Participation in Australian drug treatment programs for individuals engaging in high-risk substance use: Data from a nationally representative sample.

INTRODUCTION: Substance use, including drugs, alcohol and smoking have a significant health, social and economic impact. We aim to assess the rate and factors associated with treatment access among individuals with high-risk substance use. METHOD: This study is a cross-sectional analysis of the 2019 Australian National Drug Strategy Household Survey (N = 22,015). Participants were persons with high-risk substance use based on the Alcohol, Smoking and Substance Involvement Screening Test-Lite (ASSIST-Lite) and current smokers. We measured self-reports of past 12-month engagement in a tobacco, alcohol or other drugs treatment program. RESULTS: Overall, 0.4% had high-risk drug use (0.3% cannabis, 0.1% meth/amphetamine or 0.1% opioids), 7.4% had high-risk alcohol use, and 14.0% currently smoked. Among high-risk users, past 12-month treatment access rates were 50.6% [22.3-78.9%] for opioids, 27.1% [8.1-46.1%] for meth/amphetamine, 14.5% [4.3-24.7%] for cannabis, 9.6% [8.1-11.0%] for alcohol and 11.7% [10.6-12.9%] for current smoking. The primary source of treatment support was information and education (12.7% drugs, 4.6% alcohol, 4.0% smoking), followed by counselling (6.7% drugs, 4.5% alcohol, 3.0% smoking). Online or internet support was accessed by 5.9% (drug) and 1.6% (alcohol) people with high-risk use. Psychological distress was associated with treatment access (drugs: odds ratio 3.03 [0.77-11.95], p = 0.111; alcohol: odds ratio 3.16 [2.20-4.56], p ≤ 0.001; smoking: odds ratio 1.95 [1.52-2.49], p ≤ 0.001). DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: The proportion of people engaging in risky substance use who had used treatment programs remains low, especially for alcohol. Public health strategies to scale up treatment access are warranted.

Reliability of online self-report versions of the Australian Treatment Outcome Profile (ATOP) and Alcohol, Smoking, and Substance Involvement Screening Test (ASSIST) among people in residential treatment for substance use problems.

BACKGROUND: Online self-report measures are resource-efficient and widely used for monitoring substance use, yet few studies have assessed their reliability. This study assessed the reliability of online self-report versions of the Australian Treatment Outcomes Profile (ATOP) and Alcohol, Smoking, and Substance Involvement Screening Test (ASSIST) among people seeking treatment for substance use problems. PROCEDURES: One-hundred and five clients entering residential treatment for substance use problems (Mage = 33.34, 65% male) were recruited from two facilities in Queensland, Australia. Using a repeated-measures design, we compared online self-report with the original interview versions of the ASSIST, which measured (i) lifetime substance use and (ii) past 3-month substance-use and related harms, and the ATOP, which measured (i) past month frequency of substance use and (ii) the typical quantity used per day. Assessments were administered 1-7 days apart. FINDINGS: The ATOP demonstrated moderate-excellent inter-rater reliability for the past month use (yes/no) for all substance types, but had poor reliability for alcohol and cannabis. ATOP reliability was high-excellent for the total number of days used in the past month for all substances. The ASSIST demonstrated moderate-excellent inter-rater reliability for substance-use and related harms for all substances except tobacco, however was poor for lifetime use for most substances due to greater reporting in the interview assessment. CONCLUSIONS: Reliable responding was observed for the frequency of substance use in the past month on the ATOP, and past 3-month substance-use and related harms on the ASSIST. These findings support use of online-self report measures a resource-efficient method to monitor substance use. Underreporting of lifetime use was found in self-report online version of the ASSIST, highlighting the need for improved instruction or interviewer/clinician assistance for lifetime use.

Common adverse events of electronic cigarettes compared with traditional nicotine replacement therapies: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

ISSUES: Established literature suggests that electronic cigarettes (EC) are more effective than traditional nicotine replacement therapies (NRT) as a smoking cessation aid, but the factors that mediate this difference remain poorly understood. We examine how adverse events (AE) associated with EC use relative to NRTs differ, with the view that differences in AEs experienced may drive differences in use and compliance. APPROACH: Papers for inclusion were identified via a three-tiered search strategy. Eligible articles involved healthy participants and compared nicotine ECs to non-nicotine ECs or NRTs and reported frequency of AE as an outcome. Random-effects meta-analyses were conducted to compare the likelihood for each of the AEs between nicotine ECs, non-nicotine placebo ECs and NRTs. KEY FINDINGS: A total of 3756 papers were identified, of which 18 were meta-analysed (10 cross-sectional and 8 randomised controlled trials). Meta-analytic results found no significant difference in the rates of reported AEs (i.e., cough, oral irritation, nausea) between nicotine ECs and NRTs, and between nicotine and non-nicotine placebo ECs. IMPLICATIONS: The variation in the incidence of AEs likely does not explain user preferences of ECs to NRTs. Incidence of common AEs reported because of EC and NRT use did not differ significantly. Future work will need to quantify both the adverse and favourable effects of ECs to understand the experiential mechanisms that drive the high uptake of nicotine ECs relative to established NRTs. CONCLUSIONS: There is inconclusive evidence on the incidence of AEs experience when using ECs compared to NRTs, possibly given the small sample size of studies.

How should policymakers regulate the tetrahydrocannabinol content of cannabis products in a legal market?

An increased use of high-potency cannabis products since cannabis legalization in the United States, Canada and elsewhere may increase cannabis-related harm. Policymakers have good reasons for regulating more potent cannabis in ways that minimize harm, using approaches similar to those used to regulate alcohol; namely, banning the sale of high-potency cannabis, setting a cap on tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) content and imposing higher rates of taxes on more potent cannabis products. Given the difficulty that US policymakers have had in regulating cannabis extracts and edibles, governments that are planning to legalize cannabis need to put policies on extracts into enabling legislation and evaluate the impact of these policies on cannabis use and cannabis-related harms.

Treatment-seeking behavior and barriers to mental health service utilization for depressive symptoms and hazardous drinking: The role of religious and traditional healers in mental healthcare of Northwest Ethiopia.

Understanding mental healthcare seeking and associated factors is essential for planning mental health services. This study aimed to assess treatment seeking and barriers to care for depressive symptoms and hazardous drinking in a community sample of Northwest Ethiopia. A cross-sectional study was conducted to screen 1,728 participants for depressive symptoms (n = 414) and hazardous drinking (n = 155). Participants were asked whether they had sought mental healthcare. We also assessed the barriers to seeking mental healthcare. Logistic regression was used to identify associated factors. Among people with depressive symptoms, 14.3%, 15.5%, and 19.6% sought treatment from healthcare settings, non-healthcare settings, or any sources, respectively. Religious places (39.5%) were the most helpful treatment sources. People with low levels of internalized stigma (adj OR = 3.00 [1.41, 6.42]) and positive attitudes towards mental illness (adj OR = 2.84 [1.33, 6.07]) were nearly threefold more likely to seek depression treatment. No participants with hazardous drinking sought treatment from healthcare settings, and only 1.3% had sought help from families/friends. Over 97% of participants with depressive symptoms and hazardous drinking reported at least one barrier to treatment-seeking from a healthcare setting. Religious and traditional healers were as important as healthcare settings for treatment-seeking.

Changes in Substance Use Among People Seeking Alcohol and Other Drug Treatment During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Evaluating Mental Health Outcomes and Resilience.

BACKGROUND: Alcohol and other drug (AOD) use patterns have altered as a result of the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic restrictions. This study aimed to: (i) determine the impact of the pandemic on patterns of AOD use among individuals seeking treatment, (ii) identify which mental health and resilience factors were associated with changes in patterns of AOD use and (iii) evaluate changes in the contextual factors (eg, motivations) associated with use. METHODS: Cross-sectional surveys were completed by clients (n = 325) who had sought AOD treatment from January 2020 onwards. We measured quantity and frequency of AOD use now compared to before the pandemic, mental health (depression, anxiety, trauma exposure), resilience and contextual factors related to AOD use. RESULTS: Quantity of tobacco and cannabis use increased post-pandemic, while methamphetamine and alcohol did not change. Depression was associated with more frequent alcohol use now compared to before the pandemic, while anxiety and lower resilience were associated with less frequent cannabis use now. Lower resilience was associated changes in methamphetamine use. Depression was associated with using more frequently for enjoyment and to alleviate loneliness following the pandemic, and anxiety was associated with using earlier in the day and to alleviate boredom. CONCLUSIONS: The pandemic has led to increased frequency of AOD use for a subset of individuals seeking treatment. Depression, anxiety and resilience are important factors associated with altered AOD use, and changes in the motivations and control surrounding use. Special consideration of this should be considered during AOD treatment through the pandemic.