Joshua B.B. Garfield

Characteristics of individuals presenting to treatment for primary alcohol problems versus other drug problems in the Australian patient pathways study

BackgroundPeople seeking treatment for substance use disorders often have additional health and social issues. Although individuals presenting with alcohol as the primary drug of concern (PDOC) account for nearly half of all treatment episodes to the Australian alcohol and other drug (AOD) service system, previous treatment cohort studies have focused only on the profile of Australian heroin or methamphetamine users. While studies overseas indicate that clients seeking treatment primarily for their drinking are less likely to experience social and economic marginalisation than those seeking treatment primarily for illicit or pharmaceutical drug use, very little research has directly compared individuals presenting with alcohol as the PDOC to those primarily presenting with other drugs as their PDOC.MethodsSeven hundred and ninety-six participants were recruited at entry to specialist AOD treatment in Victoria and Western Australia, and completed measures of demographic and social factors, substance use, quality of life, service use, and criminal justice involvement. We compared those with alcohol as their PDOC to those with other drugs as their PDOC using Pearson chi-square and Mann–Whitney U tests.ResultsRates of social disadvantage, poor quality of life, high severity of substance dependence, and past-year AOD, mental health, acute health, and social service use were high in all groups. However, participants with alcohol as the PDOC were older; more likely to have an educational qualification; less likely to report criminal justice involvement, housing/homelessness service use, tobacco smoking, or problems with multiple substances; and reported better environmental quality of life; but were more likely to have used ambulance services, than those with other drugs as their PDOC.ConclusionsWhile those seeking treatment primarily for alcohol problems appear less likely to suffer some forms of social and economic disadvantage or to use multiple substances than those with a primary drug problem, they experience similarly high levels of substance dependence severity and mental health and AOD service use. These findings reinforce the need for AOD services to integrate or coordinate care with programs that address the many complexities clients frequently present with, while also acknowledging differences between those seeking treatment for alcohol versus other drug problems.

Substance use outcomes following treatment: Findings from the Australian Patient Pathways Study:

Background and Aims: Our understanding of patient pathways through specialist Alcohol and Other Drug treatment and broader health/welfare systems in Australia remains limited. This study examines how treatment outcomes are influenced by continuity in specialist Alcohol and Other Drug treatment, engagement with community services and mutual aid, and explores differences between clients who present with a primary alcohol problem relative to those presenting with a primary drug issue. Method: In a prospective, multi-site treatment outcome study, 796 clients from 21 Alcohol and Other Drug services in Victoria and Western Australia completed a baseline interview between January 2012 and January 2013. A total of 555 (70%) completed a follow-up assessment of subsequent service use and Alcohol and Other Drug use outcomes 12-months later. Results: Just over half of the participants (52.0%) showed reliable reductions in use of, or abstinence from, their primary drug of concern. This was highest among clients with meth/amphetamine (66%) as their primary drug of concern and lowest among clients with alcohol as their primary drug of concern (47%), with 31% achieving abstinence from all drugs of concern. Continuity of specialist Alcohol and Other Drug care was associated with higher rates of abstinence than fragmented Alcohol and Other Drug care. Different predictors of treatment success emerged for clients with a primary drug problem as compared to those with a primary alcohol problem; mutual aid attendance (odds ratio = 2.5) and community service engagement (odds ratio = 2.0) for clients with alcohol as the primary drug of concern, and completion of the index treatment (odds ratio = 2.8) and continuity in Alcohol and Other Drug care (odds ratio = 1.8) when drugs were the primary drugs of concern. Conclusion: This is the first multi-site Australian study to include treatment outcomes for alcohol and cannabis users, who represent 70% of treatment seekers in Alcohol and Other Drug services. Results suggest a substantial proportion of clients respond positively to treatment, but that clients with alcohol as their primary drug problem may require different treatment pathways, compared to those with illicit drug issues, to maximise outcomes.

Psychometric properties, validity, and reliability of the Temporal Experience of Pleasure Scale state version in an opioid-dependent sample

BACKGROUND Individuals with substance dependence commonly experience anhedonia. Theories of anhedonia distinguish between anticipatory and consummatory reward deficits, with the Temporal Experience of Pleasure Scale (TEPS) the first self-report scale to separately measure these two constructs. Several psychometric studies have analysed the trait version of the TEPS, but the state version of the TEPS has not been previously validated. METHODS We examined the psychometric properties of the state version of the TEPS in 121 individuals with opiate dependence (81% Australian-born), to confirm its 2-factor structure and examine the internal consistency, convergent and divergent validity, test-retest reliability, and performance as a state measure. RESULTS Confirmation of the 2-factor solution required removal of two items and allowing correlation between residuals of three pairs of highly-similar items. The resulting consummatory and anticipatory scales correlated strongly with each other (r=.76), suggesting poor divergent validity between them. Nevertheless, the scale showed good internal consistency (Chronbachs α: anticipatory=.90; consummatory=.84; total=.92), convergent (TEPS total and Snaith-Hamilton Pleasure Scale r=-.76) and divergent validity (-.38<r<-.10 for measures of negative affect, anxiety, and alexithymia) with other psychological measures, and test-retest reliability. Changes in TEPS scores between baseline and 1-month follow-up correlated well with changes in scores on other state anhedonia and positive affect measures, suggesting that the TEPS state version functions well as a state measure. CONCLUSION In opioid-dependent participants, the TEPS state version appeared to have good validity as a measure of state anhedonia. However, evidence for its ability to distinguish between consummatory and anticipatory anhedonia was weak.

Attention to pleasant stimuli in early adolescence predicts alcohol-related problems in mid-adolescence

Attenuated responses to natural rewards have been found to predict subsequent substance use among dependent populations, suggesting that this may be a premorbid risk factor for later problematic substance use. However, research on adolescent risk-taking suggests that exaggerated, rather than blunted, reward responsiveness predicts later substance abuse. Acoustic startle-induced event-related potentials (ERP) were recorded in a sample of 11-13 year-olds while they viewed affective pictures, and participants were reassessed four years later regarding alcohol use and experience of alcohol-related problems. Increased attenuation of the amplitude of the P300 component of the ERP during viewing of pleasant pictures, relative to amplitude during neutral pictures (an indicator of increased attention to pleasant pictures), predicted increased likelihood of alcohol-related problems at follow-up. These findings further support research indicating that increased reward responsiveness predicts risky behaviours in adolescence, with anhedonia primarily a consequence of substance dependence.

Implications of Eligibility Criteria on the Generalizability of Alcohol and Drug Treatment Outcome Research : A Study of Real-World Treatment Seekers in Sweden and in Australia

ABSTRACT Background: Clinical studies of alcohol and drug treatment outcomes frequently apply participant eligibility criteria (EC), which may exclude real-world treatment seekers, impairing the representativeness of studied samples. Some research exists on the impact of EC on alcohol treatment seekers. Little is known about drug treatment and country differences. Objectives: We tested and compared the degree to which commonly used EC exclude real-world treatment seekers with problem alcohol and drug use in Sweden and Australia, and compared the impact of EC on outcomes. Methods: Two large naturalistic and comparative service user samples were used. Respondents were recruited in Stockholm County (n = 1,865; data collection 2000–2002), and Victoria and Western Australia (n = 796; in 2012–2013). Follow-up interviews were conducted after 1 year. Cross-tabulations, Chi-square (χ2) tests and logistic regressions were used. Results: Percentages of the samples excluded by individual EC ranged from 5% (lack of education/literacy) to 70% (social instability) among Swedish alcohol cases and from 2% (low alcohol problem severity) to 69% (psychiatric medication) among Australian counterparts; and from 2% (age 60+ years) to 82% (social instability) among Swedish drug cases and from 1% (age 60+ years) to 67% (psychiatric medication) among Australian counterparts. Country differences and differences across substances appeared independent of country effect. Co-morbid psychiatric medication, noncompliance, poly drug use, and low education EC caused positive 1-year outcome bias; whereas female sex and old age introduced negative outcome bias. Conclusions/Importance: Commonly used EC exclude large proportions of treatment seekers. This may impair generalizability of clinical research, and the effects of many EC differ by country and drug type.

Problem gambling and substance use in patients attending community mental health services

Background and aims Relatively little is known about co-occurring gambling problems and their overlap with other addictive behaviors among individuals attending mental health services. We aimed to determine rates of gambling and substance use problems in patients accessing mental health services in Victoria, Australia. Methods A total of 837 adult patients were surveyed about their gambling and administered standardized screening tools for problem gambling and harmful tobacco, alcohol, and drug use. Prevalence of gambling problems was estimated and regression models used to determine predictors of problem gambling. Results The gambling participation rate was 41.6% [95% CI = 38.2–44.9]. The Problem Gambling Severity Index identified 19.7% [CI = 17.0–22.4] as “non-problem gamblers,” 7.2% [CI = 5.4–8.9] as “low-risk” gamblers, 8.4% [CI = 6.5–10.2] as “moderate-risk” gamblers, and 6.3% [CI = 4.7–8.0] as “problem gamblers.” One-fifth (21.9%) of the sample and 52.6% of all gamblers were identified as either low-risk, moderate-risk, or problem gamblers (PGs). Patients classified as problem and moderate-risk gamblers had significantly elevated rates of nicotine and illicit drug dependence (p < .001) according to short screening tools. Current diagnosis of drug use (OR = 4.31 [CI = 1.98–9.37]), borderline personality (OR = 2.59 [CI = 1.13–5.94]), bipolar affective (OR = 2.01 [CI = 1.07–3.80]), and psychotic (OR = 1.83 [CI = 1.03–3.25]) disorders were significant predictors of problem gambling. Discussion and conclusions Patients were less likely to gamble, but eight times as likely to be classified as PG, relative to Victoria’s adult general population. Elevated rates of harmful substance use among moderate-risk and PG suggest overlapping vulnerability to addictive behaviors. These findings suggest mental health services should embed routine screening into clinical practice, and train clinicians in the management of problem gambling.

Social disadvantage and past treatment among clients entering public alcohol and drug services in two Australian states

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to explore the association between substance use, social disadvantage and past year alcohol and other drug (AOD) treatment among clients entering publically funded AOD services in Victoria and Western Australia, to inform system development. METHODS: Participants (n=781) completed a structured interview on substance use, social circumstances, and past year service use. RESULTS: Most participants were severely AOD dependent and a high proportion were recently homeless, receiving welfare benefits, and with criminal justice issues. Previous AOD treatment was common. Logistic regression analysis showed that past year AOD treatment was more frequent among those receiving welfare benefits, with opioids as their primary drug of concern, and using multiple substances. CONCLUSION: While AOD dependence characterised this treatment group, social disadvantage independently predicted higher rates of prior AOD service use. Specialist AOD treatment systems need capacity to provide or at least work alongside services designed to address social disadvantage. Language: en