Search

Aims: To describe the range of effects experienced due to the drinking of people respondents know and analyze risk and protective factors for harm from the drinking of partners and household members, other relatives and friends and co-workers., Design, Setting and Participants: Surveys of 2574 participants' experiences were obtained from two samples: 1000 people responded to random digitally dialled Australian mobile calls and 1574 participants responded from the Life in Australia TM  panel survey., Measurements: Respondents were asked whether they had been negatively affected in the previous 12 months by the drinking of persons they knew who were 'a heavy drinker or drank a lot sometimes' and the nature of these harms. Weighted logistic regressions were used to analyze differences in rates of key negative outcomes from known others' drinking by gender, age and socio-economic status., Findings: Almost two thirds [60.2%; 95% confidence interval (CI) = 57.7%-62.7%] of participants reported having heavy drinkers in their lives and 21.8% (95% CI = 19.8%-23.9%) reported being negatively affected by the drinking of people they knew well in some way. Participants reported a gamut of effects, including, most commonly, adverse social effects: having to transport relatives and friends who had been drinking, role failure and faults, being emotionally hurt or neglected, serious arguments, family problems, having to care for drinkers and verbal abuse. Less commonly, respondents reported physical or sexual harm, property damage, financial stress and threats from others' drinking. Women (odds ratio = 1.49; 95% CI = 1.13-1.95), younger people, rural, Australian-born (vs. respondents born overseas in non-English speaking countries) and more frequent drinkers were more likely to report harm from a drinker they knew than their counterparts after adjusting for other variables in the model., Conclusions: Australians appear to be commonly adversely affected by the drinking of people they know. Harms from known drinkers are more likely to be experienced by women than men, particularly from the people they live with and other relatives., (© 2024 The Authors. Addiction published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Society for the Study of Addiction.)

Background and Aims: Adolescent polysubstance use has been associated with adverse social and health outcomes. Our aim was to measure rates and transitions to polysubstance use during adolescence and identify factors associated with initiation and discontinuation of polysubstance use., Design: Prospective cohort study. Multistate Markov modelling was used to estimate rates and identify correlates of transitions between substance use states., Setting and Participants: Adolescent-parent dyads (n = 1927; adolescents in grade 7, age ≈13 years) were recruited from Australian schools during 2010/11 (Wave 1). Adolescents were surveyed annually until 2016/17 (n = 1503; age ≈19 years; Wave 7) and parents were surveyed annually until 2014/15 (Wave 5)., Measurements: Alcohol, tobacco, cannabis and 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA) use outcomes were collected at Waves 3-7. Potential confounders were collected at Waves 1-6 and consisted of sex, anxiety and depression symptoms and externalizing problems, parental monitoring, family conflict and cohesion, parental substance use and peer substance use. Covariates were age and family socioeconomic status., Findings: Few adolescents engaged in polysubstance use at earlier waves (Wave 3: 5%; Wave 4: 8%), but proportions increased sharply across adolescence (Waves 5-7: 17%, 24%, 36%). Rates of transitioning to polysubstance use increased with age, with few (<9%) adolescents transitioning out. More externalizing problems (odds ratio [OR] = 1.10; 99.6% confidence interval [CI] = 1.07-1.14), parental heavy episodic drinking (OR = 1.22; 99.6% CI = 1.07-1.40), parental illicit substance use (OR = 3.56; 99.6% CI = 1.43-8.86), peer alcohol use (OR = 5.68; 99.6% CI = 1.59-20.50) and peer smoking (OR = 4.18; 99.6% CI = 1.95-8.81) were associated with transitioning to polysubstance use., Conclusions: Polysubstance use in Australia appears to be rare during early adolescence but more common in later adolescence with low rates of transitioning out. Externalizing problems and greater parental and peer substance use are risk factors for adolescent polysubstance use that may be suitable intervention targets., (© 2024 The Authors. Addiction published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Society for the Study of Addiction.)

Aim: To examine the specific deterrent effect of offender supervision on the risk of a further offence by persons convicted of amphetamine use and/or possession., Design: Observational study of two groups matched on a wide range of factors using augmented inverse probability of treatment weighting., Setting: New South Wales (NSW), Australia., Participants: A total of 2099 persons convicted of amphetamine use and/or possession and placed on either a supervised good behaviour bond (1004) or a bond without supervision (1096)., Measurements: Conviction for another amphetamine use/possession offence, any drug offence, assault or theft within 48 months free time after the index court appearance., Findings: Only two of the treatment estimates were consistent with a deterrent effect. Where the outcome was an assault offence, the estimated reduction in risk of re-offending was 1%. Where the outcome was a theft offence, the estimated reduction in the risk of reoffending was 0.07%. Neither result was statistically significant. The coefficients measuring the effect of supervision on the remaining two outcomes (use/possess amphetamine and use/possess any drug) were both positive and not statistically significant., Conclusion: Correctional supervision does not appear to have been effective in New South Wales, Australia, in reducing the risk of reoffending among people convicted of amphetamine use/possession., (© 2020 Society for the Study of Addiction.)

Aim: To evaluate and document the impacts of re-scheduling codeine to a prescription-only medication in Australia in February 2018., Design: Prospective cohort study. Participants completed an on-line survey with a range of outcome measures at four time-points, once before codeine was re-scheduled (November 2017) and three times after the event: 1 month after (February 2018), 4 months after (June 2018) and 12 months after (February 2019)., Setting: Australia., Participants: Participants were 260 Australians aged 18 years and above who reported regular over-the-counter (OTC) codeine use and, at the time of the study, were not engaged in treatment for codeine dependence., Measurements: Survey measures included estimates of daily average codeine use (mg) and overall daily average opioid use [calculated using an oral morphine equivalent daily dose (OMEDD, mg)], opioid use disorder with regard to codeine use (using a modified Alcohol Use Disorder and Associated Disabilities Interview Schedule-IV), pain and pain self-efficacy, anxiety and depression and health service use., Findings: A reduction in total daily codeine use (mg) from 64.3 mg [95% confidence interval (CI) = 46.7-81.9] in November 2017 (baseline) to 27.6 mg (95% CI = 19.2-36.0) in February 2019 (final time-point) was observed. A decline in the proportion of participants who met criteria for an opioid use disorder was also evident, with 51.2% (n = 133) at baseline relative to 33.3% (n = 58) at the 12-month follow-up. This study had an overall participant retention rate of 67% at the final time-point., Conclusion: Re-scheduling codeine in Australia has been accompanied by significant reductions in codeine use and prevalence rates of opioid use disorder in a cohort of individuals who regularly use the medication, without apparent adverse impacts on pain or measures of anxiety and depression., (© 2021 Society for the Study of Addiction.)

Background and Aims: The Australian Treatment Outcomes Profile (ATOP) is a brief instrument measuring recent substance use, risk profile and general health and wellbeing among clients attending alcohol and other drug (AoD) treatment services. This study evaluates the ATOP for concurrent validity, inter-rater and test-re-test reliability among alcohol and opioid treatment groups., Design: For concurrent validity and inter-rater reliability, participants completed an ATOP with a clinician and an ATOP plus standardized questionnaires (time-line follow-back, Opiate Treatment Index, Kessler-10, 12-item Short Form Survey, World Health Organization Quality of Life-BREF, Personal Wellbeing Index) with a researcher within 3 days. For test-re-test reliability, participants completed two ATOPs with a researcher within a 3-day interval., Setting: Outpatient AoD treatment centres in Australia., Participants: For testing concurrent validity and inter-rater reliability, 278 participants were recruited by advertisements in waiting-rooms or clinician invitation during 2016 to 2018. A further 94 participants were recruited to examine test-re-test reliability., Measurements: Statistical tests used for concurrent validity and test-re-test reliability were Pearson's and Spearman's rank order correlations for continuous variables, and Cohen's κ for nominal variables. Inter-rater reliability was assessed using Krippendorf's α., Findings: Most Australian Treatment Outcomes Profile items returned excellent or moderate validity and reliability. For the main substances used-alcohol, cannabis and benzodiazepines-concurrent validity, inter-rater reliability and test-re-test reliability all reached excellent or good agreement (0.72-0.96). Psychological health, physical health and quality of life showed fair to strong agreement with their comparator scales (0.47-0.85)., Conclusions: The Australian Treatment Outcomes Profile is a validated and reliable instrument for assessing recent substance use and clinical risk, health and welfare among alcohol and opioid clients in alcohol and other drug treatment settings. Its ability to reliably measure complex constructs, such as psychological and physical health, against longer scales makes it suitable for integration into routine clinical care, enabling regular monitoring of patient outcomes and safety parameters., (© 2020 Society for the Study of Addiction.)

Background and Aims: Most homicide studies focus upon 'acute' situational intoxication as opposed to 'chronic' substance misuse. The aims of the study were to: (1) determine the extent of homicide offenders' alcohol and drug use in the year preceding the homicide; (2) compare the individual characteristics of homicide offenders across levels of problematic substance use; and (3) compare homicide incident characteristics across levels of problematic substance use., Design and Setting: Observational study using data collected through face-to-face interviews in custodial and community correctional settings across Australia. Participants were recruited through an opt-in process., Participants: The data consist of 302 individuals convicted of murder or manslaughter., Measurements: We used the Alcohol Use Disorder Identification Test and Drug Abuse Screening Test to determine problematic alcohol or drug use. We also used a range of self-report measures to ascertain offender characteristics [socio-demographics, developmental experiences, criminal history, personality] and incident characteristics (who was killed, and situational intoxication)., Findings: Of the sample, 38.8% displayed high levels of alcohol problems and 30.8% displayed high levels of drug problems. Those displaying high levels of alcohol and/or drug problems were more likely than those without high levels of alcohol and/or drug problems to report adverse developmental experiences, low education, financial difficulties, extensive criminal histories and high levels of trait anger, impulsivity and risk-seeking. In addition, offenders with problematic substance use were more likely to have killed non-family and to have used substances at the time of the homicide., Conclusions: High proportions of homicide offenders in Australia appear to have problematic substance use in the year preceding the homicide offence, and such use appears to be associated with a range of other challenging factors, including adverse childhoods, criminal involvement, low socio-economic factors and low self-regulation., (© 2020 Society for the Study of Addiction.)

This paper critically analyses a statement by Australia's National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) on e-cigarettes in May 2022 that will be used to guide national policy. We reviewed the evidence and the conclusions drawn in the NHMRC Statement. In our view, the Statement is not a balanced reflection of the benefits and risks of vaping because it exaggerates the risks of vaping and fails to compare them to the far greater risks of smoking; it uncritically accepts evidence of harms from e-cigarettes while adopting a highly sceptical attitude towards evidence of their benefits; it incorrectly claims that the association between adolescent vaping and subsequent smoking is causal; and it understates the evidence of the benefits of e-cigarettes in assisting smokers to quit. The Statement dismisses the evidence that vaping is probably already having a positive net public health effect and misapplies the precautionary principle. Several sources of evidence supporting our assessment were published after the NHMRC Statement's publication and are also referenced. The NHMRC Statement on e-cigarettes does not present a balanced assessment of the available scientific literature and fails to meet the standard expected of a leading national scientific body., (© 2023 The Authors. Addiction published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Society for the Study of Addiction.)

Aims: The United Kingdom and Australia have developed highly divergent policy responses to electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS). To understand the historical origins of these differences, we describe the history of tobacco control in each country and the key roles played in setting ENDS policy in its early stages by public health regulations and policy networks, anti-smoking organizations, 'vaper' activist networks and advocates of harm reduction policies towards injecting drug use., Methods: We analysed key government reports, policy statements from public health bodies and non-government organizations (e.g. cancer councils and medical organizations) on ENDS; submissions to an Australian parliamentary inquiry; media coverage of policy debates in medical journals; and the history of tobacco control policy in Australia and England. Key discourses about ENDS were identified for each country. These were compared across countries during a multi-day face-to-face meeting, where consensus was reached on the key commonalities and divergences in historical approaches to nicotine policy. This paper focuses on England, as different policy responses were apparent in constituent countries of the United Kingdom, and Scotland in particular., Results: Policymakers in Australia and England differ markedly in the priority that they have given to using ENDS to promote smoking cessation or restricting smokers' access to prevent uptake among young people. In understanding the origins of these divergent responses, we identified the following key differences between the two countries' approaches to nicotine regulation: an influential scientific network that favoured nicotine harm reduction in the United Kingdom and the absence of such a network in Australia; the success of different types of health activism both in England and in Europe in opposing more restrictive policies; and the greater influence on policy in England of the field of illicit drug harm reduction., Conclusions: An understanding of the different policy responses to electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS) in England and Australia requires an appreciation of how actors within the different policy structures, scientific networks and activist organizations in each country and region have interpreted the evidence and the priority that policymakers have given to the competing goals of preventing adolescent uptake and encouraging smokers to use ENDS to quit smoking., (© 2021 The Authors. Addiction published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Society for the Study of Addiction.)

Aims: This paper presents updated prevalence estimates of awareness, ever-use, and current use of nicotine vaping products (NVPs) from 14 International Tobacco Control Policy Evaluation Project (ITC Project) countries that have varying regulations governing NVP sales and marketing., Design, Setting, Participants and Measurements: A cross-sectional analysis of adult (≥ 18 years) current smokers and ex-smokers from 14 countries participating in the ITC Project. Data from the most recent survey questionnaire for each country were included, which spanned the period 2013-17. Countries were categorized into four groups based on regulations governing NVP sales and marketing (allowable or not), and level of enforcement (strict or weak where NVPs are not permitted to be sold): (1) most restrictive policies (MRPs), not legal to be sold or marketed with strict enforcement: Australia, Brazil, Uruguay; (2) restrictive policies (RPs), not approved for sale or marketing with weak enforcement: Canada, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand; (3) less restrictive policies (LRPs), legal to be sold and marketed with regulations: England, the Netherlands, Republic of Korea, United States; and (4) no regulatory policies (NRPs), Bangladesh, China, Zambia. Countries were also grouped by World Bank Income Classifications. Country-specific weighted logistic regression models estimated adjusted NVP prevalence estimates for: awareness, ever/current use, and frequency of use (daily versus non-daily)., Findings: NVP awareness and use were lowest in NRP countries. Generally, ever- and current use of NVPs were lower in MRP countries (ever-use = 7.1-48.9%; current use = 0.3-3.5%) relative to LRP countries (ever-use = 38.9-66.6%; current use = 5.5-17.2%) and RP countries (ever-use = 10.0-62.4%; current use = 1.4-15.5%). NVP use was highest among high-income countries, followed by upper-middle-income countries, and then by lower-middle-income countries., Conclusions: With a few exceptions, awareness and use of nicotine vaping products varied by the strength of national regulations governing nicotine vaping product sales/marketing, and by country income. In countries with no regulatory policies, use rates were very low, suggesting that there was little availability, marketing and/or interest in nicotine vaping products in these countries where smoking populations are predominantly poorer. The higher awareness and use of nicotine vaping products in high income countries with moderately (e.g. Canada, New Zealand) and less (e.g. England, United States) restrictive policies, is likely due to the greater availability and affordability of nicotine vaping products., (© 2019 The Authors. Addiction published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Society for the Study of Addiction.)

Established in 2006, the Centre for Alcohol Policy Research (CAPR) is Australia's only research centre with a primary focus on alcohol policy. CAPR has four main areas of research: alcohol policy impacts; alcohol policy formation and regulatory processes involved in implementing alcohol policies; patterns and trends in drinking and alcohol problems in the population; and the influence of drinking norms, cultural practices and social contexts, particularly in interaction with alcohol policies. In this paper, we give examples of key publications in each area. During the past decade, the number of staff employed at CAPR has increased steadily and now hovers at approximately 10. CAPR has supported the development of independent researchers who collaborate on a number of international projects, such as the Alcohol's Harm to Others study which is now replicated in approximately 30 countries. CAPR receives core funding from the Foundation for Alcohol Research and Education, and staff have been highly successful in securing additional competitive research funding. In 2016, CAPR moved to a new institutional setting at La Trobe University and celebrated 10 years of operation., (© 2017 Society for the Study of Addiction.)