Sociodemographic and Health Factors of the Alcohol Treatment-seeking Population in New South Wales, Australia.

OBJECTIVES: Although factors associated with alcohol use have been researched at a population level, descriptions of the alcohol and other drug (AOD) treatment-seeking population in New South Wales (NSW), Australia, are limited. This study addresses this gap by analyzing sociodemographic and health characteristics in the NSW AOD treatment-seeking population. METHODS: Self-reported Australian Treatment Outcomes Profile data on substance use, health ratings, and sociodemographic factors were acquired from public AOD services (offering services from counseling to ambulatory/inpatient withdrawal management) in 6 administrative health districts from 2016 to 2019 (n = 14,287). Gaussian and multiple logistic regressions were conducted to examine associations between these factors and alcohol consumption quantity. RESULTS: Data were analyzed for patients seeking treatment for alcohol consumption specifically (n = 5929; median age, 44 years; 65% male). Valid alcohol consumption data were available for 5460 patients, among whom the mean volume of alcohol consumed was 311 standard drinks (3110 grams of ethanol) over the past 28 days and 15 standard drinks (150 grams of ethanol) per occasion. Higher volumes were consumed by males and those with recent experiences of violence and/or injecting drug use. Caring for children younger than 5 years and having above-median health ratings were associated with lower alcohol consumption. CONCLUSIONS: This study contributes to the characterization of the NSW public AOD treatment population and identifies associations between alcohol consumption, sociodemographic factors, and health ratings among people seeking treatment for alcohol consumption. Findings point towards multilevel assessment and comprehensive interventions for people engaging in treatment for alcohol use. Future research should address barriers to treatment.

A systematic review on the effect of routine outcome monitoring and feedback on client outcomes in alcohol and other drug treatment.

ISSUES: Routine outcome monitoring (ROM) involves regularly measuring clients' outcomes during treatment, which can then be fed back to clinicians and/or clients. In the mental health field, ROM and feedback have been shown to improve client outcomes; however, no systematic reviews have examined whether improvement is also seen in alcohol and other drug (AOD) treatment outcomes. This review examines whether feedback to clients and/or clinicians of ROM data in AOD treatment improves future client outcomes. APPROACH: This systematic review of papers identified in Medline, PsycInfo and Scopus examines the effect on client outcomes of feeding back ROM data to clinicians and/or clients in AOD treatment settings. Key client outcomes included substance use, treatment attendance and wellbeing measures. KEY FINDINGS: Ten studies were included-five randomised controlled trials and five pre-post within-subjects designs. Six studies were deemed good- or fair-quality. Of these six, three provided feedback to clinicians only, one to clients only, and two to both clients and clinicians. Only one of the six found feedback was associated with significant reductions in substance use and only among off-track clients. Four of the six found feedback improved other outcomes, including treatment retention, global functioning, therapeutic alliance and mood symptoms. CONCLUSIONS: There may be some positive effects for clients of providing feedback to clients and/or clinicians; however, the small number of randomised trials and the heterogeneity of methods, outcome measures and findings, mean that firm conclusions cannot be drawn about the efficacy of feedback until larger randomised studies are conducted.

Identifying thresholds for clinically meaningful change among clients of drug and alcohol services using the Australian Treatment Outcomes Profile.

AIMS: The Austraian Treatment Outcomes Profile (ATOP) is a brief clinical outcomes tool used widely in the Australian alcohol and other drugs treatment sector to monitor clients' substance use, health, wellbeing and clinical risk factors. It has demonstrated reliability and validity, and has recommended clinical cut-offs for assessing single-occasion client-rated health scores. This study determined clinically meaningful change thresholds for ATOP substance use and health and wellbeing variables for use by clinicians in monitoring client progress, and for quality improvement and service evaluation. DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: A framework for assessing clinically meaningful changes scores was developed by (1) calculating statistically reliable change thresholds using data-driven techniques with a reference sample of clinical ATOP data and (2) conducting a multi-disciplinary subject matter expert group to review the utility and validity of data-derived clinically meaningful change. The study was conducted within Outpatient Alcohol and Other Drug treatment services in New South Wales, Australia. The reference sample comprised 6100 ATOPs from clients at entry to public outpatient Alcohol and Other Drug treatment services; the subject matter expert group comprised 29 key stakeholders from the specialist alcohol and other drug treatment sector. MEASUREMENTS AND FINDINGS: We used the Reliable Change Index method to calculate clinically meaningful change thresholds for ATOP variables. For substance use variables, a change of 30% in days of use in the last 28 (minimum 4 days) was the threshold for clinically meaningful change for substance use; for health and wellbeing variables, a change of 2 or more points in psychological health, physical health or quality of life scores (measured on 0-10 scales) was the minimum clinically meaningful change. CONCLUSIONS: Clinically meaningful change thresholds have been proposed for Australian Treatment Outcomes Profile substance use and health and wellbeing items, based on statistical reliability and subject matter expert assessment. These will be used in the development of an outcomes metric for assessing change and assigning meaning in aggregated data for evaluation of services.

Substance use, socio-demographic characteristics, and self-rated health of people seeking alcohol and other drug treatment in New South Wales: baseline findings from a cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the demographic characteristics, substance use, and self-rated health of people entering treatment in New South Wales public health services for alcohol, amphetamine-type stimulants, cannabis, cocaine, or opioids use, by principal drug of concern. DESIGN: Baseline findings of a cohort study; analysis of data in patient electronic medical records and NSW minimum data set for drug and alcohol treatment services. SETTING, PARTICIPANTS: People completing initial Australian Treatment Outcomes Profile (ATOP) assessments on entry to publicly funded alcohol and other drug treatment services in six NSW local health districts/networks, 1 July 2016 - 30 June 2019. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Socio-demographic characteristics, and substance use and self-rated health (psychological, physical, quality of life) during preceding 28 days, by principal drug of concern. RESULTS: Of 14 087 people included in our analysis, the principal drug of concern was alcohol for 6051 people (43%), opioids for 3158 (22%), amphetamine-type stimulants for 2534 (18%), cannabis for 2098 (15%), and cocaine for 246 (2%). Most people commencing treatment were male (9373, 66.5%), aged 20-39 years (7846, 50.4%), and were born in Australia (10 934, 86.7%). Polysubstance use was frequently reported, particularly by people for whom opioids or amphetamine-type stimulants were the principal drugs of concern. Large proportions used tobacco daily (53-82%, by principal drug of concern group) and reported poor psychological health (47-59%), poor physical health (32-44%), or poor quality of life (43-52%). CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence of social disadvantage and poor health is high among people seeking assistance with alcohol, amphetamine-type stimulants, cannabis, cocaine, or opioids use problems. Given the differences in these characteristics by principal drug of concern, health services should collect comprehensive patient information during assessment to facilitate more holistic, tailored, and person-centred care.

Health and social characteristics of clients reporting amphetamine type substance use at entry to public alcohol and other drug services in New South Wales, Australia, 2016-2019.

INTRODUCTION: Amphetamine type substances (ATS) are commonly used by Australian alcohol and other drug service entrants. We describe demographic characteristics, patterns of ATS and other substance use, health and social conditions among clients entering New South Wales (NSW) public alcohol and other drug services. METHODS: Retrospective cohort of 13,864 records across six health districts (2016-2019) for clients seeking substance use treatment. These districts service approximately 44% of the NSW population aged 15 years and over. Multivariate analysis was conducted on a subsample for whom full data were available (N = 9981). Data included NSW Minimum Data Set for drug and alcohol treatment services and Australian Treatment Outcomes Profile items. RESULTS: Over the preceding 4 weeks, 77% (n = 10,610) of clients (N = 13,864) reported no recent ATS use, 15% (n = 2109) reported 'low frequency' (1-12 days) and 8% (n = 1145) 'high frequency' (13-28 days) use. ATS use was most common among people attending for ATS or opioids as primary drug of concern. A multinomial regression (N = 9981) identified that clients reporting recent arrest (aOR 1.74, 95% CI 1.36, 2.24), higher cannabis use frequency (aOR 1.01, 95% CI 1.00, 1.02), lower opioid use frequency (aOR 0.98, 95% CI 0.97, 0.99) and poorer quality of life (aOR 0.91, 95% CI 0.86, 0.97) were more likely to report 'high frequency' rather than 'low frequency' ATS use. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: People who use ATS experience health and social issues that may require targeted responses. These should be integrated across all services, not only for clients with ATS as principal drug of concern.

Opioid agonist treatment and patient outcomes during the COVID-19 pandemic in south east Sydney, Australia.

INTRODUCTION: In early 2020, many services modified their delivery of opioid treatment in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, to limit viral spread and maintain treatment continuity. We describe the changes to treatment and preliminary analysis of the association with patients' substance use and well-being. METHODS: A pre-post comparison of treatment conditions and patient self-reported outcomes using data extracted from electronic medical records in the 5 months before (December 2019-April 2020) and after (May 2020-September 2020) changes were implemented in three public treatment services in South Eastern Sydney Local Health District. RESULTS: Data are available for 429/460 (93%) patients. Few (21, 5%) dropped out of treatment. In the 'post' period there was significantly more use of depot buprenorphine (12-24%), access to any take-away doses (TAD; 24-69%), access to ≥6 TAD per week (7-31%), pharmacy dosing (24-52%) and telehealth services. There were significant reductions in average opioid and benzodiazepine use, increases in cannabis use, with limited group changes in social conditions, or quality of life, psychological and physical health. At an individual level, 22% of patients reported increases in their use of either alcohol, opioids, benzodiazepines or stimulants of ≥4 days in the past 4 weeks. Regression analysis indicates increases in substance use were associated with higher levels of supervised dosing. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: These preliminary findings suggest that the modified model of care continued to provide safe and effective treatment, during the pandemic. Notably, there was no association between more TAD and significant increases in substance use. Limitations are discussed and further evaluation is needed.

Determining clinical cutoff scores for the Australian Treatment Outcomes Profile psychological health, physical health and quality of life questions.

INTRODUCTION: The Australian Treatment Outcomes Profile (ATOP) is a brief instrument that measures self-reported substance use, health, and wellbeing in the previous 28 days for people in alcohol and other drug treatment. Previous studies have established the concurrent validity, inter-rater, and test-retest reliability of the tool. The current study sought to identify recommended cutoff scores for ATOP items for psychological health, physical health and quality of life that identify clients reporting clinically significant problems warranting further assessment and/or intervention, compared to cutoffs used by 'gold-standard' measures for these domains. METHODS: Clients attending for treatment for problems with opioid (n = 144) or alcohol use (n = 134) completed the ATOP and comparison standardised questionnaires (Kessler-10, Short Form Survey 12 and the Personal Wellbeing Index) with a researcher. Receiver operating characteristics analysis, along with clinician perspectives, were used to recommend cutoff scores for ATOP items indicative of clinically significant problems. RESULTS: A cutoff score of 5 or less out of 10 was identified as an optimal pragmatic cutoff for ATOP items relating to psychological health, physical health and quality of life items with regards to balancing sensitivity, specificity, and application in a treatment setting. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: The recommended clinical cutoffs will support clinicians and treatment services to identify clients who require further assessment and follow up for their psychological health, physical health and quality of life. The current study provides further evidence for the utility of the ATOP for individual clinical review, service planning and research.

Assessing the concurrent validity, inter-rater reliability and test-re-test reliability of the Australian Treatment Outcomes Profile (ATOP) in alcohol and opioid treatment populations.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The Australian Treatment Outcomes Profile (ATOP) is a brief instrument measuring recent substance use, risk profile and general health and wellbeing among clients attending alcohol and other drug (AoD) treatment services. This study evaluates the ATOP for concurrent validity, inter-rater and test-re-test reliability among alcohol and opioid treatment groups. DESIGN: For concurrent validity and inter-rater reliability, participants completed an ATOP with a clinician and an ATOP plus standardized questionnaires (time-line follow-back, Opiate Treatment Index, Kessler-10, 12-item Short Form Survey, World Health Organization Quality of Life-BREF, Personal Wellbeing Index) with a researcher within 3 days. For test-re-test reliability, participants completed two ATOPs with a researcher within a 3-day interval. SETTING: Outpatient AoD treatment centres in Australia. PARTICIPANTS: For testing concurrent validity and inter-rater reliability, 278 participants were recruited by advertisements in waiting-rooms or clinician invitation during 2016 to 2018. A further 94 participants were recruited to examine test-re-test reliability. MEASUREMENTS: Statistical tests used for concurrent validity and test-re-test reliability were Pearson's and Spearman's rank order correlations for continuous variables, and Cohen's κ for nominal variables. Inter-rater reliability was assessed using Krippendorf's α. FINDINGS: Most Australian Treatment Outcomes Profile items returned excellent or moderate validity and reliability. For the main substances used-alcohol, cannabis and benzodiazepines-concurrent validity, inter-rater reliability and test-re-test reliability all reached excellent or good agreement (0.72-0.96). Psychological health, physical health and quality of life showed fair to strong agreement with their comparator scales (0.47-0.85). CONCLUSIONS: The Australian Treatment Outcomes Profile is a validated and reliable instrument for assessing recent substance use and clinical risk, health and welfare among alcohol and opioid clients in alcohol and other drug treatment settings. Its ability to reliably measure complex constructs, such as psychological and physical health, against longer scales makes it suitable for integration into routine clinical care, enabling regular monitoring of patient outcomes and safety parameters.

Assessing the validity of the Australian Treatment Outcomes Profile for telephone administration in drug health treatment populations.

INTRODUCTION AND AIMS: The Australian Treatment Outcomes Profile (ATOP) is a brief clinical tool measuring recent substance use, health and wellbeing among clients attending alcohol and other drug (AOD) treatment services. It has previously been assessed for concurrent validity and inter-rater reliability. In this study we examine whether it is suitable for administration over the telephone. DESIGN AND METHODS: We recruited a sample of 107 AOD clients across public sector specialist AOD treatment services in New South Wales, Australia between 2016 and 2018. Participants had a mean age of 47 years and 46% were female. Participants completed a face-to-face ATOP and a phone ATOP with a researcher within 5 days. Comparisons between the two administration modes were undertaken using Spearman's rank correlation coefficient for continuous or ordinal variables, and Cohen's Kappa for nominal variables. RESULTS: Among 107 participants, 59% were attending for alcohol treatment and 41% for opioid treatment. Most ATOP items (76%) reached above 0.7 (good) or 0.9 (excellent) agreement between face-to-face and telephone use. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that the ATOP is a suitable instrument for telephone monitoring of recent substance use, health and social functioning among AOD clients. Its validation for remote use over the telephone will support staff to monitor clients' risks and outcomes-of particular relevance in response to the COVID-19 pandemic in which services are increasingly relying on telework approaches to client monitoring.

Validation of the Australian Treatment Outcomes Profile for use in clients with cannabis dependence.

INTRODUCTION AND AIMS: The Australian Treatment Outcomes Profile (ATOP) was developed as a clinical tool for monitoring the substance use, health and wellbeing of clients in alcohol and other drug treatment. This is the first psychometric validation of the ATOP in a cannabis-dependent treatment population. DESIGN AND METHODS: A total of 128 individuals with cannabis dependence enrolled in an outpatient randomised controlled trial were administered the ATOP and gold-standard health and wellbeing questionnaires once by clinicians and once by researchers at baseline. Concurrent validity was assessed by testing ATOP Psychological Health, Physical Health and Quality of Life questions against concurrently administered gold-standard questionnaires: the Short Form 36 Health Survey (SF-36), the 21-item Depression, Anxiety and Stress Scale (DASS-21) and the Sheehan Disability Scale (SDS). Interrater reliability was tested by comparing clinician-administered ATOP items at the medical screening interview to the same ATOP items administered by researchers at baseline. RESULTS: ATOP Psychological Health showed moderate to strong correlations with SF-36 Mental Components, SF-36 Mental Health and DASS-21 scores (r = 0.40-0.52) and ATOP Physical Health with SF-36 Physical Components and SF-36 General Health scores (r = 0.36-0.67). The ATOP Quality of Life scale showed moderate agreement with the SDS and six-dimensional health state short form scales (r = 0.38-0.40). ATOP substance use, employment, education and child care items showed good to excellent interrater reliability (Krippendorff's α = 0.62-0.81), and tobacco use, Psychological Health, Physical Health and Quality of Life showed fair to moderate interrater reliability (Krippendorff's α = 0.42-0.53). DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: The ATOP appears to be valid and reliable when tested in a population with cannabis-dependence, justifying its widespread use in clinical settings.

Validation and implementation of the Australian Treatment Outcomes Profile in specialist drug and alcohol settings.

INTRODUCTION AND AIMS: The measurement of clinical outcomes is an important, but lacking, component of drug and alcohol treatment in Australia. This study aimed to psychometrically validate the Treatment Outcomes Profile under Australian conditions, examining implementation and feasibility issues in three public opioid treatment program clinics in NSW. DESIGN AND METHODS: The Treatment Outcomes Profile was modified to reflect Australian conditions and re-named the Australian Treatment Outcomes Profile (ATOP). The ATOP was introduced into the participating clinics and administered by clinic staff at 3-month intervals as part of routine clinical practice. Participants completed a research interview, consisting of the ATOP and a suite of 'gold standard' instruments assessing substance use and related health and welfare domains, in the 72 h following completion of a routine clinical ATOP. The researcher- and clinician-administered ATOPs were compared to assess interrater reliability, and the researcher-administered ATOP and 'gold standard' instruments were compared to assess concurrent validity. Implementation and feasibility issues were assessed using questionnaires and focus groups with clinician and clients. RESULTS: The ATOP demonstrated acceptable concurrent validity and interrater reliability. It was well received by clients and clinicians, particularly for its ease of use, applicability and brevity. CONCLUSIONS: The ATOP is a psychometrically valid instrument for the measurement of treatment outcomes in Australian opioid treatment populations and can feasibly be implemented as part of routine clinical practice in specialist opioid treatment program clinics. The role of the ATOP to measure outcomes in other drug and alcohol treatment modalities requires exploration.

The acceptability of combined methadone-naloxone treatment: Consumer and provider views on the potential utility of methadone-naloxone.

INTRODUCTION AND AIMS: The aim of the study was to investigate the acceptability of methadone-naloxone through interviews with potential consumers and treatment providers about their attitudes and beliefs about combining methadone with naloxone. DESIGN AND METHODS: Qualitative study with structured surveys and individual interviews with nine consumers and 11 treatment providers. RESULTS: Fear and issues around trust were identified as barriers to consumer acceptance of methadone-naloxone. Respect for the choices that consumers made about their treatment and drug use, and clear and open communication were identified as necessary to win consumer acceptance. Both groups had concerns about the safety and efficacy of methadone-naloxone compared with methadone, but also most identified potential benefits from a new opioid treatment option. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: For both groups, the acceptability of methadone-naloxone depended upon an informed assessment of risks and benefits best addressed by further research into the efficacy, tolerability and safety of methadone-naloxone.

The clinical efficacy and abuse potential of combination buprenorphine-naloxone in the treatment of opioid dependence.

BACKGROUND: Opioid dependence is a chronic relapsing condition for which long-term opioid substitution treatment (OST) is effective. However, safety and community acceptance of OST is compromised by diversion of prescribed medication. The development of a formulation combining buprenorphine and naloxone is designed to reduce the likelihood of intravenous misuse, and the therefore the value of the medication if diverted to the black market. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the evidence for 4:1 buprenorphine-naloxone as an efficacious OST, and as a deterrent to diversion and intravenous misuse. METHODS: The literature on buprenorphine-naloxone in a 4:1 ratio is reviewed. RESULTS/CONCLUSION: The addition of naloxone does not appear to affect the efficacy of buprenorphine as a maintenance drug. While offering some deterrence of injection through precipitated withdrawal, there are many circumstances where injecting of buprenorphine-naloxone is reinforcing rather than aversive. The combination will reduce, but not eliminate, intravenous misuse; clinicians therefore need to monitor patients in OST, and be selective in providing patients with medication to be taken without observation.