Contingency Management for Dually Diagnosed Inpatients with Psychosis.

Contingency management (CM) is an evidence-based treatment method in substance abuse treatment. However, little is known about its efficacy in dually diagnosed patients with psychosis and in inpatient settings. Therefore, the aim of this study is to investigate the efficacy of CM for dually diagnosed patients with psychosis in an inpatient setting. Furthermore, we investigate the effect of the nature of the reward used (cash vs. prize) on the efficacy of CM. We made use of an 8-week fish-bowl CM intervention by means of a within-subject reversal design with three treatment phases (baseline-intervention-follow-up). Sixty-seven patients were included in this study, of whom thirty-four completed the protocol. The results show no effect of CM on abstinence nor an interaction with clinical or demographic variables. Cash money is as effective as prizes. Future research should further investigate the effect of psychosis and treatment setting on the efficacy of CM, with special attention for Patient Report Experience and Outcome Measures (PREM/PROM).

Neuroscience-informed classification of prevention interventions in substance use disorders: An RDoC-based approach.

Neuroscience has contributed to uncover the mechanisms underpinning substance use disorders (SUD). The next frontier is to leverage these mechanisms as active targets to create more effective interventions for SUD treatment and prevention. Recent large-scale cohort studies from early childhood are generating multiple levels of neuroscience-based information with the potential to inform the development and refinement of future preventive strategies. However, there are still no available well-recognized frameworks to guide the integration of these multi-level datasets into prevention interventions. The Research Domain Criteria (RDoC) provides a neuroscience-based multi-system framework that is well suited to facilitate translation of neurobiological mechanisms into behavioral domains amenable to preventative interventions. We propose a novel RDoC-based framework for prevention science and adapted the framework for the existing preventive interventions. From a systematic review of randomized controlled trials using a person-centered drug/alcohol preventive approach for adolescents, we identified 22 unique preventive interventions. By teasing apart these 22 interventions into the RDoC domains, we proposed distinct neurocognitive trajectories which have been recognized as precursors or risk factors for SUDs, to be targeted, engaged and modified for effective addiction prevention.

World addiction medicine reports: formation of the International Society of Addiction Medicine Global Expert Network (ISAM-GEN) and its global surveys.

Addiction medicine is a dynamic field that encompasses clinical practice and research in the context of societal, economic, and cultural factors at the local, national, regional, and global levels. This field has evolved profoundly during the past decades in terms of scopes and activities with the contribution of addiction medicine scientists and professionals globally. The dynamic nature of drug addiction at the global level has resulted in a crucial need for developing an international collaborative network of addiction societies, treatment programs and experts to monitor emerging national, regional, and global concerns. This protocol paper presents methodological details of running longitudinal surveys at national, regional, and global levels through the Global Expert Network of the International Society of Addiction Medicine (ISAM-GEN). The initial formation of the network with a recruitment phase and a round of snowball sampling provided 354 experts from 78 countries across the globe. In addition, 43 national/regional addiction societies/associations are also included in the database. The surveys will be developed by global experts in addiction medicine on treatment services, service coverage, co-occurring disorders, treatment standards and barriers, emerging addictions and/or dynamic changes in treatment needs worldwide. Survey participants in categories of (1) addiction societies/associations, (2) addiction treatment programs, (3) addiction experts/clinicians and (4) related stakeholders will respond to these global longitudinal surveys. The results will be analyzed and cross-examined with available data and peer-reviewed for publication.

Clinician treatment choices for post-traumatic stress disorder: ambassadors survey of psychiatrists in 39 European countries.

BACKGROUND: Considering the recently growing number of potentially traumatic events in Europe, the European Psychiatric Association undertook a study to investigate clinicians' treatment choices for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). METHODS: The case-based analysis included 611 participants, who correctly classified the vignette as a case of PTSD, from Central/ Eastern Europe (CEE) (n = 279), Southern Europe (SE) (n = 92), Northern Europe (NE) (n = 92), and Western Europe (WE) (N = 148). RESULTS: About 82% woulduse antidepressants (sertraline being the most preferred one). Benzodiazepines and antipsychotics were significantly more frequently recommended by participants from CEE (33 and 4%, respectively), compared to participants from NE (11 and 0%) and SE (9% and 3%). About 52% of clinicians recommended trauma-focused cognitive behavior therapy and 35% psychoeducation, irrespective of their origin. In the latent class analysis, we identified four distinct "profiles" of clinicians. In Class 1 (N = 367), psychiatrists would less often recommend any antidepressants. In Class 2 (N = 51), clinicians would recommend trazodone and prolonged exposure therapy. In Class 3 (N = 65), they propose mirtazapine and eye movement desensitization reprocessing therapy. In Class 4 (N = 128), clinicians propose different types of medications and cognitive processing therapy. About 50.1% of participants in each region stated they do not adhere to recognized treatment guidelines. CONCLUSIONS: Clinicians' decisions for PTSD are broadly similar among European psychiatrists, but regional differences suggest the need for more dialogue and education to harmonize practice across Europe and promote the use of guidelines.