Youth alcohol and drug good practice guide 1 : a framework for youth alcohol and other drug practice

This Guide outlines a framework for working with young people whose AOD use creates significant vulnerability to current or future harm. The target audience is practitioners who work with young people who have problematic AOD use and the managers of these practitioners. Areas of content include the elements of a framework for AOD practice, an appreciation of the developmental, social and institutional location of young people, key concepts and understandings regarding good youth centered context responsive practice, and key policy constructs and directions.

We know this: How to apply what you already know to treat alcohol and other drug problems

Background Implementing effective AOD supports and treatments into our daily practice can occur via a range of strategies. While specialist treatments exclusively targeting pathways toward substance reduction are an option, it is often not within the scope of many psychologists working in generalist or tertiary mental health settings. Regardless of the perceived barriers for integrating AOD practice into our work, there are key principles and approaches that can be adopted to improve the outcomes for many clients. Aim Irrespective of the client’s perceived need to address AOD issues, significant substance use will impact on the development, prognosis and treatment of most mental health conditions. Embedding AOD practice across our clinical work requires an openness to consider evidence-based approaches for all levels of substance use. Method This presentation will outline a series of approaches that all practitioners can adopt, based on the principles of harm reduction and empowerment of client’s choice. An emphasis will be made toward outlining approaches that are consistent with best practice, easily accessible and do not require extensive resources to embed. Conclusion Applying effective AOD treatments as a standard treatment component is achievable for all practitioners and is essential for achieving better outcomes for a high proportion of the community accessing treatment from psychologists.

Evaluation of a workplace alcohol and other drug policy

BACKGROUND The current impetus for developing alcohol and/or other drugs (AODs) workplace policies in Australia is to reduce workplace AOD impairment, improve safety, and prevent AOD-related injury in the workplace. For these policies to be effective, they need to be informed by scientific evidence. Evidence to inform the development and implementation of effective workplace AOD policies is currently lacking. There does not currently appear to be conclusive evidence for the effectiveness of workplace AOD policies in reducing impairment and preventing AOD-related injury. There is also no apparent evidence regarding which factors facilitate or impede the success of an AOD policy, or whether, for example, unsuccessful policy outcomes were due to poor policy or merely poor implementation of the policy. It was the aim of this research to undertake a process, impact, and outcome evaluation of a workplace AOD policy, and to contribute to the body of knowledge on the development and implementation of effective workplace AOD policies. METHODS The research setting was a state-based power-generating industry in Australia between May 2008 and May 2010. Participants for the process evaluation study were individuals who were integral to either the development or the implementation of the workplace AOD policy, or both of these processes (key informants), and comprised the majority of individuals who were involved in the process of developing and/or implementing the workplace AOD policy. The sample represented the two main groups of interest—management and union delegates/employee representatives—from all three of the participating organisations. For the impact and outcome evaluation studies, the population included all employees from the three participating organisations, and participants were all employees who consented to participate in the study and who completed both the pre-and post-policy implementation questionnaires. Qualitative methods in the form of interviews with key stakeholders were used to evaluate the process of developing and implementing the workplace AOD policy. In order to evaluate the impact of the policy with regard to the risk factors for workplace AOD impairment, and the outcome of the policy in terms of reducing workplace AOD impairment, quantitative methods in the form of a non-randomised single group pre- and post-test design were used. Changes from Time 1 (pre) to Time 2 (post) in the risk factors for workplace AOD impairment, and changes in the behaviour of interest—(self-reported) workplace AOD impairment—were measured. An integration of the findings from the process, impact, and outcome evaluation studies was undertaken using a combination of qualitative and quantitative methods. RESULTS For the process evaluation study Study respondents indicated that their policy was developed in the context of comparable industries across Australia developing workplace AOD policies, and that this was mainly out of concern for the deleterious health and safety impacts of workplace AOD impairment. Results from the process evaluation study also indicated that in developing and implementing the workplace AOD policy, there were mainly ‗winners', in terms of health and safety in the workplace. While there were some components of the development and implementation of the policy that were better done than others, and the process was expensive and took a long time, there were, overall, few unanticipated consequences to implementing the policy and it was reported to be thorough and of a high standard. Findings also indicated that overall the policy was developed and implemented according to best-practice in that: consultation during the policy development phase (with all the main stakeholders) was extensive; the policy was comprehensive; there was universal application of the policy to all employees; changes in the workplace (with regard to the policy) were gradual; and, the policy was publicised appropriately. Furthermore, study participants' responses indicated that the role of an independent external expert, who was trusted by all stakeholders, was integral to the success of the policy. For the impact and outcome evaluation studies Notwithstanding the limitations of pre- and post-test study designs with regard to attributing cause to the intervention, the findings from the impact evaluation study indicated that following policy implementation, statistically significant positive changes with regard to workplace AOD impairment were recorded for the following variables (risk factors for workplace AOD impairment): Knowledge; Attitudes; Perceived Behavioural Control; Perceptions of the Certainty of being punished for coming to work impaired by AODs; Perceptions of the Swiftness of punishment for coming to work impaired by AODs; and Direct and Indirect Experience with Punishment Avoidance for workplace AOD impairment. There were, however, no statistically significant positive changes following policy implementation for Behavioural Intentions, Subjective Norms, and Perceptions of the Severity of punishment for workplace AOD impairment. With regard to the outcome evaluation, there was a statistically significant reduction in self-reported workplace AOD impairment following the implementation of the policy. As with the impact evaluation, these findings need to be interpreted in light of the limitations of the study design in being able to attribute cause to the intervention alone. The findings from the outcome evaluation study also showed that while a positive change in self-reported workplace AOD impairment following implementation of the policy did not appear to be related to gender, age group, or employment type, it did appear to be related to levels of employee general alcohol use, cannabis use, site type, and employment role. Integration of the process, impact, and outcome evaluation studies There appeared to be qualitative support for the relationship between the process of developing and implementing the policy, and the impact of the policy in changing the risk factors for workplace AOD impairment. That is, overall the workplace AOD policy was developed and implemented well and, following its implementation, there were positive changes in the majority of measured risk factors for workplace AOD impairment. Quantitative findings lend further support for a relationship between the process and impact of the policy, in that there was a statistically significant association between employee perceived fidelity of the policy (related to the process of the policy) and positive changes in some risk factors for workplace AOD impairment (representing the impact of the policy). Findings also indicated support for the relationship between the impact of the policy in changing the risk factors for workplace AOD impairment and the outcome of the policy in reducing workplace AOD impairment: positive changes in the risk factors for workplace AOD impairment (impact) were related to positive changes in self reported workplace AOD impairment (representing the main goal and outcome of the policy). CONCLUSIONS The findings from the research indicate support for the conclusion that the policy was appropriately implemented and that it achieved its objectives and main goal. The Doctoral research findings also addressed a number of gaps in the literature on workplace AOD impairment, namely: the likely effectiveness of AOD policies for reducing AOD impairment in the workplace, which factors in the development and implementation of a workplace AOD policy are likely to facilitate or impede the effectiveness of the policy to reduce workplace AOD impairment, and which employee groups are less likely to respond well to policies of this type. The findings from this research not only represent an example of translational, applied research—through the evaluation of the study industry's policy—but also add to the body of knowledge on workplace AOD policies and provide policy-makers with evidence which may be useful in the development and implementation of effective workplace AOD policies. Importantly, the findings espouse the importance of scientific evidence in the development, implementation, and evaluation of workplace AOD policies.

Empirical basis for adopting a theory-driven approach to preventing alcohol and other drug impairment (AOD) in the workplace

Background: A State-based industry in Australia is in the process of developing a programme to prevent AOD impairment in the workplace. The objective of this study was to determine whether the Theory of Planned Behaviour can help explain the mechanisms by which behaviour change occurs with regard to AOD impairment in the workplace. ---------- Method: A survey of 1165 employees of a State-based industry in Australia was conducted, and a response rate of 98% was achieved. The survey included questions relevant to the Theory of Planned Behaviour: behaviour; behavioural intentions; attitude; perceptions of social pressure; and perceived behavioural control with regard to workplace AOD impairment. ---------- Findings: Less than 3% of participants reported coming to work impaired by AODs. Fewer than 2% of participants reported that they intended to come to work impaired by AODs. The majority of participants (over 80%) reported unfavourable attitudes toward AOD impairment at work. Logistic regression analyses suggest that, consistent with the theory of planned behaviour: attitudes, perceptions of social pressure, and perceived behavioural control with regard to workplace AOD impairment, all predict behavioural intentions (P < .001); and behavioural intentions predict (self-reported) behaviour regarding workplace AOD impairment (P < .001). ---------- Conclusions: The Theory of Planned Behaviour appears to assist with understanding the mechanisms by which behaviour change occurs with regard to AOD impairment in the workplace. An occupational AOD programme which targets those mechanisms for change may improve its impact in preventing workplace AOD impairment.

Content and functionality of alcohol and other drug websites : results of an online survey

Background: There is a growing trend for individuals to seek health information from online sources. Alcohol and other drug (AOD) use is a significant health problem worldwide, but access and use of AOD websites is poorly understood. ----- ----- Objective: To investigate content and functionality preferences for AOD and other health websites. Methods: An anonymous online survey examined general Internet and AOD-specific usage and search behaviors, valued features of AOD and health-related websites (general and interactive website features), indicators of website trustworthiness, valued AOD website tools or functions, and treatment modality preferences. ----- ----- Results: Surveys were obtained from 1214 drug (n = 766) and alcohol website users (n = 448) (mean age 26.2 years, range 16-70). There were no significant differences between alcohol and drug groups on demographic variables, Internet usage, indicators of website trustworthiness, or on preferences for AOD website functionality. A robust website design/navigation, open access, and validated content provision were highly valued by both groups. While attractiveness and pictures or graphics were also valued, high-cost features (videos, animations, games) were minority preferences. Almost half of respondents in both groups were unable to readily access the information they sought. Alcohol website users placed greater importance on several AOD website tools and functions than did those accessing other drug websites: online screening tools (χ²2 = 15.8, P < .001, n = 985); prevention programs (χ²2 = 27.5, P < .001, n = 981); tracking functions (χ²2 = 11.5, P = .003, n = 983); self help treatment programs (χ²2 = 8.3, P = .02, n = 984); downloadable fact sheets for friends (χ²2 = 11.6, P = .003, n = 981); or family (χ²2 = 12.7, P = .002, n = 983). The most preferred online treatment option for both the user groups was an Internet site with email therapist support. Explorations of demographic differences were also performed. While gender did not affect survey responses, younger respondents were more likely to value interactive and social networking features, whereas downloading of credible information was most highly valued by older respondents. ----- ----- Conclusions: Significant deficiencies in the provision of accessible information on AOD websites were identified, an important problem since information seeking was the most common reason for accessing these websites, and, therefore, may be a key avenue for engaging website users in behaviour change. The few differences between AOD website users suggested that both types of websites may have similar features, although alcohol website users may more readily be engaged in screening, prevention and self-help programs, tracking change, and may value fact sheets more highly. While the sociodemographic differences require replication and clarification, these differences support the notion that the design and features of AOD websites should target specific audiences to have maximal impact.

Assessment of function and clinical utility of alcohol and other drug web sites : an observational, qualitative study

Background The increasing popularity and use of the internet makes it an attractive option for providing health information and treatment, including alcohol/other drug use. There is limited research examining how people identify and access information about alcohol or other drug (AOD) use online, or how they assess the usefulness of the information presented. This study examined the strategies that individuals used to identify and navigate a range of AOD websites, along with the attitudes concerning presentation and content. Methods Members of the general community in Brisbane and Roma (Queensland, Australia) were invited to participate in a 30-minute search of the internet for sites related to AOD use, followed by a focus group discussion. Fifty one subjects participated in the study across nine focus groups. Results Participants spent a maximum of 6.5 minutes on any one website, and less if the user was under 25 years of age. Time spent was as little as 2 minutes if the website was not the first accessed. Participants recommended that AOD-related websites should have an engaging home or index page, which quickly and accurately portrayed the site’s objectives, and provided clear site navigation options. Website content should clearly match the title and description of the site that is used by internet search engines. Participants supported the development of a portal for AOD websites, suggesting that it would greatly facilitate access and navigation. Treatment programs delivered online were initially viewed with caution. This appeared to be due to limited understanding of what constituted online treatment, including its potential efficacy. Conclusions A range of recommendations arise from this study regarding the design and development of websites, particularly those related to AOD use. These include prudent use of text and information on any one webpage, the use of graphics and colours, and clear, uncluttered navigation options. Implications for future website development are discussed.

If you don’t know, you can’t help: A practical guide for alcohol and other drug screening in psychological services

Alcohol is implicated in over 60 diseases and injuries and accounted for 6.2 per cent of all male deaths globally in 2004 (WHO, 2011). Alcohol and other drug (AOD) abuse causes significant individual, family and social harms at all age levels and across all socioeconomic groups. These may result from intoxication (e.g., overdose, vulnerability to physical injury/trauma or death, consequences of impulsive behaviour, aggression and driving under the influence) and longer-term consequences (e.g., alcohol or drug-related brain injury, cardiovascular and liver diseases, blood borne viruses e.g., Chikritzhs et al., 2003, Roxburgh et al., 2013). Mental health problems may be triggered or exacerbated, and family breakdown, poor self-esteem, legal issues and lack of community engagement may also be evident. Despite the prevalence of substance use disorders and evident consequences for the individual, family and wider community, it would seem that health professionals, including psychologists, are reluctant to ask about substance use.

Review of Diagnostic Screening Instruments for Alcohol and Other Drug Use and Other Psychiatric Disorders

In recent years there has been a growing recognition that many people with drug or alcohol problems are also experiencing a range of other psychiatric and psychological problems. The presence of concurrent psychiatric or psychological problems is likely to impact on the success of treatment services. These problems vary greatly, from undetected major psychiatric illnesses that meet internationally accepted diagnostic criteria such as those outlined in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM-IV) of the American Psychiatric Association (1994), to less defined feelings of low mood and anxiety that do not meet diagnostic criteria but nevertheless impact on an individual’s sense of wellbeing and affect their quality of life. Similarly, the presence of a substance misuse problem among those suffering from a major psychiatric illness, often goes undetected. For example, the use of illicit drugs such as cannabis and amphetamine is higher among those individuals suffering from schizophrenia (Hall, 1992) and the misuse of alcohol in people suffering from schizophrenia is well documented (e.g., Gorelick et al., 1990; Searles et al., 1990; Soyka et al., 1993). High rates of alcohol misuse have also been reported in a number of groups including women presenting for treatment with a primary eating disorder (Holderness, Brooks Gunn, & Warren, 1994), individuals suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder (Seidel, Gusman and Aubueg, 1994), and those suffering from anxiety and depression. Despite considerable evidence of high levels of co-morbidity, drug and alcohol treatment agencies and mainstream psychiatric services often fail to identify and respond to concurrent psychiatric or drug and alcohol problems, respectively. The original review was conducted as a first step in providing clinicians with information on screening and diagnostic instruments that may be used to assess previously unidentified co-morbidity. The current revision was conducted to extend the original review by updating psychometric findings on measures in the original review, and incorporating other frequently used measures that were not previously included. The current revision has included information regarding special populations, specifically Indigenous Australians, older persons and adolescents. The objectives were to: ● update the original review of AOD and psychiatric screening/diagnostic instruments, ● recommend when these instruments should be used, by whom and how they should be interpreted, ● identify limitations and provide recommendations for further research, ● refer the reader to pertinent Internet sites for further information and/or purchasing of assessment instruments.

Legal issues for alcohol and other drug use prevention and treatment programs serving high-risk youth /

Mode of access: Internet.

Illinois' commitment to restoring healthy families : a strategy for effective alcohol and other drug services for women.

Cover title.