Jesse Young

Attitudes towards seclusion and restraint in mental health settings: findings from a large, community-based survey of consumers, carers and mental health professionals

Aims. There are growing calls to reduce, and where possible eliminate, the use of seclusion and restraint in mental health settings, but the attitudes and beliefs of consumers, carers and mental health professionals towards these practices are not well understood. The aim of this study was to compare the attitudes of mental health service consumers, carers and mental health professionals towards seclusion and restraint in mental health settings. In particular, it aimed to explore beliefs regarding whether elimination of seclusion and restraint was desirable and possible. Methods. In 2014, an online survey was developed and widely advertised in Australia via the National Mental Health Commission and through mental health networks. The survey adopted a mixed-methods design, including both quantitative and qualitative questions concerning participants’ demographic details, the use of seclusion and restraint in practice and their views on strategies for reducing and eliminating these practices. Results. In total 1150 survey responses were analysed. A large majority of participants believed that seclusion and restraint practices were likely to cause harm, breach human rights, compromise trust and potentially cause or trigger past trauma. Consumers were more likely than professionals to view these practices as harmful. The vast majority of participants believed that it was both desirable and feasible to eliminate mechanical restraint. Many participants, particularly professionals, believed that seclusion and some forms of restraint were likely to produce some benefits, including increasing consumer safety, increasing the safety of staff and others and setting behavioural boundaries. Conclusions. There was strong agreement across participant groups that the use of seclusion and restraint is harmful, breaches human rights and compromises the therapeutic relationship and trust between mental health service providers and those who experience these restrictive practices. However, some benefits were also identified, particularly by professionals. Participants had mixed views regarding the feasibility and desirability of eliminating these practices.

Risk behaviours among substance use disorder treatment seekers with and without adult ADHD symptoms.

BACKGROUND Impulsivity and consequent risk-taking are features of both Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) and substance use disorder (SUD). To date there are no data on the impact of comorbid ADHD on the likelihood and frequency of risk-taking behaviour among individuals with SUD. The current study aimed to examine drug-related, sexual and driving-related risk behaviours in people seeking treatment for SUD with co-occurring symptoms of Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD), taking into account potential confounders. METHODS 489 Australian adult SUD treatment seekers were administered a structured interview assessing demographics, drug use and SUD treatment history, psychiatric history, self-reported adult ADHD symptoms and self-reported drug-related, sexual and driving-related risk behaviours. RESULTS Almost a third (32%) screened positive for adult ADHD symptoms with onset prior to age 12. Those screening positive were more likely to report early onset (<15 years) nicotine and illicit drug use and to have a prior diagnosis of childhood ADHD, anxiety, depression and personality disorder. ADHD symptom status was not independently associated with injecting drug use-related or sexual risk-taking in the preceding month, but was an independent predictor of a greater overall number of driving offences, a higher frequency of driving without a seatbelt, a greater likelihood of having driven without a valid licence, more at-fault accidents and having ones licence disqualified at the time of interview. CONCLUSIONS These findings suggest that the risk-taking behaviour that is common among people with SUD is further increased among those with comorbid ADHD symptoms, particularly with respect to dangerous driving practices.

Early primary care physician contact and health service utilisation in a large sample of recently released ex-prisoners in Australia: Prospective cohort study

Objective To describe the association between ex-prisoner primary care physician contact within 1 month of prison release and health service utilisation in the 6 months following release. Design A cohort from the Passports study with a mean follow-up of 219 (±44) days postrelease. Associations were assessed using a multivariate Andersen-Gill model, controlling for a range of other factors. Setting Face-to-face, baseline interviews were conducted in a sample of prisoners within 6 weeks of expected release from seven prisons in Queensland, Australia, from 2008 to 2010, with telephone follow-up interviews 1, 3 and 6 months postrelease. Participants From an original population-based sample of 1325 sentenced adult (≥18 years) prisoners, 478 participants were excluded due to not being released from prison during follow-up (n=7, 0.5%), loss to follow-up (n=257, 19.4%), or lacking exposure data (n=214, 16.2%). A total of 847 (63.9%) participants were included in the analyses. Exposure Primary care physician contact within 1 month of follow-up as a dichotomous measure. Main outcome measures Adjusted time-to-event hazard rates for hospital, mental health, alcohol and other drug and subsequent primary care physician service utilisations assessed as multiple failure time-interval data. Results Primary care physician contact prevalence within 1 month of follow-up was 46.5%. One-month primary care physician contact was positively associated with hospital (adjusted HR (AHR)=2.07; 95% CI 1.39 to 3.09), mental health (AHR=1.65; 95% CI 1.24 to 2.19), alcohol and other drug (AHR=1.48; 95% CI 1.15 to 1.90) and subsequent primary care physician service utilisation (AHR=1.47; 95% CI 1.26 to 1.72) over 6 months of follow-up. Conclusions Engagement with primary care physician services soon after prison release increases health service utilisation during the critical community transition period for ex-prisoners. Trial registration number Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ACTRN12608000232336).

Barriers to accessing methamphetamine treatment: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND Methamphetamine use is associated with a range of poor health, social and justice outcomes. In many parts of the world increased methamphetamine use has been identified as a major public health concern. Methamphetamine treatment programmes have been effective in reducing and ceasing use, however a range of barriers have prevented these programmes being widely adopted by methamphetamine users. This review examines the barriers to accessing meth/amphetamine treatment identified in the literature. METHODS Databases were systematically searched using relevant terms for peer-reviewed articles describing original research exploring the barriers to accessing treatment for meth/amphetamine use. Reviews and grey literature were excluded. Eleven studies conducted in 5 countries were included in data synthesis; this involved a systematic review of all 11 studies, and meta-analysis of the prevalence of barriers reported in 6 studies that published sufficient quantitative data. RESULTS Psychosocial/internal barriers to accessing methamphetamine treatment were most prevalent across studies (10/11 studies). Meta-analysis confirmed the four most commonly endorsed barriers to treatment access across studies all psychosocial barriers were embarrassment or stigma (60%, 95% CI: 54-67%); belief that treatment was unnecessary (59%, 95% CI:54-65%); preferring to withdraw alone without assistance (55%, 95% CI:45-65); and privacy concerns (51%, 95% CI:44-59%). CONCLUSIONS The primary barriers to accessing methamphetamine treatment are psychosocial/internal. Services and treatment models that address these barriers are urgently required. There is a growing need for methamphetamine-appropriate treatment services. Further research evaluating treatment engagement and effectiveness for methamphetamine and polysubstance use, including the development of effective pharmacotherapies is warranted.

Persistence and Subtype Stability of ADHD Among Substance Use Disorder Treatment Seekers

Objective: To examine ADHD symptom persistence and subtype stability among substance use disorder (SUD) treatment seekers. Method: In all, 1,276 adult SUD treatment seekers were assessed for childhood and adult ADHD using Conners’ Adult ADHD Diagnostic Interview for Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (4th ed.; DSM-IV; CAADID). A total of 290 (22.7%) participants met CAADID criteria for childhood ADHD and comprise the current study sample. Results: Childhood ADHD persisted into adulthood in 72.8% (n = 211) of cases. ADHD persistence was significantly associated with a family history of ADHD, and the presence of conduct disorder and antisocial personality disorder. The combined subtype was the most stable into adulthood (78.6%) and this stability was significantly associated with conduct disorder and past treatment of ADHD. Conclusion: ADHD is highly prevalent and persistent among SUD treatment seekers and is associated with the more severe phenotype that is also less likely to remit. Routine screening and follow-up assessment for ADHD is indicated to enhance treatment management and outcomes.

Accuracy and predictive value of incarcerated adults' accounts of their self-harm histories: findings froman Australian prospective data linkage study.

BACKGROUND Self-harm is prevalent in prison populations and is a well-established risk factor for suicide. Researchers typically rely on self-report to measure self-harm, yet the accuracy and predictive value of self-report in prison populations is unclear. Using a large, representative sample of incarcerated men and women, we aimed to examine the level of agreement between self-reported self-harm history and historical medical records, and investigate the association between self-harm history and medically verified self-harm after release from prison. METHODS During confidential interviews with 1315 adults conducted within 6 weeks of expected release from 1 of 7 prisons in Queensland, Australia, participants were asked about the occurrence of lifetime self-harm. Responses were compared with prison medical records and linked both retrospectively and prospectively with ambulance, emergency department and hospital records to identify instances of medically verified self-harm. Follow-up interviews roughly 1, 3 and 6 months after release covered the same domains assessed in the baseline interview as well as self-reported criminal activity and contact with health care, social and criminal justice services since release. RESULTS Agreement between self-reported and medically verified history of self-harm was poor, with 64 (37.6%) of 170 participants with a history of medically verified self-harm disclosing a history of self-harm at baseline. Participants with a medically verified history of self-harm were more likely than other participants to self-harm during the follow-up period. Compared to the unconfirmed-negative group, the true-positive (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 6.2 [95% confidence interval (CI) 3.3-10.4]), false-negative (adjusted HR 4.0 [95% CI 2.2-6.7]) and unconfirmed-positive (adjusted HR 2.2 [95% CI 1.2-3.9]) groups were at increased risk for self-harm after release from prison. INTERPRETATION Self-reported history of self-harm should not be considered a sensitive indicator of prior self-harm or of future self-harm risk in incarcerated adults. To identify those who should be targeted for preventive strategies, triangulation of data from multiple verifiable sources should be performed whenever possible.

Resumption of injecting drug use following release from prison in Australia

INTRODUCTION Ex-prisoners with a history of injecting drug use (IDU) experience disproportionate drug-related harm. Rapid resumption of substance use following prison release is common and evidenced in high rates of overdose mortality. However, few studies have documented the rate of IDU resumption following prison release or identified risk factors for relapse. METHODS Structured interviews were conducted with 533 adults with a history of IDU in Queensland, Australia prior to release from prison and approximately 1, 3 and 6 months post-release. Incidence of self-reported IDU resumption was calculated overall and for each follow-up interval. Risk factors associated with time to resumption of IDU were estimated using discrete-time survival analysis. RESULTS IDU resumption was reported by 41% of participants during a median of 98days of follow-up (IQR=94-121), an overall crude incidence of 1.06 per person-year. The highest rate was observed in the first month (23%; crude incidence 2.24 per person-year). In adjusted discrete-time survival analyses, being unemployed at the previous interview (AHR=1.59; 95%CI:1.10-2.30), shorter incarceration (≤90days vs. >365days; AHR=2.20; 95%CI:1.33-3.65), and IDU during the index incarceration (AHR=2.80; 95%CI:1.92-4.09) were significantly associated with time to IDU resumption; parole was protective (AHR=0.66; 95%CI:0.47-0.92). CONCLUSIONS Evidence-based efforts to prevent IDU in prison and IDU resumption after release are important for both prisoner and public health. Enhancing opportunities for employment and capitalising on the short-term benefits of parole for ex-prisoners may delay resumption of IDU after release from prison. These strategies should complement rather than replace harm reduction efforts for this high-risk population.

The pivotal role of primary care in meeting the health needs of people recently released from prison

Objective: Australia’s prison population is growing at a rate well in excess of population growth. Indigenous Australians are over-represented by a factor of 13. Prisoners are a profoundly marginalised group characterised by complex health and social needs. Despite improvements in health during incarceration, poor health outcomes after release are common, and the net effect of incarceration is usually health depleting. Given the need for effective care coordination, primary care plays a pivotal role in meeting the health needs of this population. In this paper we review what is known about patterns of primary care utilisation in ex-prisoners, identify evidence-based strategies for increasing access to primary care in ex-prisoners, and consider how such contact may shape subsequent health service outcomes. Conclusions: Primary care is a necessary but not sufficient condition for effective post-release support. Positive outcomes may depend more on the quality than the quantity of care received. Given massive over-representation of Indigenous people in Australia’s prisons, and compelling evidence of preventable morbidity and mortality after release from prison, effective models of care for this population are an important component of closing the gap in Indigenous life expectancy.

Self-harm in the criminal justice system: a public health opportunity

Self-harm is a global public health problem associated with increased morbidity, suicide risk, and premature mortality.1 The behaviour is more prevalent in marginalised groups, including people in prison. The burden of self-harm and suicide in prison is considerable; a study2 from the UK estimated that the annual prevalence of self-harm in prisons was 5–6% in men and 20–24% in women. With the global imprisonment rate increasing annually,3 the extent to which the burden of self-harm is concentrated in prisons is also likely to be increasing.

Modifiable risk factors for external cause mortality after release from prison: a nested case–control study

AIM People released from prison are at higher risk of mortality from potentially preventable causes than their peers in the general population. Because most studies of this phenomenon are reliant on registry data, there is little health and behavioural information available on those at risk, hampering the development of targeted, evidence-based preventive responses. Our aim was to identify modifiable risk and protective factors for external cause and cause-specific mortality after release from prison. METHODS We undertook a nested case-control study using data from a larger retrospective cohort study of mortality after release from prison in Queensland, Australia between 1994 and 2007. Cases were 286 individuals who had died from external causes (drug overdose, suicide, transport accidents, or violence) matched with 286 controls on sex, Indigenous status, and release date. We extracted data from detention, case-management, and prison medical records. RESULTS Factors associated with increased risk of external cause mortality included use of heroin and other opioids in the community [odds ratio (OR) = 2.20, 95% CI 1.41-3.43, p < 0.001], a prescription for antidepressants during the current prison sentence (OR = 1.94, 95% CI 1.02-3.67, p = 0.042), a history of problematic alcohol use in the community (OR = 1.54, 95% CI 1.05-2.26, p = 0.028), and having ever served two or more custodial sentences (OR = 1.51, 95% CI 1.01-2.25, p = 0.045). Being married (OR = 0.45, 95% CI 0.29-0.70, p < 0.001) was protective. Fewer predictors were associated with cause-specific mortality. CONCLUSIONS We identified several behavioural, psychosocial, and clinical markers associated with mortality from preventable causes in people released from prison. Emerging evidence points to interventions that could be targeted at those at increased risk of external cause mortality. These include treatment and harm reduction programmes (for substance use), improving transitional support programmes and continuity of care (for mental health), diversion and drug reform (for repeat incarceration) and nurturing stable relationships during incarceration. The period of imprisonment and shortly after release provides a unique opportunity to improve the long-term health of ex-prisoners and overcome the disadvantage associated with imprisonment.