Search

The ability of coyotes (Canis latrans) to exploit resources in human-dominated environments has led them to increasingly come into conflict with people, for example by killing domestic animals or attacking children. Additionally, coyotes in these environments increase their exposure to anthropogenic threats, such as harassment, vehicle mortality, and rodenticides. Effective management of human-coyote conflicts requires a better understanding of how coyotes navigate the developed landscape. As part of a broader study of how the use of urban and suburban areas affects coyotes’ exposure to rodenticides, we examined movements and space use of coyotes across gradients of urbanization in Los Angeles and Orange County, California. We affixed GPS radio-collars to 12 coyotes (nine males, three females) and tracked them between August 2022 and December 2023. Radio-collars recorded location information approximately every 15 min, but we restricted our analyses to hourly locations. We used a 95% minimum-convex polygon (MCP) and 95%-kernel density estimate (KDE) to calculate the area used by each animal. Within each utilization area, we calculated the amount of impervious cover and the relative amount of open space and development, using publicly-available GIS data layers (National Land-Cover Database; U.S. Geological Survey 2021). Additionally, for each coyote, we calculated a measure of movement tortuosity (straightness index, SI; Batschelet 1981) to describe its tendency to take directed, straight-line movements or wander less linearly in the habitat. We calculated SI for nine coyotes for which we had hourly location data during the first 28 days after radio-collar deployment. SI values were calculated separately for diurnal and nocturnal movements of each coyote, and then for movements when it was traveling in areas with low (≤19%) vs. high amounts of impervious cover (Wurth et al. 2020), and in areas classified as open space vs. areas with human development. We used paired t-tests to compare mean SI values because movements and habitat use of individual coyotes were not independent. Utilization areas of coyotes (Table 1) ranged from 0.4 - 136.1 km2 (95% MCP) and 0.4 - 148.2 km2 (95% KDE). Excluding three coyotes that displayed wide-ranging, transient movements and considering only five animals that were tracked intensively (151-313 days) during the breeding and dispersal seasons, mean utilization area (95% MCP) was 2.16 km2 (SD = 1.79), which is our best estimate of home-range size. This estimate is about half the size of that typically reported for urban coyotes elsewhere (approximately 5 km2; Gehrt 2007, Gehrt et al. 2009, Franckowiak et al. 2019), including in the Santa Monica Mountains of southern California (Riley et al. 2003). However, it is similar to the estimate (2.1 km2) of Tigas et al. (2002) for coyotes living in fragmented coastal sage scrub and chaparral habitats in Los Angeles and Ventura County, where the urban landscape resembles our study area. Considering only the five non-transient coyotes that we tracked most intensively, on average, 67.2% of their home range was categorized as open space, whereas 32.8% had some level of human development (low-high intensity categories). On average, 68.3% of their home ranges were in areas with little impervious cover (

Introduction: People who inject drugs are 13 times more likely to die by suicide than the general population. Guidelines for responding to risk in this population are limited. Harm reduction services attended by people who inject drugs require targeted strategies to address the complexities of suicide risk among this population. Methods: Co‐design, engaging health professionals and people with lived experience informed the study. Mixed methods were used to understand the experience of managing suicide risk among clients attending the Medically Supervised Injecting Centre (MSIC) in Sydney. A survey was administered to assess staff confidence in managing risk. Focus groups were conducted with health professionals and MSIC clients to explore experiences of suicide management, response and opportunities for improvement. Results: Half (N = 17) the MSIC staff surveyed reported over 10 years' experience working with this population. Confidence in managing suicide risk was low. Three key themes emerged from focus groups (N = 17): (i) Autonomy and the need to involve clients in the assessment process; (ii) Trust between clients and health professionals, and transparency in decision‐making; and (iii) System barriers, described by health professionals as inadequate referral pathways for clients in distress, and by clients as negative experiences of care, including involuntary admission and not receiving medication (e.g. methadone). Discussion and Conclusions: Revised assessment guidelines and a tailored safety plan were developed. These resources are also suitable for other alcohol and other drug services. The challenge in managing suicide risk in harm reduction services is balancing duty of care with staff–client relationships and client engagement. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses the need to reconsider the best practice models of substance use care for young people. It highlights the vulnerability of young people to the negative effects of substance use and the importance of early intervention. The article identifies barriers that young people face in accessing treatment services and suggests strategies to enhance the benefits young people can gain from engagement with services. These strategies include addressing socio-structural determinants of health, providing youth-friendly and flexible treatment services, improving the culture of existing mainstream services, addressing service gaps, promoting better service linkage and collaborative care models, implementing integrated and community-based approaches, and focusing on preventative care and harm reduction services. The article emphasizes the need for a comprehensive and holistic approach to substance use care for young people. [Extracted from the article]

Introduction: Enhancing health system research capacity can support improved quality care. This study assessed the research capacity of public local health district (LHD) and non‐government organisation (NGO) alcohol and other drug (AOD) services, at the organisational, team and individual level. Research barriers and motivators were also examined. Methods: Staff from LHD and NGO AOD treatment services in New South Wales completed an online survey using the Research Capacity and Culture (RCC) tool. Overall median research capacity scores are presented for the RCC subscales (organisational, team and individual). Comparisons were conducted by service type (LHD/NGO), geographical location (metropolitan/rural) and affiliation with a research network (yes/no). Qualitative questions explored barriers and motivators to research at individual and team levels. Results: Of 242 participants, 55% were LHD‐based and 45% NGO‐based. Overall RCC scores indicated moderate research capacity at all levels. Organisational capacity (Med = 6.50, interquartile range [IQR] = 3.50) scored significantly higher than the team (Med = 5.00, IQR = 6.00) and individual level (Med = 5.00, IQR = 4.25). No differences in RCC scores existed between NGOs and LHDs. Metropolitan AOD services scored higher research capacity at the organisational level (Med = 7.00, IQR = 3.00) than rural services (Med = 5.00, IQR = 5.00). LHDs affiliated with a research network scored significantly higher at the organisational, team and individual level than non‐affiliated LHD services. Key research barriers were inadequate time and funding. Motivators included skill development and problem‐identification requiring change. Discussions and Conclusions: AOD services in New South Wales have moderate research capacity. Identified barriers and motivators can be used to target responses that enhance capacity and improve treatment outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Substance use disorders are a risk factor for poor oral health which in turn impacts quality of life. Resultant oral problems contribute to chronic illness, premature mortality, social stigma, embarrassment and reduced opportunities for employment and social interaction. Providing dental services to people with substance use disorders is often difficult due to high rates of oral disease, anxiety, behavioural and drug use changes, and lifestyle factors. Previous studies have demonstrated that alcohol and other drug service clients find accessing and navigating oral health services complex and suggest a multidisciplinary care approach to improve outcomes. In this commentary, we describe individual and structural barriers that limit the use of oral health care among people with substance use disorders, alcohol and other drug clinicians' challenges to integrating oral health into their practice and identify key issues for oral health services in delivering care. We draw on our experience to recommend a multidisciplinary approach be used to develop strategies in order to increase access to oral health services at a standard similar to the general population for clients of alcohol and other drug services. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Women experiencing substance use disorders face barriers to treatment, including childcare, stigma and lack of gender/trauma-informed programming. Several non-government organizations in New South Wales run women-only treatment services to address these needs. Objectives: We aim to assess characteristics of women entering treatment in these services. Design: Data on client characteristics from six women-only non-government organization substance use disorder treatment services in New South Wales between 2014 and 2018 were extracted from a database containing demographics, drug use and treatment characteristics and psychological distress (Kessler-10 scale) of women entering the services. Logistic regression models were used to estimate unadjusted odds ratio and adjusted odds ratio for treatment completion and different drugs on entry. Results: Data were available for 1357 women. Most (91%) episodes were for residential treatment. Women's mean age was 35.4 years (standard deviation = 9.8; range = 17–67). Residential clients tended to be younger than non-residential clients (35.1 vs 38.5 years, p < 0.001). Methamphetamine (43%) and alcohol (32%) were the most reported principal drug of concern. Women (89%) reported high levels of psychological distress (median Kessler-10 scale score = 27.5, range = 10–50), highest for women reporting alcohol as their principal drug. Overall, 43% of episodes resulted in treatment completion, most commonly for women entering residential treatment (45% vs 22%, p < 0.001) and for alcohol treatment (adjusted odds ratio = 1.42; confidence interval = 1.07–1.90; p < 0.001). Women with Kessler-10 scale scores indicating anxiety or depression at treatment entry were less likely to complete treatment than those with lower scores (adjusted odds ratio = 0.56; confidence interval = 0.38–0.80; p < 0.001). Conclusion: Women entering women-only residential treatment tend to be younger and report methamphetamine as principal drug of concern. Women enter treatment with high degrees of psychological distress. Women's services need to ensure their programmes can respond to diverse needs of younger women presenting with methamphetamine use disorder and older women with alcohol use disorder experiencing high levels of psychological distress. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]