Scoping review analyzes drug use patterns among women in Latin America, highlighting gender and sociocultural aspects.
Aim: To analyze how psychoactive substance (PS) use among Latin American women is addressed between 2000 and 2024, considering theoretical perspectives, dimensions, variables employed, and methodological strategies. Methods: This scoping review followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews guidelines. An intersectional perspective was employed for the analysis. The literature search included databases such as PubMed and Scielo, covering studies from 2000 to 2024. Eligibility criteria included empirical studies in Spanish, English, or Portuguese. Five researchers evaluated and extracted data. The information was organized in tables and figures. Results: A total of 53 studies were selected out of 556, based on inclusion criteria related to gender, substance use, and regional context. Brazil and Mexico led the academic production, with most studies published between 2004 and 2024, primarily using quantitative descriptive methods. The studies are grouped into 5 themes: prevalence, sociocultural aspects, violence and risks, vulnerable groups, and interventions and treatments. Alcohol and tobacco use were the most studied, followed by marijuana, cocaine, and crack. However, polydrug use and recreational consumption were less explored, as were the experiences of transgender and gender-diverse individuals. Only 4 studies applied an intersectional approach, while most analyses were limited to binary gender perspectives. Discussion: PS use among women reflects complex inequalities tied to gender, race, and class, amplified by structural violence and socioeconomic barriers. Strengthening regional collaboration, adopting intersectional approaches, and diversifying study populations are essential for designing inclusive and effective interventions. Research must overcome current gaps and address underexplored topics like recreational consumption and gender-diverse experiences.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Antelo et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: