Comparing subjective well-being and health-related quality of life of Australian drug users in treatment in regional and rural Victoria

Gradual improvement in functioning and mental distress during long-term outpatient SUD treatment - A prospective pre-post study

Background

Globally, outpatient programs for substance use disorder (SUD) treatment have gained prominence. To assess the broader clinical implications of this trend we investigated shifts in functioning experienced by outpatients undergoing treatment.

Methods

We describe the clinical characteristics of a cohort of 93 SUD patients in a Norwegian outpatient treatment clinic. Using paired-samples t-tests, we examined changes in perceived functioning, mental distress, and other clinically relevant outcome variables in a 5-month time interval during the treatment course.

Results

We obtained follow-up data for 67 (72%) of the included patients, with no significant difference in patient-related factors between those who completed the treatment course and those who were not assessed at follow-up. Perceived functioning increased significantly from study inclusion (Time 0) (mean 19.8, standard deviation ± 8.8) to its conclusion (Time 1) (24.3, ±9.3; t (66) = 4.5, (95% CI: 2.5-6.5, p < 0.001). We also identified significant improvement in most other measured variables, including mental distress, self-reported sleep quality, restlessness, and obsessive thinking. Substance use-related variables showed a modest, non-significant improvement at T1.

Conclusion

During a 5-month course of outpatient treatment, patients' subjective experience of functioning improved significantly. Those with the lowest functioning levels at T0 improved the most. Structured monitoring may be a valuable clinical tool for personalizing intervention, enhancing treatment outcomes, and supporting the clinical decision-making process.

Comparing the Differences in Health of Body, Mental, and Spirit Among Category 3 and 4 Controlled Drug Users, Nursing Students, and Psychology Students

Drug abuse adversely affects the health of populations in many counties and contributes immensely to social issues. Schedule III and IV controlled drug abuse is popular in young adults. Medical education is one of the most stressful academic fields for students. The aim of this study was to compare the health differences in body, mind, and spirit among Schedule III and IV controlled drugs users, nursing students, and psychology students. This study uses a cross-sectional comparative study on a convenience sample. Four hundred eleven participants were recruited from three different samples that include Schedule III and IV controlled drug users (n = 211), nursing students (n = 100), and psychology students (n = 100), all from either a drug abuse prevention center or two universities in Southern Taiwan. Relying on the Health of Body, Mind and Spirit Scale, a linear regression model was used to identify the health differences among drug users, nursing students, and psychology students. The results show that drug users scored higher on the physical subscale (ß = -.249, p < .001), the mental subscale (ß = -.120, p < .05), the spiritual subscale (ß = -.154, p < .01), and the Health of Body, Mind and Spirit Scale (ß = -.210, p < .001) than psychology students. The nursing students scored higher on the mental subscale (ß = .146, p < .01) than drug users did. These results could help health staff and instructors understand the differences and improve the physical, mental, and spiritual health among Schedule III and IV controlled drug users, nursing students, and psychology students. Furthermore, future study could further investigate the factors that may affect physical, mental, and spiritual health.

Comparison of subjective wellbeing in substance users and the parents or partners of substance users

INTRODUCTION AND AIMS

There is growing interest in the impact of substance use on both the individual consumer's subjective wellbeing (SWB) and the reduced SWB of those closely connected to him or her. The study aimed to compare SWB among substance users ('consumers') and the parents or partners affected by another's substance use, and to evaluate the effect of counselling on changed SWB to 6 months.

DESIGN AND METHODS

The study used longitudinal data from a not-for-profit treatment service based in Perth, Australia. Subjective wellbeing was assessed with the Personal Wellbeing Index (PWI) at baseline and 6 months. Data were compared to national norms (mean 75.97) with one sample t tests. Change in PWI scores was assessed with generalised linear mixed models, controlling for age, gender, group (consumers versus parents or partners), psychological distress (Kessler-10) and social connectedness (Lubben).

RESULTS

Of 220 participants, 136 (62%) were consumers and 84 (38%) were parents or partners. At 6 months 123 (56%) were re-interviewed. At baseline, both consumers (mean 53.7) and parents or partners (mean 66.1) had significantly lower PWI scores than national norms. At 6 months, only the substance users' PWI scores remained significantly lower (mean 67.8). Subjective wellbeing significantly increased with time (β = 5.52; 95% confidence interval 3.15, 7.90), with no significant time by group interaction.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

Both groups showed significant decrements in SWB compared with the general population but with improvements over the study period. However, the lack of a control group prevents definitive assertions on causality for improved SWB.

Measuring quality of life in opioid-dependent people: a systematic review of assessment instruments

Purpose

Opioid dependence is a chronic relapsing disorder. Despite increasing research on quality of life (QOL) in people with opioid dependence, little attention has been paid to the instruments used. This systematic review examines the suitability of QOL instruments for use in opioid-dependent populations and the instruments’ quality.

Methods

A systematic search was performed in the databases Medline, PsycInfo, The Cochrane Library, and CINAHL. Articles were eligible if they assessed QOL of opioid-dependent populations using a validated QOL instrument. Item content relevance to opioid-dependent people was evaluated by means of content analysis, and instrument properties were assessed using minimum standards for patient-reported outcome measures.

Results

Eighty-nine articles were retrieved, yielding sixteen QOL instruments, of which ten were assessed in this review. Of the ten instruments, six were disease specific, but none for opioid dependence. Two instruments had good item content relevance. The conceptual and measurement model were described in seven instruments. Four instruments were developed with input from the respective target population. Eight instruments had low respondent and administrator burden. Psychometric properties were either not assessed in opioid-dependent populations or were inconclusive or moderate.

Conclusions

No instrument scored perfectly on both the content and properties. The limited suitability of instruments for opioid-dependent people hinders accurate and sensitive measurement of QOL in this population. Future research is in need of an opioid dependence-specific QOL instrument to measure the true impact of the disease on people’s lives and to evaluate treatment-related services.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s11136-017-1674-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Producing “Progress” Through the Implementation of Outcome Monitoring in Alcohol and Other Drug Treatment

Outcome monitoring—a process in which clinicians use standardized tools to routinely measure client “progress” on predefined outcomes of interest over time—is increasingly being implemented in alcohol and other drug (AOD) treatment services as a way of demonstrating quality of care. However, relatively little is known about the implications and unintended consequences of implementing outcome monitoring in clinical and social practices. In this paper we draw on qualitative data emerging from focus groups with clinicians who piloted an outcome monitoring tool in Melbourne, Australia, using conceptual tools drawn from science and technology studies. Rather than acting as a stable empirical object, we argue that realities of progress are enacted multiply in relation to preexisting treatment discourses and policy, organizational practices of data collection and management, reporting tools, and clinician attitudes and practices. In particular, we trace how the tool orders the “problem” of drugs differently to the qualitative mode of ordering; how different modes of ordering progress hang together and the tensions and coordination strategies that are involved. And finally, we highlight an unintended consequence of the outcome monitoring process—the enactment of vulnerability and its distribution across the clinical relationship. We suggest that researchers, policy makers, and clinicians need to think reflectively and critically about the ways in which we and our tools and interventions are influential in producing AOD problems, what constitutes progress, and ultimately what the focus of treatment should be.