class.(Brown Fee, 2006) Likewise, physicians 1880s–1890s commonly ascribed opiate among affluent White men US cities strains constructing civilization midst rapid industrialization.(Cooper, 2004) This focus context diminished between World War I 1960s, was replaced by emphasis individual-level factors. During these decades, hysteria about communism made it difficult propose social (e.g., poverty) any form health-related outcome,(Krieger, 2000) successful biomedical interventions widespread access antibiotics) ascendance psychology psychiatry rendered frameworks attractive (Ellen, 1995). this period, addiction individual psychopathology, rather than broader factors.(Cooper, 2004) Contextual restored etiologic latter decades 20th century. restoration prompted part movements highlighted power structures challenges HIV/AIDS posed exclusively frameworks.(Fee Krieger, 1993; Krieger) moved foreground policy(Cooper, Bossak, Tempalski, Des Jarlais, Friedman, 2009; Strathdee et al., 2010; Thomas, Richardson, Cheung, 2008; Tempalski Mcquie, 2009), most notably formulation Rhodes’ Risk Environment Model, defined risk environment “space … [where] exogenous interact increase chances HIV transmission”.(Rhodes, Singer, Bourgois, Strathdee, 2005, p. 1027) Though a new policy, major remain. Key include theorizing place-making processes; defining measuring characteristics; delineating causal processes link relevant outcomes. Additionally, work content area been largely limited specific countries US, Canada, Australia) subpopulations within countries. special issue designed strengthen resurgence place, policy responding challenges.