Christopher M. Doran

Australian guidelines for the treatment of adults with acute stress disorder and post-traumatic stress disorder

Over the past 2–3 years, clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and acute stress disorder (ASD) have been developed in the USA and UK. There remained a need, however, for the development of Australian CPGs for the treatment of ASD and PTSD tailored to the national health-care context. Therefore, the Australian Centre for Posttraumatic Mental Health in collaboration with national trauma experts, has recently developed Australian CPGs for adults with ASD and PTSD, which have been endorsed by the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC). In consultation with a multidisciplinary reference panel (MDP), research questions were determined and a systematic review of the evidence was then conducted to answer these questions (consistent with NHMRC procedures). On the basis of the evidence reviewed and in consultation with the MDP, a series of practice recommendations were developed. The practice recommendations that have been developed address a broad range of clinical questions. Key recommendations indicate the use of trauma-focused psychological therapy (cognitive behavioural therapy or eye movement desensitization and reprocessing in addition to in vivo exposure) as the most effective treatment for ASD and PTSD. Where medication is required for the treatment of PTSD in adults, selective serotonin re-uptake inhibitor antidepressants should be the first choice. Medication should not be used in preference to trauma-focused psychological therapy. In the immediate aftermath of trauma, practitioners should adopt a position of watchful waiting and provide psychological first aid. Structured interventions such as psychological debriefing, with a focus on recounting the traumatic event and ventilation of feelings, should not be offered on a routine basis.

Buprenorphine versus methadone maintenance: a cost-effectiveness analysis.

This article presents the cost-effectiveness results of a randomised controlled trial conducted in two Australian cities. The trial was designed to assess the safety, efficacy and cost-effectiveness of buprenorphine versus methadone in the management of opioid dependence. The trial utilised a flexible dosing regime that was tailored to the clinical need of the patients, with high maximum doses, using the marketed formulation, under double-blind conditions. A total of 405 subjects were randomised to a treatment at one of three specialist outpatient drug treatment centres in Adelaide and Sydney, Australia. The perspective of the cost-effectiveness analysis was that of the service provider and included costs relevant to the provision of treatment. The primary outcome measure used in the economic analysis was change in heroin-free days from baseline to the sixth month of treatment. Treatment with methadone was found to be both less expensive and more effective than treatment with buprenorphine, which suggests methadone dominates buprenorphine. However, statistical testing found that the observed difference between the cost-effectiveness of methadone and buprenorphine treatments was not statistically significant. The results of this study provide useful policy information on the costs and outcomes associated with the use of methadone and buprenorphine and indicate that buprenorphine provides a viable alternative to methadone in the treatment of opioid dependence.

Cost‐effectiveness of interventions to prevent alcohol‐related disease and injury in Australia

AIMS To evaluate cost-effectiveness of eight interventions for reducing alcohol-attributable harm and determine the optimal intervention mix. METHODS Interventions include volumetric taxation, advertising bans, an increase in minimum legal drinking age, licensing controls on operating hours, brief intervention (with and without general practitioner telemarketing and support), drink driving campaigns, random breath testing and residential treatment for alcohol dependence (with and without naltrexone). Cost-effectiveness is modelled over the life-time of the Australian population in 2003, with all costs and health outcomes evaluated from an Australian health sector perspective. Each intervention is compared with current practice, and the most cost-effective options are then combined to determine the optimal intervention mix. MEASUREMENTS Cost-effectiveness is measured in 2003 Australian dollars per disability adjusted life year averted. FINDINGS Although current alcohol intervention in Australia (random breath testing) is cost-effective, if the current spending of

A systematic review of suicide prevention interventions targeting indigenous peoples in Australia, United States, Canada and New Zealand.

71 million could be invested in a more cost-effective combination of interventions, more than 10 times the amount of health gain could be achieved. Taken as a package of interventions, all seven preventive interventions would be a cost-effective investment that could lead to substantial improvement in population health; only residential treatment is not cost-effective. CONCLUSIONS Based on current evidence, interventions to reduce harm from alcohol are highly recommended. The potential reduction in costs of treating alcohol-related diseases and injuries mean that substantial improvements in population health can be achieved at a relatively low cost to the health sector.

Comparative cost-effectiveness of policy instruments for reducing the global burden of alcohol, tobacco and illicit drug use

BackgroundIndigenous peoples of Australia, Canada, United States and New Zealand experience disproportionately high rates of suicide. As such, the methodological quality of evaluations of suicide prevention interventions targeting these Indigenous populations should be rigorously examined, in order to determine the extent to which they are effective for reducing rates of Indigenous suicide and suicidal behaviours. This systematic review aims to: 1) identify published evaluations of suicide prevention interventions targeting Indigenous peoples in Australia, Canada, United States and New Zealand; 2) critique their methodological quality; and 3) describe their main characteristics.MethodsA systematic search of 17 electronic databases and 13 websites for the period 1981–2012 (inclusive) was undertaken. The reference lists of reviews of suicide prevention interventions were hand-searched for additional relevant studies not identified by the electronic and web search. The methodological quality of evaluations of suicide prevention interventions was assessed using a standardised assessment tool.ResultsNine evaluations of suicide prevention interventions were identified: five targeting Native Americans; three targeting Aboriginal Australians; and one First Nation Canadians. The main intervention strategies employed included: Community Prevention, Gatekeeper Training, and Education. Only three of the nine evaluations measured changes in rates of suicide or suicidal behaviour, all of which reported significant improvements. The methodological quality of evaluations was variable. Particular problems included weak study designs, reliance on self-report measures, highly variable consent and follow-up rates, and the absence of economic or cost analyses.ConclusionsThere is an urgent need for an increase in the number of evaluations of preventive interventions targeting reductions in Indigenous suicide using methodologically rigorous study designs across geographically and culturally diverse Indigenous populations. Combining and tailoring best evidence and culturally-specific individual strategies into one coherent suicide prevention program for delivery to whole Indigenous communities and/or population groups at high risk of suicide offers considerable promise.

Psychometric validation of the Growth and Empowerment Measure (GEM) applied with Indigenous Australians

Alcohol, tobacco and illicit drug use together pose a formidable challenge to international public health. Building on earlier estimates of the demonstrated burden of alcohol, tobacco and illicit drug use at the global level, this review aims to consider the comparative cost-effectiveness of evidence-based interventions for reducing the global burden of disease from these three risk factors. Although the number of published cost-effectiveness studies in the addictions field is now extensive (reviewed briefly here) there are a series of practical problems in using them for sector-wide decision making, including methodological heterogeneity, differences in analytical reference point and the specificity of findings to a particular context. In response to these limitations, a more generalised form of cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) is proposed, which enables like-with-like comparisons of the relative efficiency of preventive or individual-based strategies to be made, not only within but also across diseases or their risk factors. The application of generalised CEA to a range of personal and non-personal interventions for reducing the burden of addictive substances is described. While such a development avoids many of the obstacles that have plagued earlier attempts and in so doing opens up new opportunities to address important policy questions, there remain a number of caveats to population-level analysis of this kind, particularly when conducted at the global level. These issues are the subject of the final section of this review.

Measuring costs of alcohol harm to others: A review of the literature

Objective: Empowerment is a complex process of psychological, social, organizational and structural change. It allows individuals and groups to achieve positive growth and effectively address the social and psychological impacts of historical oppression, marginalization and disadvantage. The Growth and Empowerment Measure (GEM) was developed to measure change in dimensions of empowerment as defined and described by Aboriginal Australians who participated in the Family Well Being programme. Method: The GEM has two components: a 14-item Emotional Empowerment Scale (EES14) and 12 Scenarios (12S). It is accompanied by the Kessler 6 Psychological Distress Scale (K6), supplemented by two questions assessing frequency of happy and angry feelings. For validation, the measure was applied with 184 Indigenous Australian participants involved in personal and/or organizational social health activities. Results: Psychometric analyses of the new instruments support their validity and reliability and indicate two-component structures for both the EES (Self-capacity; Inner peace) and the 12S (Healing and enabling growth, Connection and purpose). Strong correlations were observed across the scales and subscales. Participants who scored higher on the newly developed scales showed lower distress on the K6, particularly when the two additional questions were included. However, exploratory factor analyses demonstrated that GEM subscales are separable from the Kessler distress measure. Conclusion: The GEM shows promise in enabling measurement and enhancing understanding of both process and outcome of psychological and social empowerment within an Australian Indigenous context.

Epidemiology of alcohol-related burden of disease among Indigenous Australians

INTRODUCTION People other than the drinker experience harmful consequences from alcohol misuse, accounting for part of the economic burden to society. Little has been done on costing harm to others. AIMS METHOD A literature review was undertaken of various databases, government publications, dissertations, conference papers and reference materials. Publications were included for analysis if they reported costs on alcohol harm to others. Methodological adequacy of costing studies was assessed using a checklist modified from the Drummond 10-point checklist. RESULTS In total, 25 publications including costs on alcohol harm to others were reviewed. Fetal alcohol syndrome (FAS) was the harm to others most frequently cost. The cost-of-illness (COI) framework was used in 24 of the publications, while 1 employed a cost-benefit analysis (CBA) serving as starting point for further studies estimating intangible costs (e.g. victims quality-of-life (QoL) loss). Indirect costs (e.g. victims lost productivity) were quantified most frequently with the human capital approach. The majority of publications critically assessed on costing received an average quality score (17/25). CONCLUSION Few studies have reported costs on the magnitude from harm to people other than the drinker, therefore the overall economic burden of risky alcohol consumption across countries is underestimated. This review may be considered a starting point for future research on costing alcohol harm to others.

How much does intellectual disability really cost? First estimates for Australia

Objective: To compare the burden of alcohol‐related harm and underlying factors of this harm, by age and sex, for Indigenous and general population Australians.

The relationship between alcohol consumption and self-reported health status using the EQ5D: Evidence from rural Australia☆

Abstract Background Given the paucity of relevant data, this study estimates the cost of intellectual disability (ID) to families and the government in Australia. Method Family costs were collected via the Client Service Receipt Inventory, recording information relating to service use and personal expense as a consequence of ID. Government expenditure on the provision of support and services was estimated using top-down costing. Results A total of 109 parents participated. The cost of ID in Australia is high, especially for families. Total economic costs of ID are close to