The self-reported impact of legal and non-legal sanctions on a group of recidivist drink drivers

Concern remains regarding the efficacy of legal sanctions to reduce drink driving behaviours among repeat offenders. The present study examined the impact of traditional legal sanctions (e.g., fines and licence disqualification periods), nonlegal sanctions, alcohol consumption and the frequency of recent offending behaviour(s) on intentions to re-offend for a group of recidivist drink drivers (N=166). The analysis indicated that participants perceived legal sanctions to be severe, but not entirely certain nor swift. In addition, self-reported recent drink driving behaviours and alcohol consumption levels were identified as predictors of future intentions to drink and drive. The findings of the study confirm the popular assumption that some repeat offenders are impervious to the threat and application of legal sanctions and suggests that additional interventions such as alcohol treatment programs are required if the drinking and driving sequence is to be broken for this population. (c) 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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. (C) 2003 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Utilising survey data to inform public policy: Comparison of the cost-effectiveness of treatment of ten mental disorders

Background Mental health survey data are now being used proactively to decide how the burden of disease might best be reduced. Aims To study the cost-effectiveness of current and optimal treatments for mental disorders and the proportion of burden avertable by each. Method Data for three affective, four anxiety and two alcohol use disorders and for schizophrenia were compared in terms of cost, burden averted and efficiency of current and optimal treatment. We then calculated the burden unavertable given current knowledge. The unit of health gain was a reduction in the years lived with disability (YLDs). Results Summing across all disorders, current treatment averted 13% of the burden, at an average cost of AUS$30 000 per YLD gained. Optimal treatment at current coverage could avert 20% of the burden, at an average cost of AUS$18 000 per YLD gained. Optimal treatment at optimal coverage could avert 28% of the burden, at AUS$16 000 per YLD gained. Sixty per cent of the burden of mental disorders was deemed to be unavertable. Conclusions The efficiency of treatment varied more than tenfold across disorders. Although coverage of some of the more efficient treatments should be extended, other factors justify continued use of less-efficient treatments for some disorders. Declaration of interest None. Funding detailed in Acknowledgements.

Alcohol dependence: the impact of cognitive behaviour therapy with or without naltrexone on subjective health status

Objectives: To examine the health-related quality of life of alcohol-dependent patients across a 12-week cognitive behaviour treatment (CBT) program and identify whether the patient selection of the anticraving medication naltrexone further enhanced these outcomes. Method: One hundred and thirty-six consecutive alcohol-dependent subjects voluntarily participated and were offered naltrexone, of which 73 (54%) participants declined medication. A matched design was used. Of the 136 subjects, 86 (43 naltrexone and CBT; 43 CBT only) could be individually matched (blind to outcome measures) for gender, age, prior alcohol detoxification and dependence severity. Measures of health status and mental health wellbeing included the Rand Corporation Medical Outcomes Short Form 36 Health Survey (SF-36) and the General Health Questionnaire (GHQ-28). Results: Pre-treatment, all had SF-36 and GHQ-28 scores markedly below national norms. Post-treatment, significant improvement in seven of the eight SF-36 subscales and all of the GHQ-28 subscales occurred, approximating national normative levels. Patients in the CBT + naltrexone group were significantly more likely to have increased days abstinent (p = 0.002) and to complete the program abstinent (p = 0.051). The adjunctive use of naltrexone did not provide additional benefit as reflected in SF-36 and GHQ-28 scores, beyond CBT alone. Conclusions: Patients who completed the CBT-based treatment program reported significant improvements in self-reported health status (SF-36) and wellbeing (GHQ-28). The adjunctive use of naltrexone demonstrated no additional improvement in these measures.

British drinking: a suitable case for treatment?

The rising consumption of alcohol per capita in Britain over the past 20 years has produced large increases in the prevalence of alcoholic cirrhosis, alcohol related violence, and heavy alcohol use, costing the British economy around £30bn ($55bn; {euro}44bn) a year.1 About 7.5% of men and 2.1% of women in Britain are dependent on alcohol, among the highest rates in the European Union.2 Two papers in this issue show that two relatively brief psychosocial interventions—motivational enhancement treatment and social network therapy—are effective and cost effective in treating alcohol dependence, when delivered under routine clinical conditions in the NHS.3 4 The UK government could realise its stated aim of increasing access to effective treatments for alcohol dependence by investing in these interventions. Britain also urgently needs to reduce the high rates of high risk drinking that produce dependence, health problems, and public disorder. Epidemiologists see the key drivers of rising consumption . . . [Full text of this article]

The relationship between acute alcohol consumption and consequent injury type

Aims: The aim of this study was to quantify the relationship between acute alcohol consumption and injury type (nature of injury, body region injured), while adjusting for the effect of known confounders (i.e. demographic and situational variables, usual drinking patterns, substance use and risk-taking behaviour). Methods: A cross-sectional study was conducted between October, 2000 and October, 2001 of patients aged >= 15 years presenting to a Queensland Emergency Department for treatment of an injury sustained in the preceding 24 h. There were three measures of acute alcohol consumption: drinking setting, quantity, and beverage type consumed in the 6 h prior to injury. Two variables were used to quantify injury type: nature of injury (fracture/dislocation, superficial, internal, and CNS injury) and body part injured (head/neck, facial, chest, abdominal, external, and extremities). Both were derived from patient medical records. Results: Five hundred and ninety three patients were interviewed. Logistic regression analyses indicated that, after controlling for relevant confounding variables, there was no significant association between any of the three measures of acute alcohol consumption and injury type. Conclusions: The effects of acute alcohol consumption are not specific to injury type. Interventions aimed at reducing the incidence of alcohol-related injury should not be targeted at specific injury types.

Addition of cue exposure to cognitive-behaviour therapy for alcohol misuse: a randomized trial with dysphoric drinkers

Aim To test whether addition of moderation-orientated cue exposure (CE) or CE after dysphoric mood induction ( emotional CE, ECE) improved outcomes above those from cognitive-behaviour therapy alone (CBT) in people who drank when dysphoric. Design Multi-site randomized controlled trial comparing CBT with CBT + CE and CBT + ECE. Setting Out-patient rooms in academic treatment units in Brisbane and Sydney, Australia. Participants People with alcohol misuse and problems controlling consumption when dysphoric (n = 163). Those with current major depressive episode were excluded. Intervention Eight weekly 75-minute sessions of individual treatment for alcohol problems were given to all participants, with CBT elements held constant across conditions. From session 2, CBT + CE participants resisted drinking while exposed to alcohol cues, with two priming doses of their preferred beverage being given in some sessions. After an initial CE session, CBT + ECE participants recalled negative experiences before undertaking CE, to provide exposure to emotional cues of personal relevance. Measurements Alcohol consumption, related problems, alcohol expectancies, self-efficacy and depression. Results Average improvements were highly significant across conditions, with acceptable maintenance of effects over 12 months. Both treatment retention and effects on alcohol consumption were progressively weaker in CBT + CE and CBT + ECE than in CBT alone. Changes in alcohol dependence and depression did not differ across conditions. Conclusions These data do not indicate that addition of clinic-based CE to standard CBT improves outcomes. A different approach to the management of craving may be required.

Acute alcohol consumption and mechanism of injury

Objective: The purpose of this study was to determine whether injury mechanism among injured patients is differentially distributed as a function of acute alcohol consumption (quantity, type, and drinking setting). Method: A cross-sectional study was conducted between October 2000 and October 2001 in the Gold Coast Hospital Emergency Department, Queensland, Australia. Data were collected quarterly over a 12-month period. Every injured patient who presented to the emergency department during the study period for treatment of an injury sustained less than 24 hours prior to presentation was approached for interview. The final sample comprised 593 injured patients (males = 377). Three measures of alcohol consumption in the 6 hours prior to injury were obtained from self-report: quantity, beverage type, and drinking setting. The main outcome measure was mechanism of injury which was categorized into six groups: road traffic crash (RTC), being hit by or against something, fall, cut/piercing, overdose/poisoning, and miscellaneous. Injury intent was also measured (intentional vs unintentional). Results: After controlling for relevant confounding variables, neither quantity nor type of alcohol was significantly associated with injury mechanism. However, drinking setting (i.e., licensed premise) was significantly associated with increased odds of sustaining an intentional versus unintentional injury (odds ratio [OR] = 2.79, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.4-5.6); injury through being hit by/against something versus other injury types (OR = 2.59, 95% CI = 1.4-4.9); and reduced odds of sustaining an injury through RTC versus non-RTC (OR = 0.02, 95% CI = 0.004-0.9), compared with not drinking alcohol prior to injury. Conclusions: No previous analytical studies have examined the relationship between injury mechanism and acute alcohol consumption (quantity, type, and setting) across all types of injury and all injury severities while controlling for potentially important confounders (demographic and situational confounders, risk-taking behavior, substance use, and usual drinking patterns). These data suggest that among injured patients, mechanism of injury is not differentially distributed as a function of quantity or type of acute alcohol consumption but may be differentially distributed as a function of drinking setting (i.e., RTC, intentional injury, being hit). Therefore, prevention strategies that focus primarily on the quantity and type of alcohol consumed should be directed generically across injury mechanisms and not limited to particular cause of injury campaigns.

Alcohol use and risk taking among regular ecstasy users

We examine alcohol use in conjunction with ecstasy use and risk-taking behaviors among regular ecstasy users in every capital city in Australia. Data on drug use and risks were collected in 2004 from a national sample of 852 regular ecstasy users (persons who had used ecstasy at least monthly in the preceding 6 months). Users were grouped according to their typical alcohol use when using ecstasy: no use, consumption of between one and five standard drinks, and consumption of more than five drinks (binge alcohol use). The sample was young, well educated, and mainly working or studying. Approximately two thirds (65%) of the regular ecstasy users reported drinking alcohol when taking ecstasy. Of these, 69% reported usually consuming more than five standard drinks. Those who did not drink alcohol were more disadvantaged, with greater levels of unemployment, less education, higher rates of drug user treatment, and prison history. They were also more likely than those who drank alcohol when using ecstasy to be drug injectors and to be hepatitis C positive. Excluding alcohol, drug use patterns were similar between groups, although the no alcohol group used cannabis and methamphetamine more frequently. Binge drinkers were more likely to report having had three or more sexual partners in the past 6 months and were less likely to report having safe sex with casual partners while under the influence of drugs. Despite some evidence that the no alcohol group were more entrenched drug users, those who typically drank alcohol when taking ecstasy were as likely to report risks and problems associated with their drug use. It appears that regular ecstasy users who binge drink are placing themselves at increased sexual risk when under the influence of drugs. Safe sex messages should address the sexual risk associated with substance use and should be tailored to reducing alcohol consumption, particularly targeting heavy alcohol users. The study's limitations are noted.

Does naltrexone treatment lead to depression? Findings from a randomized controlled trial in subjects with opioid dependence

Objective: Dysphoria and depression have been cited as side effects of the opioid antagonist naltrexone. We aimed to assess whether depressive symptoms are a clinically relevant side effect in a population receiving naltrexone as a treatment for opioid dependence. Methods: We carried out a randomized controlled, open-label trial comparing rapid opiate detoxification under anesthesia and naltrexone treatment with continued methadone maintenance at the Alcohol and Drug Service, Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital, Brisbane, Australia. The study subjects were patients stabilized on methadone maintenance treatment for heroin dependence who wished to transfer to naltrexone treatment. The Beck Depression Inventory, State-Trait Anxiety Inventory and Opiate Treatment Index subscales for heroin use and social functioning were used at baseline and follow-up assessments at 1, 2, 3 and 6 months. Results: Forty-two participants were allocated to receive naltrexone treatment, whereas 38 continued methadone maintenance as the control condition. Participants who received naltrexone did not exhibit worsening of depressive symptoms. In participants attending all follow-up assessments, there was a trend for those receiving naltrexone to exhibit an improvement in depression over time compared with the control group. Participants who were adherent to naltrexone treatment exhibited fewer depressive symptoms than those who were nonadherent. Conclusions: These results suggest that depression need not be considered a common adverse effect of naltrexone treatment or a treatment contraindication and that engaging with or adhering to naltrexone treatment may be associated with fewer depressive symptoms.

Combined acamprosate and naltrexone, with cognitive behavioural therapy is superior to either medication alone for alcohol abstinence: A single centres' experience with pharmacotherapy

Aims: To compare treatment outcomes amongst patients offered pharmacotherapy with either naltrexone or acamprosate used singly or in combination, in a 12-week outpatient cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) programme for alcohol dependence. Methods: We matched 236 patients across gender, age group, prior alcohol detoxification, and dependence severity and conducted a cohort comparison study of three medication groups (CBT+acamprosate, CBT+naltrexone, CBT+combined medication) which included 59 patients per group. Outcome measures included programme attendance, programme abstinence and for those who relapsed, cumulative abstinence duration (CAD) and days to first breach (DFB). Secondary analyses compared the remaining matched 59 subjects who declined medication with the pharmacotherapy groups. Results: Across medication groups, CBT+ combined medication produced the greatest improvement across all outcome measures. Although a trend favoured the CBT+ combined group, differences did not reach statistical significance. Programme attendance: CBT + Acamprosate group (66.1%), CBT + Naltrexone group (79.7%), and in the CBT + Combined group (83.1%). Abstinence rates were 50.8, 66.1, and 67.8%, respectively. For those that did not complete the programme abstinent, the average number of days abstinent (CAD) were 45.07, 49.95, and 53.58 days, respectively. The average numbers of days to first breach (DFB) was 26.79, 26.7, and 37.32 days. When the focal group (CBT + combined) was compared with patients who declined medication (CBT-alone), significant differences were observed across all outcome indices. Withdrawal due to adverse medication effects was minimal. Conclusions: The addition of both medications (naltrexone and acamprosate) resulted in measurable benefit and was well tolerated. In this patient population naltrexone with CBT is as effective as combined medication with CBT, but the trend favours combination medication.