Unity in diversity: A systematic review on the GHB using population.

BACKGROUND: Over the past decades gamma-hydroxybutyrate (GHB) has emerged as a popular drug with high potential of (ab)use due to its euphoric and relaxing effects. An overview of different populations using GHB is urgently needed, since this would enable development of adequate prevention and treatment policies to diminish the risks associated with GHB use. We systematically reviewed literature on different GHB using populations, comparing demographic characteristics, GHB use patterns, psychosocial aspects and psychiatric comorbidity. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines using Rayyan software. Original studies published from January 1997 up to October 2019 on GHB use were included. Out of 80 full-text articles, 60 articles of 51 unique studies were included. Most studies included people using GHB 1) presenting at emergency departments (n = 22), 2) recruited from the general population (n = 11), or 3) presenting at addiction care (n = 8). RESULTS: Three main sub-populations of people using GHB are described in the literature: people using GHB recreationally without adverse effects; people using GHB recreationally with adverse effects, and people with dependence on GHB. These groups show considerable overlap in gender, age range, and comorbid substance use, as well as amount of GHB use per occasion. Differences are related to frequency and function of GHB use, the number of comas experienced, as well as work status, and psychiatric comorbidity. CONCLUSION: Policy interventions should aim at preventing the transition from recreational substance use to GHB use, as most users are experienced recreational substance users prior to starting GHB use. When people use GHB regularly, interventions should aim at reducing the level of GHB use and preventing GHB use-related harm. Longitudinal studies and population-based probability sampling are required for more insight in the dynamics of GHB use in different sub-populations, and the transition from one group to the other, ultimately leading to dependence on GHB.

Treatment goals in addiction healthcare: the perspectives of patients and clinicians.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about the perspectives of either patients or clinicians regarding treatment goals in addiction healthcare. In general, treatment goals involve abstinence or at least reduction of substance use. AIM: To examine and compare the treatment goals indicated by both patients and clinicians at baseline, interim and exit measurement. METHOD: A descriptive study was performed with multiple measurements of treatment goals. Patients (n = 111) and clinicians (n = 20) were recruited from three addiction treatment centres in the Netherlands. A Shared Decision Making Intervention (SDMI) was undertaken to promote and evaluate treatment agreement. RESULTS: Patients identified treatment goals of daytime activities and abstinence or reduced alcohol consumption as most important. Clinicians indicated psychological distress, daytime activities and substance use as most important. Differences between patients and clinicians were found for the treatment goals of physical health (patient > clinician) and psychological distress (clinician > patient). The results further showed that treatment goals of both patients and clinicians become more closely aligned during the course of treatment. CONCLUSION: SDMI provides a method to explore and discuss discrepancy between patients' and clinicians' goals of treatment which leads to convergence. Such convergence is likely to be a necessary prerequisite for positive treatment outcomes.

Shared decision-making reduces drug use and psychiatric severity in substance-dependent patients.

BACKGROUND: In the last decades, shared decision-making (SDM) models have been developed to increase patient involvement in treatment decisions. The purpose of this study was to evaluate a SDM intervention (SDMI) for patients dependent on psychoactive substances in addiction health care programs. The intervention consisted of a structured procedure to reach a treatment agreement and comprised 5 sessions. METHODS: Clinicians in 3 treatment centres in the Netherlands were randomly assigned to the SDMI or a standard procedure to reach a treatment agreement. RESULTS: A total of 220 substance-dependent patients receiving inpatient treatment were randomised either to the intervention (n = 111) or control (n = 109) conditions. Reductions in primary substance use (F((1, 124)) = 248.38, p < 0.01) and addiction severity (F((8)) = 27.76, p < 0.01) were found in the total population. Significant change was found in the total population regarding patients' quality of life measured at baseline, exit and follow-up (F((2, 146)) = 5.66, p < 0.01). On the European Addiction Severity Index, SDMI showed significantly better improvements than standard decision-making regarding drug use (F((1, 164)) = 7.40, p < 0.01) and psychiatric problems (F((1, 164)) = 5.91, p = 0.02) at 3-month follow-up. CONCLUSION: SDMI showed a significant add-on effect on top of a well-established 3-month inpatient intervention. SDMI offers an effective, structured, frequent and well-balanced intervention to carry out and evaluate a treatment agreement.

Systematic review of the effects of shared decision-making on patient satisfaction, treatment adherence and health status.

BACKGROUND: In the last decade, the clinician-patient relationship has become more of a partnership. There is growing interest in shared decision-making (SDM) in which the clinician and patient go through all phases of the decision-making process together, share treatment preferences, and reach an agreement on treatment choice. The purpose of this review is to determine the extent, quality, and consistency of the evidence about the effectiveness of SDM. METHOD: This is a systematic review of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing SDM interventions with non-SDM interventions. Eleven RCTs met the required criteria, and were included in this review. RESULTS: The methodological quality of the studies included in this review was high overall. Five RCTs showed no difference between SDM and control, one RCT showed no short-term effects but showed positive longer-term effects, and five RCTs reported a positive effect of SDM on outcome measures. The two studies included of people with mental healthcare problems reported a positive effect of SDM. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the considerable interest in applying SDM clinically, little research regarding its effectiveness has been done to date. It has been argued that SDM is particularly suitable for long-term decisions, especially in the context of a chronic illness, and when the intervention contains more than one session. Our results show that under such circumstances, SDM can be an effective method of reaching a treatment agreement. Evidence for the effectiveness of SDM in the context of other types of decisions, or in general, is still inconclusive. Future studies of SDM should probably focus on long-term decisions.