Search

Background Globally, methamphetamine use has increased in prevalence in recent years. In Australia, there has been a dramatic increase in numbers of people seeking treatment, including residential rehabilitation, for methamphetamine use disorder (MUD). While residential rehabilitation is more effective for MUD than withdrawal treatment (i.e. “detoxification”) alone, relapse rates remain high, with approximately half of rehabilitation clients using methamphetamine within 3 months of rehabilitation. “Approach bias modification” (ABM) is a computerised cognitive training approach that aims to dampen automatically triggered impulses to approach drugs and drug-related stimuli. ABM has been demonstrated to reduce alcohol relapse rates, but no randomised controlled trials of ABM for MUD have yet been conducted. We aim to test whether a novel “personalised” form of ABM, delivered during rehabilitation, reduces post-treatment methamphetamine use, relative to a sham-training control condition. Secondary outcomes will include dependence symptoms, cravings, and approach bias. Methods We aim to recruit 100 participants attending residential rehabilitation for MUD at 3 sites in the Melbourne metropolitan area. Participants will complete baseline measures of methamphetamine use, craving, dependence severity, and approach bias before being randomised to receiving 6 sessions of ABM or “sham” training. In the active condition, ABM will be personalised for each participant, using those methamphetamine images that they rate as most relevant to their recent methods of methamphetamine use as “avoidance” images and using positive images representing their goals or healthy sources of pleasure as “approach” images. Approach bias and craving will be re-assessed following completion of training, and methamphetamine use, dependence, and craving will be assessed 4 weeks and 3 months following discharge from residential treatment. Discussion This study is the first randomised controlled trial of ABM for MUD and also the first ABM study to test using a personalised set of both approach and avoid images for ABM training. If effective, the low cost and easy implementation of ABM means it could be widely implemented as a standard part of MUD treatment. Trial registration Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12620000072910. Registered on 30 January 2020 (prospectively registered): https://www.anzctr.org.au/Trial/Registration/TrialReview.aspx?id=378804&isReview=true

Objective: Clinical experience suggests a growing prevalence of borderline personality disorder in aged residential care and psychiatric facilities with attendant difficulties in their management. This paper reviews the literature concerning the prevalence, phenomenology and diagnosis of borderline personality disorder in old age. The aim is to elucidate the phenomenological differences in old age and thus improve identification of the disorder. Methods: A systematic search was conducted using MEDLINE, PubMed, EMBASE and PsycINFO databases, employing the search terms including ‘personality disorder’, ‘borderline personality disorder’, ‘aged care’, ‘gerontology’, ‘geriatric psychiatry’ and ‘life span’. The search included articles in English involving participants 65+ years. Long-term prospective studies of borderline personality disorder, long-term follow-up studies and studies involving older adults from 50+ years were also examined. Results: There is a paucity of literature on borderline personality disorder in the elderly. No diagnostic or rating instruments have been developed for borderline personality disorder in the elderly. The phenomenology of borderline personality disorder in the aged population differs in several respects from that seen in younger adults, causing some of the difficulties in reaching a diagnosis. Escalations of symptoms and maladaptive behaviours usually occur when the diagnosis of borderline personality disorder is either not made or delayed. Improved identification of borderline personality disorder in older patients, together with staff education concerning the phenomenology, aetiology and management of these patients, is urgently needed. Conclusion: Diagnostic instruments for borderline personality disorder in the elderly need to be developed. In the interim, suggestions are offered concerning patient symptoms and behaviours that could trigger psychiatric assessment and advice concerning management. A screening tool is proposed to assist in the timely diagnosis of borderline personality disorder in older people. Timely identification of these patients is needed so that they can receive the skilled help, understanding and treatment needed to alleviate suffering in the twilight of their lives.