Introducing the evidence-based population health tool of the lower-risk cannabis use guidelines to Brazil

9Citations
Citations of this article
64Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Cannabis is the most commonly used illegal drug, and is associated with well-documented adverse health outcomes, both acute and chronic. Cannabis use prevalence in Brazil is lower than in high-use regions in the Americas (e.g., North America), but concentrated among young people. Frameworks for cannabis control are increasingly shifting towards public health-oriented principles, with some countries undertaking respective policy reforms. These frameworks require a continuum of populationlevel interventions (e.g., prevention and treatment) including targeted prevention of adverse health outcomes among users. In this context, and based on examples from other health fields, an international expert group developed the evidence-based Lower-Risk Cannabis Use Guidelines (LRCUG), originally for Canada, including a set of 10 recommendations based on systematic data reviews and expert consensus methods. The LRCUG form a scientific population-health prevention tool to reduce adverse public health impacts for broad application among cannabis users. In Canada, the LRCUG have been formally endorsed and are supported by leading national health organizations and government authorities within the continuum of cannabis interventions. As the LRCUG are being internationalized, this paper introduces the LRCUG’s concept and content – including their original recommendations translated into Portuguese – to the Brazilian context as an evidence-based population-level intervention tool for uptake, dissemination, and discussion. Sociocultural adaptation may be required for meaningful implementation.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Fischer, B., Malta, M., Messas, G., & Ribeiro, M. (2019). Introducing the evidence-based population health tool of the lower-risk cannabis use guidelines to Brazil. Brazilian Journal of Psychiatry, 41(6), 550–555. https://doi.org/10.1590/1516-4446-2018-0239

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free