Integrated drug and alcohol intervention: development of an opportunistic intervention program to reduce alcohol and other substance use among psychiatric patients

Are Patients with Schizophrenia Reliably Reporting their Cannabis Use? An African Cross-sectional Study

BACKGROUND

Most studies of the prevalence of cannabis use among patients with schizophrenia used a self-report as declared by the patient himself. We hypothesize that patients with schizophrenia did not tell the truth and might underreport their use for many reasons to be discussed later. Indeed, the under-report of cannabis use among these patients can affect the effectiveness of their treatment.

AIMS

To assess the degree of agreement between the prevalence values obtained from patients' reports and the results of the toxicological tests.

METHODS

A cross-sectional study was carried out on 403 patients with schizophrenia. A sociodemographic, psychiatric history and illicit drug use profile was performed for each patient. We assessed the patients with the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS), Calgary Depression score (CDSS), Barratt Impulsiveness Score (BIS-10) and Medication Adherence Rating Scale (MARS). The consumption of cannabis used was confirmed with MINI International Neuropsychiatric Interview (MINI-DSM IV) and using toxicological analysis.

RESULTS

Among the 403 patients who consented to give their urine samples, 49.1% (198/403) tested positive for cannabis, and 41.41% (82/198) underreported their use. The sensitivity and specificity of the questionnaire were 0.58 and 0.74. Based on the comparison between sociodemographic and psychiatric history data of patients who self-report and underreport their cannabis use, no significant difference was observed except for the duration of cannabis use and the score on the medication adherence scale. Moreover, it was found that impulsivity, PANSS score, CDSS score, and the type of schizophrenia are not involved in predicting the underreporting of cannabis use.

CONCLUSION

The rate of patients who under-report cannabis use is important. Therefore, toxicological analysis is becoming relevant for identifying drug use among schizophrenic patients and in the addictive comorbidity research field.

Comparison of self-reports and biological measures for alcohol, tobacco, and illicit drugs consumption in psychiatric inpatients

Background

Asking psychiatric in-patients about their drug consumption is unlikely to yield reliable results, particularly where alcohol and illicit drug use is involved. The main aim of this study was to compare spontaneous self-reports of drug use in hospitalized psychiatric patients to biological measures of same. A secondary aim was to determine which personal factors were associated with the use of tobacco, alcohol, and illicit drugs as indicated by these biological measures.

Methods

The consumption of substances was investigated using biological measures (urine cotinine, cannabis, opiates, cocaine, amphetamines and barbiturates; blood carbohydrate-deficient transferrin [CDT] and gamma-glutamyl transferase [GGT]) in 486 consecutively admitted psychiatric patients, one day following their hospitalization. Patients’ self-reports of alcohol, tobacco and illicit drugs consumption were recorded. Socio-professional and familial data were also recorded.

Results

The results show a low correlation between biological measures and self-reported consumption of alcohol and illicit drugs. Fifty-two percent of the patients under-reported their consumption of illicit drugs (kappa = .47). Patients with schizophrenia and personality disorders were more likely to disclose their illicit drug consumption relative to patients suffering from mood disorders and alcohol dependence. Fifty-six percent of patients underreported alcohol use, as evaluated by CDT (kappa = .2), and 37% underreported when using the CDT + GGT measure as an indicator. Smoking appeared to be reported adequately. In the study we observed a strong negative correlation between cannabis use and age, a strong correlation between tobacco and cannabis use, and correlations between tobacco, cannabis and alcohol consumption.

Conclusion

This study is the first to compare self-reports and biological measures of alcohol, tobacco and illicit drug uses in a large sample of inpatients suffering from various categories of psychiatric illnesses, allowing for cross-diagnosis comparisons.

Psychosocial interventions for people with both severe mental illness and substance misuse

BACKGROUND

Even low levels of substance misuse by people with a severe mental illness can have detrimental effects.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of psychosocial interventions for reduction in substance use in people with a serious mental illness compared with standard care.

SEARCH METHODS

The Information Specialist of the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group (CSG) searched the CSG Trials Register (2 May 2018), which is based on regular searches of major medical and scientific databases.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing psychosocial interventions for substance misuse with standard care in people with serious mental illness.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Review authors independently selected studies, extracted data and appraised study quality. For binary outcomes, we calculated standard estimates of risk ratio (RR) and their 95% confidence intervals (CIs) on an intention-to-treat basis. For continuous outcomes, we calculated the mean difference (MD) between groups. Where meta-analyses were possible, we pooled data using a random-effects model. Using the GRADE approach, we identified seven patient-centred outcomes and assessed the quality of evidence for these within each comparison.

MAIN RESULTS

Our review now includes 41 trials with a total of 4024 participants. We have identified nine comparisons within the included trials and present a summary of our main findings for seven of these below. We were unable to summarise many findings due to skewed data or because trials did not measure the outcome of interest. In general, evidence was rated as low- or very-low quality due to high or unclear risks of bias because of poor trial methods, or inadequately reported methods, and imprecision due to small sample sizes, low event rates and wide confidence intervals. 1. Integrated models of care versus standard care (36 months) No clear differences were found between treatment groups for loss to treatment (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.45; participants = 603; studies = 3; low-quality evidence), death (RR 1.18, 95% CI 0.39 to 3.57; participants = 421; studies = 2; low-quality evidence), alcohol use (RR 1.15, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.56; participants = 143; studies = 1; low-quality evidence), substance use (drug) (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.25; participants = 85; studies = 1; low-quality evidence), global assessment of functioning (GAF) scores (MD 0.40, 95% CI -2.47 to 3.27; participants = 170; studies = 1; low-quality evidence), or general life satisfaction (QOLI) scores (MD 0.10, 95% CI -0.18 to 0.38; participants = 373; studies = 2; moderate-quality evidence). 2. Non-integrated models of care versus standard care There was no clear difference between treatment groups for numbers lost to treatment at 12 months (RR 1.21, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.99; participants = 134; studies = 3; very low-quality evidence). 3. Cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) versus standard care There was no clear difference between treatment groups for numbers lost to treatment at three months (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.44 to 2.86; participants = 152; studies = 2; low-quality evidence), cannabis use at six months (RR 1.30, 95% CI 0.79 to 2.15; participants = 47; studies = 1; very low-quality evidence) or mental state insight (IS) scores by three months (MD 0.52, 95% CI -0.78 to 1.82; participants = 105; studies = 1; low-quality evidence). 4. Contingency management versus standard care We found no clear differences between treatment groups for numbers lost to treatment at three months (RR 1.55, 95% CI 1.13 to 2.11; participants = 255; studies = 2; moderate-quality evidence), number of stimulant positive urine tests at six months (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.06; participants = 176; studies = 1) or hospitalisations (RR 0.21, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.93; participants = 176; studies = 1); both low-quality evidence. 5. Motivational interviewing (MI) versus standard care We found no clear differences between treatment groups for numbers lost to treatment at six months (RR 1.71, 95% CI 0.63 to 4.64; participants = 62; studies = 1). A clear difference, favouring MI, was observed for abstaining from alcohol (RR 0.36, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.75; participants = 28; studies = 1) but not other substances (MD -0.07, 95% CI -0.56 to 0.42; participants = 89; studies = 1), and no differences were observed in mental state general severity (SCL-90-R) scores (MD -0.19, 95% CI -0.59 to 0.21; participants = 30; studies = 1). All very low-quality evidence. 6. Skills training versus standard care At 12 months, there were no clear differences between treatment groups for numbers lost to treatment (RR 1.42, 95% CI 0.20 to 10.10; participants = 122; studies = 3) or death (RR 0.15, 95% CI 0.02 to 1.42; participants = 121; studies = 1). Very low-quality, and low-quality evidence, respectively. 7. CBT + MI versus standard care At 12 months, there was no clear difference between treatment groups for numbers lost to treatment (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.59; participants = 327; studies = 1; low-quality evidence), number of deaths (RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.20 to 1.76; participants = 603; studies = 4; low-quality evidence), relapse (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.24 to 1.04; participants = 36; studies = 1; very low-quality evidence), or GAF scores (MD 1.24, 95% CI -1.86 to 4.34; participants = 445; studies = 4; very low-quality evidence). There was also no clear difference in reduction of drug use by six months (MD 0.19, 95% CI -0.22 to 0.60; participants = 119; studies = 1; low-quality evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We included 41 RCTs but were unable to use much data for analyses. There is currently no high-quality evidence to support any one psychosocial treatment over standard care for important outcomes such as remaining in treatment, reduction in substance use or improving mental or global state in people with serious mental illnesses and substance misuse. Furthermore, methodological difficulties exist which hinder pooling and interpreting results. Further high-quality trials are required which address these concerns and improve the evidence in this important area.

Cognitive-behavioural treatment for amphetamine-type stimulants (ATS)-use disorders

BACKGROUND

Amphetamine-type stimulants (ATS) refer to a group of synthetic stimulants including amphetamine, methamphetamine, 3,4-methylenedioxy-methamphetamine (MDMA) and related substances. ATS are highly addictive and prolonged use may result in a series of mental and physical symptoms including anxiety, confusion, insomnia, mood disturbances, cognitive impairments, paranoia, hallucinations and delusion.Currently there is no widely accepted treatment for ATS-use disorder. However, cognitive-behavioural treatment (CBT) is the first-choice treatment. The effectiveness of CBT for other substance-use disorders (e.g. alcohol-, opioid- and cocaine-use disorders) has been well documented and as such this basic treatment approach has been applied to the ATS-use disorder.

OBJECTIVES

To investigate the efficacy of cognitive-behavioural treatment for people with ATS-use disorder for reducing ATS use compared to other types of psychotherapy, pharmacotherapy, 12-step facilitation, no intervention or treatment as usual.

SEARCH METHODS

We identified randomised controlled trials (RCT) and quasi-RCTs comparing CBT for ATS-use disorders with other types of psychotherapy, pharmacotherapy, 12 step facilitation or no intervention. We searched the Cochrane Drugs and Alcohol Group Specialised Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE via PubMed, Embase and five other databases up to July 2018. In addition, we examined reference lists of eligible studies and other systematic reviews. We contacted experts in the field.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Eligibility criteria consisted of RCTs and quasi-RCTs comparing CBT versus other types of interventions with adult ATS users (aged 18 years or older) diagnosed by any explicit diagnostic system. Primary outcomes included abstinence rate and other indicators of drug-using behaviours.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.

MAIN RESULTS

Only two studies met the eligibility criteria. Both studies were at low risk of selection bias and reporting bias. In one study, almost half of participants in the intervention group dropped out and this study was at high risk of attrition bias. The studies compared a single session of brief CBT or a web-based CBT to a waiting-list control (total sample size across studies of 129). Results were mixed across the studies. For the single-session brief CBT study, two out of five measures of drug use produced significant results, percentage of abstinent days in 90 days (odds ratio (OR) 0.22, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.02 to 2.11) and dependence symptoms (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.59, 95% CI -1.16 to -0.02). Little confidence could be placed in the results from this study give the small sample size (25 participants per group) and corresponding large CIs around the observed effects. For the web-based CBT, there was no significant difference across different outcomes. Neither study reported adverse effects. The meta-analytic mean across these two trials for drug use was not significant (SMD -0.28, 95% CI -0.69 to 0.14). In summary, overall quality of evidence was low and there was insufficient evidence to conclude that CBT is effective, or ineffective, at treating ATS use.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Currently, there is not enough evidence to establish the efficacy of CBT for ATS-use disorders because of a paucity of high-quality research in this area.

Psychosocial interventions for people with both severe mental illness and substance misuse

BACKGROUND

Even low levels of substance misuse by people with a severe mental illness can have detrimental effects.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of psychosocial interventions for reduction in substance use in people with a serious mental illness compared with standard care.

SEARCH METHODS

For this update (2013), the Trials Search Co-ordinator of the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group (CSG) searched the CSG Trials Register (July 2012), which is based on regular searches of major medical and scientific databases. The principal authors conducted two further searches (8 October 2012 and 15 January 2013) of the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, MEDLINE and PsycINFO. A separate search for trials of contingency management was completed as this was an additional intervention category for this update.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing psychosocial interventions for substance misuse with standard care in people with serious mental illness.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We independently selected studies, extracted data and appraised study quality. For binary outcomes, we calculated standard estimates of relative risk (RR) and their 95% confidence intervals (CI) on an intention-to-treat basis. For continuous outcomes, we calculated the mean difference (MD) between groups. For all meta-analyses we pooled data using a random-effects model. Using the GRADE approach, we identified seven patient-centred outcomes and assessed the quality of evidence for these within each comparison.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 32 trials with a total of 3165 participants. Evaluation of long-term integrated care included four RCTs (n = 735). We found no significant differences on loss to treatment (n = 603, 3 RCTs, RR 1.09 CI 0.82 to 1.45, low quality of evidence), death by 3 years (n = 421, 2 RCTs, RR 1.18 CI 0.39 to 3.57, low quality of evidence), alcohol use (not in remission at 36 months) (n = 143, 1 RCT, RR 1.15 CI 0.84 to 1.56,low quality of evidence), substance use (n = 85, 1 RCT, RR 0.89 CI 0.63 to 1.25, low quality of evidence), global assessment of functioning (n = 171, 1 RCT, MD 0.7 CI 2.07 to 3.47, low quality of evidence), or general life satisfaction (n = 372, 2 RCTs, MD 0.02 higher CI 0.28 to 0.32, moderate quality of evidence).For evaluation of non-integrated intensive case management with usual treatment (4 RCTs, n = 163) we found no statistically significant difference for loss to treatment at 12 months (n = 134, 3 RCTs, RR 1.21 CI 0.73 to 1.99, very low quality of evidence).Motivational interviewing plus cognitive behavioural therapy compared to usual treatment (7 RCTs, total n = 878) did not reveal any advantage for retaining participants at 12 months (n = 327, 1 RCT, RR 0.99 CI 0.62 to 1.59, low quality of evidence) or for death (n = 493, 3 RCTs, RR 0.72 CI 0.22 to 2.41, low quality of evidence), and no benefit for reducing substance use (n = 119, 1 RCT, MD 0.19 CI -0.22 to 0.6, low quality of evidence), relapse (n = 36, 1 RCT, RR 0.5 CI 0.24 to 1.04, very low quality of evidence) or global functioning (n = 445, 4 RCTs, MD 1.24 CI 1.86 to 4.34, very low quality of evidence).Cognitive behavioural therapy alone compared with usual treatment (2 RCTs, n = 152) showed no significant difference for losses from treatment at 3 months (n = 152, 2 RCTs, RR 1.12 CI 0.44 to 2.86, low quality of evidence). No benefits were observed on measures of lessening cannabis use at 6 months (n = 47, 1 RCT, RR 1.30 CI 0.79 to 2.15, very low quality of evidence) or mental state (n = 105, 1 RCT, Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale MD 0.52 CI -0.78 to 1.82, low quality of evidence).We found no advantage for motivational interviewing alone compared with usual treatment (8 RCTs, n = 509) in reducing losses to treatment at 6 months (n = 62, 1 RCT, RR 1.71 CI 0.63 to 4.64, very low quality of evidence), although significantly more participants in the motivational interviewing group reported for their first aftercare appointment (n = 93, 1 RCT, RR 0.69 CI 0.53 to 0.9). Some differences, favouring treatment, were observed in abstaining from alcohol (n = 28, 1 RCT, RR 0.36 CI 0.17 to 0.75, very low quality of evidence) but not other substances (n = 89, 1 RCT, RR -0.07 CI -0.56 to 0.42, very low quality of evidence), and no differences were observed in mental state (n = 30, 1 RCT, MD 0.19 CI -0.59 to 0.21, very low quality of evidence).We found no significant differences for skills training in the numbers lost to treatment by 12 months (n = 94, 2 RCTs, RR 0.70 CI 0.44 to 1.1, very low quality of evidence).We found no differences for contingency management compared with usual treatment (2 RCTs, n = 206) in numbers lost to treatment at 3 months (n = 176, 1 RCT, RR 1.65 CI 1.18 to 2.31, low quality of evidence), number of stimulant positive urine tests at 6 months (n = 176, 1 RCT, RR 0.83 CI 0.65 to 1.06, low quality of evidence) or hospitalisations (n = 176, 1 RCT, RR 0.21 CI 0.05 to 0.93, low quality of evidence).We were unable to summarise all findings due to skewed data or because trials did not measure the outcome of interest. In general, evidence was rated as low or very low due to high or unclear risks of bias because of poor trial methods, or poorly reported methods, and imprecision due to small sample sizes, low event rates and wide confidence intervals.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We included 32 RCTs and found no compelling evidence to support any one psychosocial treatment over another for people to remain in treatment or to reduce substance use or improve mental state in people with serious mental illnesses. Furthermore, methodological difficulties exist which hinder pooling and interpreting results. Further high quality trials are required which address these concerns and improve the evidence in this important area.

Managed alcohol as a harm reduction intervention for alcohol addiction in populations at high risk for substance abuse

BACKGROUND

Managed alcohol programmes (MAP) are a harm reduction strategy used to minimise the personal harm and adverse societal effects that alcohol dependence can lead to by providing an alternative to zero-tolerance approaches that incorporate drinking goals (abstinence or moderation) that are compatible with the needs of the individual, and promoting access to services by offering low-threshold alternatives. This enables clients to gain access to services despite continued alcohol consumption and works to help the patient understand the risks involved in their behaviour and make decisions about their own treatment goals.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of MAP treatment regimens (serving limited quantities of alcohol daily to alcoholics) on their own or as compared to moderate drinking (self-controlled drinking), screening and brief intervention using a harm reduction approach, traditional abstinence-based interventions (12 step programmes) and no intervention.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and PsycINFO up to March 2012. This search was expanded by handsearching of high-yield journals and conference proceedings that had not already been handsearched on behalf of The Cochrane Collaboration, searching reference lists of all papers and relevant reviews identified, references to ongoing and recently completed clinical trials in the National Research Register and IFPMA Clinical Trials Database (which contains ClinicalTrials.gov, Centerwatch, Current Controlled Trials and ClinicalStudyResults.gov, and Osservatorio Nazionale sulla Sperimentazione Clinica dei Medicinali). Trials registers, grey literature and reference lists were also searched. Individuals, organisations and experts in the field were contacted.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised control trials (RCT), controlled clinical trials (CCT), interrupted time series (ITS) studies, and control before and after (CBA) studies involving vulnerable people aged 18 years or older who were at high risk for alcohol abuse attending MAP, defined as a structured programme that provided clients with controlled amounts of alcohol on a daily schedule, comparing no treatment, moderate drinking, brief intervention or 12-step variants.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

All study citations were collated into a single database. Two review author independently screened titles and abstracts and selected references potentially relevant to the review. Differences between selection lists were resolved by discussion. Two review authors independently evaluated whether studies should be included or excluded according to the eligibility criteria. In the event of a disagreement, a third author was consulted.

MAIN RESULTS

No studies were included in the review. This systematic review was intended to assess the effectiveness of a brief MAP on the reduction of incidence of harmful behaviour; however, no evidence was available to make this comparison; 22 articles were considered possibly relevant and all were excluded. Most articles were excluded because they failed to compare or consider managed alcohol as the experimental or control intervention, as well as one study (Baker 2010), which was also excluded because study participants were under 18 years of age. No study reviewed offered an intervention that was compared with managed alcohol or considered it as the intervention of interest, providing insufficient evidence to address the objectives of the review. Four studies (Aalto 2001; Baker 2010; Bertholet 2005; Tracy 2007) considered alcohol reduction as an outcome of interest, while four engaged interventions in a shelter setting or targeted vulnerable people (Baker 2010; Bradford 2005; Lapham 1993; McGlynn 1993); only one study (Kidd 2011) offered a qualitative assessment of a participant being admitted to MAP, but offered no analysis of the programme itself. These results accurately reflect the use of MAPs in current practice as existing programmes are ongoing only in a small number of sample pilot projects that target individuals with severe alcohol dependence or who consume non-beverage alcohol.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The lack of evidence does not allow for a conclusion regarding the efficacy of MAP on their own, or as compared to brief intervention, moderate drinking, no intervention or 12-step variants. It is the review authors' opinion that it is likely to be the objective of MAPs that reduce their reportability and use in current practice, rather than a failure to provide an intervention that reduces the effects of alcohol dependence. Aiming to reduce harmful or antisocial behaviour in vulnerable individuals through the regulation of daily alcohol intake, rather than reducing harmful alcohol intake over time, provides considerable difficulty in developing measures of success from self-reported data (low treatment thresholds), monitoring long-term efficacy or establishing causal links between programme admission and a reduction in targeted behaviours, owing to the fact that prolonged participation in the programme is likely to indicate a willingness in the individual to change their behaviour patterns. More effort is needed to develop reporting measures, as well as methodologies, which address these specific challenges.

Motivational interviewing for substance abuse

BACKGROUND

There are 76.3 million people with alcohol use disorders worldwide and 15.3 million with drug use disorders. Motivational interviewing (MI) is a client-centred, semi-directive method for enhancing intrinsic motivation to change by exploring and resolving ambivalence. The intervention is used widely, and therefore it is important to find out whether it helps, harms or is ineffective.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of motivational interviewing for substance abuse on drug use, retention in treatment, readiness to change, and number of repeat convictions.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched 18 electronic databases, 5 web sites, 4 mailing lists, and reference lists from included studies and reviews. Search dates were November 30, 2010 for Cochrane Library, Medline, Embase and PsychINFO.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized controlled trials with persons dependent or abusing substance. Interventions were MI or motivational enhancement therapy. The outcomes were extent of substance abuse, retention in treatment, motivation for change, repeat conviction.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Three authors independently assessed studies for inclusion, and two authors extracted data. Results were categorized into (1) MI versus no-treatment control, (2) MI versus treatment as usual, (3) MI versus assessment and feedback, and (4) MI versus other active treatment. Within each category, we computed meta-analyses separately for post-intervention, short, medium and long follow-ups.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 59 studies with a total of 13,342 participants. Compared to no treatment control MI showed a significant effect on substance use which was strongest at post-intervention SMD 0.79, (95% CI 0.48 to 1.09) and weaker at short SMD 0.17 (95% CI 0.09 to 0.26], and medium follow-up SMD 0.15 (95% CI 0.04 to 0.25]). For long follow-up, the effect was not significant SMD 0.06 (95% CI-0.16 to 0.28). There were no significant differences between MI and treatment as usual for either follow-up post-intervention, short and medium follow up. MI did better than assessment and feedback for medium follow-up SMD 0.38 (95% CI 0.10 to 0.66). For short follow-up, there was no significant effect . For other active intervention there were no significant effects for either follow-up.There was not enough data to conclude about effects of MI on the secondary outcomes.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

MI can reduce the extent of substance abuse compared to no intervention. The evidence is mostly of low quality, so further research is very likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and is likely to change the estimate.

Nursing considerations for dual diagnosis in mental health

It is the intention of this literature review to present suggestions for nursing practice with reference to the care of the dually diagnosed. Nursing care of the dually diagnosed client is complex. Clinicians from both drug and alcohol services and mental health services have long recognized that neither service area provides adequate clinical care to those clients who have a dual diagnosis of substance abuse and mental illness. It is now > 10 years since a ground-breaking Australian study recognized this. To ascertain whether there has been improvement in the service management of clients who have a dual diagnosis, and to determine the best practice interventions in the area of mental health nursing, we undertook a review of the literature. The databases CINAHL, MEDLINE, PsycARTICLES and PsychINFO were searched and 185 articles met the inclusion criteria. From this review, it seems that gaps still remain in the provision of services and that mental health nurses might be best placed to provide integrated care to those clients who have a dual diagnosis and present to mental health services. This requires mental health nurses to have skills in substance use detection and knowledge of potential care implications for the client in the context of their substance use.

Mental illness and substance use: an Australian perspective

This paper presents a review of the literature of service trends and practice recommendations for management of those with the dual diagnosis of mental illness and substance abuse. The method for the review was to search bibliographical data bases and hand held literature published in English between 1990 and 2007. Using the search terms dual diagnosis, and co-morbidity and mental illness, 93 abstracts were selected and reviewed. The authors concluded that a collaborative approach to care with better integration of drug and alcohol services within mental health would benefit clients with a dual diagnosis. Improved education to enhance the assessment and diagnosis of this client group is also considered essential for clinicians in both mental health and alcohol and drugs services.

Psychosocial interventions for people with both severe mental illness and substance misuse

BACKGROUND

Even low levels of substance misuse by people with a severe mental illness can have detrimental effects.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of psychosocial interventions for substance reduction in people with a serious mental illness.

SEARCH STRATEGY

For this update (2007) we searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group Trials Register (May 2006) which is based on regular searches of major databases.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing psychosocial interventions for substance misuse with standard care in people with serious mental illness.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We extracted data independently. For dichotomous data we calculated relative risks (RR) and their 95% confidence intervals (CI) on an intention-to-treat basis, based on a random effects model. We calculated numbers needed to treat/harm (NNT/NNH) where data were homogeneous. For continuous data, we calculated weighted mean differences (WMD) again based on a random effects model.

MAIN RESULTS

Evaluation of long-term integrated care included 4 RCTs (total n=735). We found no significant difference on measures of substance use (n=85, 1 RCT, RR 0.89 CI 0.6 to 1.3) or loss to treatment (n=603, 3 RCTs, RR 1.09 CI 0.8 to 1.5). For the non-integrated intensive case management trials (4 RCTs, total n=151) we also found no significant difference for loss (n=134, 3 RCTs, RR 1.35 CI 0.8 to 2.2). Motivational interviewing plus cognitive behavioural therapy (3 RCTs, total n=276) did not reveal any advantage for retaining participants (n=36, 1 RCT, RR lost to treatment 0.50 CI 0.1 to 5.0) or for relapse (n=36, 1 RCT, RR 0.58 CI 0.3 to 1.1), and no benefit for reducing substance use (n=119, 1 RCT, RR 0.19 CI -0.2 to 0.6). Cognitive behavioural therapy alone (4 trials, total n=260) showed fewer participants lost from treatment (n=260, 4 RCTs, p=0.02, RR 0.61 CI 0.4 to 0.9). No benefits were observed on measures of lessening cannabis use (n=47, 1 RCT, RR 1.30 CI 0.8 to 2.2) or on the number of participants using substances (alcohol; n=46, 1 RCT, RR 5.88 CI 0.8 to 44.0, drugs; n=46, 1 RCT, RR 2.02 CI 0.9 to 4.8) and no differences were observed on measures of mental state (n=105, 1 RCT, RR 0.52 CI -0.8 to 1.8). We found no advantage for motivational interviewing alone (5 trials, total n=338) in reducing 'lost to evaluation' (n=338, 5 RCTs, RR 0.96 CI 0.6 to 1.5) compared with treatment as usual, although significantly more participants in the motivational interviewing group reported for their first aftercare appointment (n=93, 1 RCT, RR 0.69 CI 0.5 to 0.9, NNT 4 CI 3 to 12). Some differences were observed in abstaining from alcohol favouring treatment (n=28, 1 RCT, RR 0.36 CI 0.2 to 0.8, NNT 2 CI 2 to 5), but not other substances (n=89, 1 RCT, RR -0.07 CI -0.6 to 0.4) and no differences were observed in mental state (n=30, 1 RCT, WMD -4.20 CI -18.7 to 10.3). Finally, we found no significant differences for skills training in the numbers lost to treatment by 12 months (n=94, 2 RCTs, RR 0.70 CI 0.4 to 1.1).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We included 25 RCTs and found no compelling evidence to support any one psychosocial treatment over another to reduce substance use (or improve mental state) by people with serious mental illnesses. Furthermore, methodological difficulties exist which hinder pooling and interpreting results; high drop out rates, varying fidelity of interventions, varying outcome measures, settings and samples and comparison groups may have received higher levels of treatment than standard care. Further studies are required which address these concerns and improve the evidence in this important area.

Stop Using Stuff: trial of a drug and alcohol intervention for young people with comorbid mental illness and drug and alcohol problems

OBJECTIVE

Substance abuse is a significant problem in the treatment of young people with their first psychosis. This study reports a randomized trial of a brief manualized cognitive behavioural therapy for substance abuse in young people with psychosis.

METHOD

Subjects were randomized between the study treatment and a group treated as usual. Treatment was a four to six session brief cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) intervention developed specifically for this patient group - Stop Using Stuff (SUS).

RESULTS

Both groups improved across the trial. However, those exposed to the active treatment improved significantly on measures of the frequency of cannabis and alcohol abuse.

CONCLUSIONS

Brief interventions in substance abuse in young people with psychosis can help moderate substance use in this difficult to treat group.

Mono- versus polydrug abuse patterns among publicly funded clients

To examine patterns of mono- versus polydrug abuse, data were obtained from intake records of 69,891 admissions to publicly funded treatment programs in Tennessee between 1998 and 2004. While descriptive statistics were employed to report frequency and patterns of mono- and polydrug abuse by demographic variables and by study years, bivariate logistic regression was applied to assess the probability of being a mono- or polydrug abuser for a number of demographic variables. The researchers found that during the study period 51.3% of admissions reported monodrug abuse and 48.7% reported polydrug abuse. Alcohol, cocaine, and marijuana were the most commonly abused substances, both alone and in combination. Odds ratio favored polydrug abuse for all but one drug category–other drugs. Gender did not affect drug abuse patterns; however, admissions for African Americans and those living in urban areas exhibited higher probabilities of polydrug abuse. Age group also appeared to affect drug abuse patterns, with higher odds of monodrug abuse among minors and adults over 45 years old. The discernable prevalence of polydrug abuse suggests a need for developing effective prevention strategies and treatment plans specific to polydrug abuse.

Violence, self-harm, victimisation and homelessness in patients admitted to an acute inpatient unit in South Australia

OBJECTIVES

To measure the incidence of traumatic and potentially socially disruptive events prior to admission to a psychiatric hospital.

METHOD

One hundred and nineteen patients were interviewed and further information was obtained from case notes. Data were collected concerning rates of violence, self-harm, threats of violence or self-harm, physical assault and homelessness.

RESULTS

The patients' mean age was 35 years, 70% were male and 77% were currently single. More than half were legally detained. The most common diagnoses were substance abuse disorders, schizophrenia and related psychoses and mood disorders. Eighteen per cent of patients were physically violent at the time of admission. They were more likely to have a diagnosis of substance abuse. Significantly more men (30%) than women (8%) made threats of violence. Eighteen per cent of patients had physically harmed themselves. Significantly more women (70%) than men (40%) had threatened to harm themselves. Eight per cent of patients had been physically assaulted prior to admission. Twenty-seven per cent of patients were homeless.

CONCLUSION

These patients were severely disabled with high rates of comorbidity. Socially disruptive behaviours were common, and almost a quarter of the patients were homeless. This study highlights the need for development of targeted services in the community.

Injury and Poisoning Mortality among Young Men—Are There any Common Factors Amenable to Prevention?

Summary: Background: Deaths from injury and poisoning (suicide, accidents, undetermined deaths, and homicide) are the major cause of death among young men aged 15-39 years in England and Wales and have been increasing in recent years. Aim: To describe common characteristics among young men who die from injury and poisoning. Design: We employed a retrospective survey methodology to investigate factors associated with deaths by injury and poisoning among young men aged 15-39 years (n = 268) in Merseyside and Cheshire during 1995. Data were collected from Coroner's inquest notes and General Practitioner records. Main results: The most common cause of death was poisoning by alcohol and drugs (29.1%, n = 78). A high proportion of cases were unemployed (39.4%, n = 106). Cases were also more likely to be single compared to the general population (74.2% vs 55.5%). Self-destructive behaviour was evident in 77% of deaths (n = 206). Conclusions: Alcohol and drug use are important contributory factors to injury and poisoning deaths. More research is needed into the effects of unemployment and being single on the health of young men, and to investigate the motivations behind risk taking and self-destructive behaviour.

Development of a Controlled Drinking Self-Efficacy Scale and appraising its relation to alcohol dependence

There is no specific self-efficacy measure that has been developed primarily for problem drinkers seeking a moderation drinking goal. In this article, we report the factor structure of a 20-item Controlled Drinking Self-Efficacy Scale (CDSES; Sitharthan et al., 1996; Sitharthan et al., 1997). The results indicate that the CDSES is highly reliable, and the factor analysis using the full sample identified four factors: negative affect, positive mood/social context, frequency of drinking, and consumption quantity. A similar factor structure was obtained for the subsample of men. In contrast, only three factors emerged in the analysis of data on female participants. Compared to women, men had low self-efficacy to control their drinking in situations relating to positive mood/social context, and subjects with high alcohol dependence had low self-efficacy for situations relating to negative affect, social situations, and drinking less frequently. The CDSES can be a useful measure in treatment programs providing a moderation drinking goal.

Early intervention strategies in substance abuse

Since the mid-eighties many efforts have been made to develop spezialized intervention strategies and interview techniques aiming at harm reduction and motivational enhancement in patients with substance related disorders. Firstly, the "Transtheoretical Model of Change" by Prochaska and DiClemente, which defines motivation as a dynamic process with several stage dependent intervention possibilities. Secondly, the "Motivational Interviewing" technique by Miller and Rollnick, who strongly suggest an empathic communication style deriving from humanistic psychology. It has been shown that especially persons in early stages of substance related disorders profited very well from such early interventions. Psychiatric institutions not involved in specialized addiction treatment have to face frequent comorbid substance abuse among their patients. Findings of the efficacy of early interventions in general psychiatry are encouraging. Despite there is strong evidence of efficacy of early and motivational intervention strategies in several medical fields, their implementation tends to be very difficult.

Motivational interviewing among psychiatric in-patients with substance use disorders

OBJECTIVE

There were three aims of the present study: 1) to document patterns of substance misuse among psychiatric in-patients with comorbid alcohol and other drug (AOD) use; 2) to examine associations among psychiatric and substance use diagnoses and readiness to change; and 3) to evaluate the effectiveness of an opportunistic motivational interview on engagement in a Specialist Substance Misuse Service (SSMS).

METHOD

One hundred and sixty subjects were randomly assigned to receive either a motivational interview or no intervention.

RESULTS

Overall, 66.3% of subjects met intervention threshold for cannabis, 60.6% for alcohol and 22.5% for amphetamines. There was a bimodal distribution of stage of change for cannabis use which was associated with age, with precontemplation being associated with older age and less frequent use. Attendance at the SSMS was low and unrelated to intervention status.

CONCLUSION

A different approach to treatment is recommended, including early intervention among cannabis users.

Better mental health services for young people: responsibility, partnerships and projects

OBJECTIVE

This paper argues that adolescent psychiatry is best linked with child psychiatry and opposes separate youth mental health programmes for 12-25-year-olds. It reports on the current status of services and considers how adult mental health services (AMHS) can improve services for young adults (18-25-year-olds).

METHOD

Factors in development, psychopathology, prevention, training and service systems are reviewed to suggest that current child and adolescent mental health service systems (CAMHS) are appropriate for 0-17-year-olds. Improvements in CAMHS are described from a Victorian perspective, including the model of specialist clinical programmes or teams for specific patient populations. Mechanisms are outlined for AMHS to better assist young adults from 18 to 25 years of age.

RESULTS

The model of clinical projects or clinical programme teams, developed in partnership with primary health and others, is a suitable vehicle to help AMHS to improve clinical services to their young adult populations. These may be funded from a variety of sources, including re-engineering existing service resources.

CONCLUSIONS

Such developments complement the work of specialist research units and build local competencies. More programme development and evaluation is needed, which will require the support of the College and State and Commonwealth Mental Health Branches.