A stepped-care approach is recommended. The first step in providing an effective intervention among many regular amphetamine users, particularly those attending non-treatment settings, may include provision of: a structured assessment of amphetamine use and related problems; self-help material; and regular monitoring of amphetamine use and related harms. Regular amphetamine users who present to treatment settings could be offered two sessions of CBT, while people with moderate to severe levels of depression may best be offered four sessions of CBT for amphetamine use from the outset, with further treatment for amphetamine use and/or depression depending on response. Pharmacotherapy and/or longer-term psychotherapy may be suitable for non-responders. An RCT of a stepped-care approach among regular amphetamine users is suggested.

Introduction and Aims. The use of methamphetamine is widespread and poses significant challenges for treatment providers. Much of the treatment knowledge about this group has been extrapolated from studies of treatment for cocaine dependence. Medications have been shown to be of limited effectiveness for methamphetamine users, making psychological interventions the treatment of choice. Approach. This paper describes a systematic review of cognitive -behavioural and behavioural interventions for methamphetamine users. A systematic search of published literature was undertaken focusing only on randomised trials. Key Findings. There were a relatively small number of intervention studies that compared cognitivebehavioural or behavioural interventions using randomised trial methodology. Most commonly, studies examined cognitivebehaviour therapy (CBT) and/or contingency management (CM). Treatment with CBT appears to be associated with reductions in methamphetamine use and other positive changes, even over very short periods of treatment (two and four sessions). CM studies found a significant reduction of methamphetamine during application of the procedure, but it is not clear if these gains are sustained at post-treatment follow-up. Implications. The review highlights that there are effective treatments for methamphetamine dependence. Alcohol and other drug (AOD) clinicians are familiar with these types of interventions and should use them and convey to clients that they are effective. Services and policy makers should ensure that best practice interventions are implemented within AOD services. Conclusion. Psychological intervention is effective in addressing methamphetamine use and dependence. CBT and contingency management are two accessible interventions that are implemented easily within current AOD services. There is still more work to conduct in improving methamphetamine treatment, however, and further research into cognitive -behavioural and behavioural treatments for methamphetamine users is required, with a focus on improving longevity of the effect of intervention and improving effectiveness among more complex presentations.[Lee NK, Rawson RA. A systematic review of cognitive and behavioural therapies for methamphetamine dependence. Drug Alcohol Rev 2008;27:309-317]

Community-based residential rehabilitation may produce a time-limited decrease in methamphetamine use, while detoxification alone does not appear to do so.

A model that provides guidance about the best ways to set up and develop SP/SR programs has been developed. This model may now be subject to empirical testing by trainers and researchers. Implications and recommendations for the design and development of future SP/SR programs are discussed.

Background and Aims: Working conditions are an important health determinant. Employment factors can negatively affect mental health (MH), but there is little research on MH risk factors in male-dominated industries (MDI). Method: A systematic review of risk factors for anxiety and depression disorders in MDI was undertaken. MDI comprised ≥ 70% male workers and included agriculture, construction, mining, manufacturing, transport and utilities. Major electronic databases (CINAHL, Cochrane Library, Informit, PsycINFO, PubMed and Scopus) were searched. Each study was categorised according to National Health and Medical Research Council's hierarchy of evidence and study quality was assessed according to six methodological criteria. Results: Nineteen studies met the inclusion criteria. Four categories of risk were identified: individual factors, team environment, work conditions and work–home interference. The main risk factors associated with anxiety and depression in MDI were poor health and lifestyles, unsupportive workplace relationships, job overload and job demands. Some studies indicated a higher risk of anxiety and depression for blue-collar workers. Conclusion: Substantial gaps exist in the evidence. Studies with stronger methodologies are required. Available evidence suggests that comprehensive primary, secondary and tertiary prevention approaches to address MH risk factors in MDI are necessary. There is a need for organisationally focused workplace MH policies and interventions.

Negative alcohol expectancies have recently come to occupy a more important position in the expectancy literature, but recent claims that positive expectancies are unimportant in the consumption of alcohol when compared with negative expectancies are based on potentially flawed methodology. This study investigated the relative contribution of positive and negative expectancies to the consumption of alcohol using an instrument designed to measure both positive and negative expectancies. One hundred ninety-three men and women from the general community participated in the study. Findings showed while negative expectancies accounted for the greater proportion of variance of frequency of consumption, positive expectancies remained an important predictor of consumption, accounting for the greater proportion of variance of quantity consumed per session. The interesting but sometimes counterintuitive directions of these relationships can be explained in terms of social learning principles. The relatively neglected concept of negative expectancies is worthy of further use and investigation.

The risk of opioid toxicity appeared greater with methadone compared with buprenorphine, despite high levels of benzodiazepine consumption and injection being reported in relation to buprenorphine use. The prevalence of buprenorphine injection and the normalization of methadone-induced sedation are two findings that merit further investigation. Establishing recommendations as to the safest and most effective way to manage benzodiazepine-using people in opioid substitution treatment is necessary for the optimization of treatment for opioid dependence in polydrug-using individuals.

No abstract