Mathematical Modelling to Evaluate Measures and Control the Spread of Illicit Drug Use
Millions of street-involved-youth worldwide are vulnerable to using and trading illicit drugs, which also place this group at high risk of drug-related criminality and health problems. It is often the case that drug users begin trafficking under the social influences within the drug culture to generate income for supporting their drug habits. The relative merits of behavioural (primary) or law enforcement (secondary) interventions for controlling the spread of drug use are widely debated. In this paper, we develop a network model to evaluate the effectiveness of modelling strategies. A network model with traffickers, current drug users and potential users is constructed. Traffickers exert social influence on current users to deal drugs and on potential users to initiate drug use. Primary intervention prevents potential users from initiating drug use while secondary intervention acts to reduce initiation into trafficking. To accomplish this, we vary the hypothetical social influence parameters in the model. Next, we analyze the properties of this system using dynamical system methods including mean field approximation (MFA), fixed point theory and bifurcation analysis. Furthermore, to evaluate the relative effectiveness of the two interventions, we study the properties of the phase transition between a drug-free and a drug-endemic state at equilibrium mathematically. Drug-free and drug-endemic states are separated by a curved phase transition. Via the shape of the phase transition curve we obtain the optimal intervention. Our findings confirm that a combination of primary and secondary interventions is the optimal intervention strategy. The optimal mixture of the two strategies depends on the relative numbers of drug users and traffickers.
KeywordsNetwork Model Drug User Social Influence Bifurcation Curve Stable Node
- 1.A. Bakhtiari, Social Influences Among Drug users and Mean Field Approximation of Cellular Automata, Masters Thesis, (Simon Fraser University, 2009).Google Scholar
- 5.D.C. Des Jarlais, Preventing HIV infection among injection drug users: Intuitive and counter-intuitive findings.Applied & Preventive Psychology, (1999), 8:63–70.Google Scholar
- 6.M. Duryea, T. Caraco, G. Gardner, W. Maniatty, and B.K. Szymanski, Population dispersion and equilibrium infection frequency in a spatial epidemic.Physica D 132, 4 (1999), 511–519.Google Scholar
- 7.A. Ilachinski, Cellullar Automata, Discrete Universe World Scientific Publishing co., Inc; (2001).Google Scholar
- 10.B. Maas, N. Fairbairn, T. Kerr, K. Li, J. Montaner and E. Wood, Neighbourhood and HIV infection among IDU: place of residence independently predicts HIV infection among a cohort of injection drug users, Health & Place (2007), 13, 432–439.Google Scholar
- 11.B.M. Mathers, L. Degenhardt, B. Phillips, L. Wiessing, M. Hickman, S.A. Strathdee, A. Wodak, S. Panda, M. Tyndall, A. Touk, R.P. Mattick, Global epidemiology of injecting drug use and HIV among people who inject drugs: a systematic review. for the 2007 Reference Group to the UN on HIV and Injecting Drug Use: www.thelancet.com. (2008); vol 372, November 15.
- 12.D. Riley, Drugs and Drug Policy in Canada: A Brief Review & CommentaryCanadian Foundation for Drug Policy & International Harm Reduction Association.Google Scholar
- 14.S. Jenkins, Many Body Theory of Solids (Plenum, New York, 1984).Google Scholar
- 15.A. Taylor, M. Frischer, and R. Covell, Reduction in needle sharing among injection drug users,International conference AIDS (1992), July 19–24.Google Scholar
- 16.D. Werb, T. Kerr, K. Li, J. Montaner, and E. Wood, surrounding drug trade involvement among street-involved youth, American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse, (2008); 34(6): 810–1820.Google Scholar
- 17.S. Wolfram, A New Kind of Science,Wolfram Media, (2002).Google Scholar