Alcohol- and drug-use disorders in Australia: implications of the National Survey of Mental Health and Wellbeing

Objective: This study reports the prevalence and correlates of ICD-10 alcohol- and drug-use disorders in the National Survey of Mental Health and Wellbeing (NSMHWB) and discusses their implications for treatment. Method: The NSMHWB was a nationally representative household survey of 10 641 Australian adults that assessed participants for symptoms of the most prevalent ICD-10 and DSM-IV mental disorders, including alcohol- and drug-use disorders. Results: In the past 12 months 6.5% of Australian adults met criteria for an ICD-10 alcohol-use disorder and 2.2% had another ICD-10 drug-use disorder. Men were at higher risk than women of developing alcohol- and drug-use disorders and the prevalence of both disorders decreased with increasing age. There were high rates of comorbidity between alcohol- and other drug-use disorders and mental disorders and low rates of treatment seeking. Conclusions: Alcohol-use disorders are a major mental health and public health issue in Australia. Drug-use disorders are less common than alcohol-use disorders, but still affect a substantial minority of Australian adults. Treatment seeking among persons with alcohol- and other drug-use disorders is low. A range of public health strategies (including improved specialist treatment services) are needed to reduce the prevalence of these disorders.

Personality disorders in the community: a report from the Australian national survey of mental health and wellbeing

Background: The first set of aims of the present study was to determine the prevalence of personality disorders (PDs) in a nation, and gender differences in the types and numbers of PDs endorsed. The second set of aims was to establish the relationship of PD to other, non-PD disorders, physical conditions, and disability. Method: Data were obtained from the Australian National Survey of Mental Health and Wellbeing, conducted between May and August 1997. A stratified random sample of households was generated, from which all those aged 18 or over were considered potential interviewees. There were 10,641 respondents to the survey, and this represented a response rate of 78%. Each interviewee was asked 59 questions indexing specific ICD-10 PD criteria. Results: Of the total survey sample, 704 persons had at least one PD. Using weighted replicate weights, it was estimated that approximately 6.5% of the adult population of Australia have one or more PDs (lifetime prevalence). Persons with PD were more likely to be younger, male, and not married, and to have an anxiety disorder, an affective disorder, a substance use disorder, or a physical condition. They were also more likely to have greater disability than those without PD. Conclusion: The study is the first nationwide survey of mental disorders conducted within Australia. It provides an estimate of the prevalence of the various types of PD. The survey has considerable limitations, however, and these are discussed.

Characteristics of DSM-IV and ICD-10 cannabis dependence among Australian adults: results from the National Survey of Mental Health and Wellbeing

A representative sample (n = 10 641) of Australian adults completed a structured diagnostic interview assessing the prevalence of mental and substance use disorders in the last year. The prevalence of DSM-IV (1.5%) and ICD-10 (1.7%) cannabis dependence was similar. DSM-IV and ICD-10 dependence criteria comprised unidimensional syndromes. The most common symptoms among dependent and non-dependent users were difficulties with controlling use and withdrawal, although there were marked differences in symptom prevalence. Dependent users reported a median of four symptoms. There was good to excellent diagnostic concordance (kappas = 0.7-0.9) between systems for dependence but not for abuse/harmful use (Y = 0.4). These findings provide some support for the validity of cannabis dependence. (C) 2001 Elsevier Science Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

Attaching unit costs to Australia's National Survey of Mental Health and Wellbeing

Background: In mental health, policy-makers and planners are increasingly being asked to set priorities. This means that health economists, health services researchers and clinical investigators are being called upon to work together to define and measure costs. Typically, these researchers take available service utilisation data and convert them to costs, using a range of assumptions. There are inefficiencies, as individual groups of researchers frequently repeat essentially similar exercises in achieving this end. There are clearly areas where shared or common investment in the development of statistical software syntax, analytical frameworks and other resources could maximise the use of data. Aims of the Study: This paper reports on an Australian project in which we calculated unit costs for mental health admissions and community encounters. In reporting on these calculations, our purpose is to make the data and the resources associated with them publicly available to researchers interested in conducting economic analyses, and allow them to copy, distribute and modify them, providing that all copies and modifications are available under the same terms and conditions (i.e., in accordance with the 'Copyleft' principle), Within this context, the objectives of the paper are to: (i) introduce the 'Copyleft' principle; (ii) provide an overview of the methodology we employed to derive the unit costs; (iii) present the unit costs themselves; and (iv) examine the total and mean costs for a range of single and comorbid conditions, as an example of the kind of question that the unit cost data can be used to address. Method: We took relevant data from the Australian National Survey of Mental Health and Wellbeing (NSMHWB), and developed a set of unit costs for inpatient and community encounters. We then examined total and mean costs for a range of single and comorbid conditions. Results: We present the unit costs for mental health admissions and mental health community contacts. Our example, which explored the association between comorbidity and total and mean costs, suggested that comorbidly occurring conditions cost more than conditions which occur on their own. Discussion: Our unit costs, and the materials associated with them, have been published in a freely available form governed by a provision termed 'Copyleft'. They provide a valuable resource for researchers wanting to explore economic questions in mental health. Implications for Health Policies: Our unit costs provide an important resource to inform economic debate in mental health in Australia, particularly in the area of priority-setting. In the past, such debate has largely, been based on opinion. Our unit costs provide the underpinning to strengthen the evidence-base of this debate. Implications for Further Research: We would encourage other Australian researchers to make use of our unit costs in order to foster comparability across studies. We would also encourage Australian and international researchers to adopt the 'Copyleft' principle in equivalent circumstances. Furthermore, we suggest that the provision of 'Copyleft'-contingent funding to support the development of enabling resources for researchers should be considered in the planning of future large-scale collaborative survey work, both in Australia and overseas.

Encouraging practitioners to use resources: evaluation of the national implementation of a resource to improve the clinical management of alcohol-related problems in Indigenous primary care settings

This paper reports on the evaluation of the implementation of the National Recommendations for the Clinical Management of Alcohol-Related Problems in Indigenous Primary Care Settings undertaken in 2001 through 74 standardized workshops, which sought to determine: ( 1) whether this approach to implementation influenced the likelihood that the National Recommendations would be used; ( 2) whether it influenced participants' willingness to engage with Indigenous patients regarding alcohol-related issues; and ( 3) whether the implementation as a whole influenced both practice and clinicians' willingness to engage. Evaluation included pre-/post-workshop and follow-up questionnaires and a focus group. The findings presented indicate that distribution of clinical resources alone is not sufficient to ensure use and that, particularly for medical practitioners, appropriate introduction not only increases use but also positively influences willingness to engage with alcohol-related problems as part of primary clinical care. Further, the enthusiasm for guideline production should be tempered by the need to develop effective implementation strategies.