Amanda L. Baker

Aims: This study tested the efficacy and safety of a 12‐week course of lisdexamfetamine in reducing methamphetamine use, an outcome which is associated with improvements in health and wellbeing, in people dependent on methamphetamine.Design, setting and participants: This study was a randomised double‐blind placebo‐controlled trial conducted in six specialist outpatient clinics in Adelaide, Melbourne, Newcastle and Sydney, Australia (2018–2021). Participants were164 adults with methamphetamine dependence, reporting at least 14 use days out of the previous 28 days (62% male, 38% female, < 1% other; mean age 39 years).Interventions: Participants were randomly allocated 1:1 to a 15‐week regimen of lisdexamfetamine (1‐week induction to 250 mg, 12‐week maintenance regimen, 2‐week reduction; n = 80) or matched placebo (n = 84), followed‐up to Week 19.Measurements: The primary efficacy measure was past 28‐day methamphetamine use at Week 13. Safety was assessed by adverse event rates. Secondary measures included methamphetamine use during the 12‐week treatment period and treatment satisfaction.Findings: Nine randomized participants did not start treatment (five were allocated to lisdexamfetamine and four allocated to placebo) and were excluded from the analyses. Fifty‐seven per cent of participants were retained on study medication to primary end‐point. There was only weak evidence of a lisdexamfetamine benefit at 13 weeks [adjusted difference in days of methamphetamine use = 2.2, 95% confidence interval (CI) = –0.5 to 5.0; P = 0.49]. However, throughout the whole 12‐week treatment maintenance phase, the lisdexamfetamine group had fewer days of methamphetamine use in total (difference = 8.8, 95% CI = 2.7–15.0; P = 0.005). The lisdexamfetamine group reported greater self‐reported treatment effectiveness [odds ratio (OR) = 2.89, 95% CI = 1.67–5.02; P < 0.001] and treatment satisfaction (OR = 3.80, 95% CI = 1.93–7.47; P < 0.001). Adverse events with lisdexamfetamine included nausea. Serious adverse events occurred in four (5%) of participants who received lisdexamfetamine.Conclusions: Lisdexamfetamine appears to reduce methamphetamine use over a 12‐week treatment period, although there is only weak evidence that reduced use is maintained during the last 4 weeks.

Introduction: Routine outcome monitoring (ROM) and feedback is an evidence‐supported strategy for evaluating alcohol and other drug (AOD) treatment outcomes. However, the implementation of ROM and feedback into AOD services remains a significant challenge. Research aimed at understanding client perspectives on ROM and feedback is needed to facilitate successful implementation. This study examined experiences with and perceptions of ROM and feedback in a sample of clients receiving AOD treatment.Methods: Interviews and online surveys were conducted with N = 26 people (13 male; M_age = 36.12 years, SD = 10.29) enrolled in an AOD treatment program in Australia. Data analysis of the transcripts was guided by thematic analysis, while descriptive statistics were used to analyse quantitative survey data.Results: Four major themes were identified in the qualitative data: (i) ROM and feedback is valuable to AOD treatment; (ii) clear and concise outcome measures with an integrated feedback loop are vital to reliable ROM; (iii) desire for visual and verbal feedback that highlights progress; and (iv) ROM and feedback can be emotionally challenging.Discussion and Conclusions: Participants valued ROM when it was clearly integrated within AOD treatment and they received feedback on their responses. Potential facilitators to implementing and improving the provision of ROM and feedback in AOD treatment include: (i) a clear, treatment‐based rationale to foster client buy‐in for ROM and maximise AOD treatment benefit; (ii) brief outcome measure surveys; and (iii) graphical visualisations of ROM feedback.

Introduction: Tobacco smoking is highly prevalent among alcohol and other drugs (AOD) service clients and, despite interest in quitting, abstinence is rarely sustained. Nicotine products may assist after discharge from residential treatment services, but little is known about client receptivity to them. This study examined AOD withdrawal service clients' experiences of two types of nicotine products for smoking cessation post‐discharge, combination nicotine replacement therapy (cNRT) and nicotine vaping products (NVP).Methods: We held semi‐structured telephone interviews with 31 Australian AOD service clients in a clinical trial of a 12‐week smoking cessation intervention using Quitline support plus cNRT or NVP delivered post‐discharge from a smoke‐free residential service. We asked about health and social factors, nicotine cravings, Quitline experience, and barriers and facilitators to cNRT or NVP, then thematically analysed data.Results: cNRT and NVP were described by participants as feasible and acceptable for smoking cessation. For most participants, cost limited cNRT access post study, as did difficulty navigating NVP prescription access. Quitline support was valued, but not consistently used, with participants noting low assistance with NVP‐facilitated cessation. Participants considered both cessation methods acceptable and socially supported, and sought information on decreasing nicotine use via NVP.Discussion and Conclusions: AOD service clients highly valued receiving cNRT or NVP with behavioural support for smoking reduction or abstinence. Both interventions were acceptable to service clients. Findings suggest a potential need to examine both whether NVP use should be permitted in this context, and guidance on the individual suitability of cNRT or NVP.

Introduction Middle-aged multidomain risk reduction interventions targeting modifiable risk factors for dementia may delay or prevent a third of dementia cases in later life. We describe the protocol of a cluster randomised controlled trial (cRCT), HAPPI MIND (Holistic Approach in Primary care for PreventIng Memory Impairment aNd Dementia). HAPPI MIND will evaluate the efficacy of a multidomain, nurse-led, mHealth supported intervention for assessing dementia risk and reducing associated risk factors in middle-aged adults in the Australian primary care setting. Methods and analysis General practice clinics (n≥26) across Victoria and New South Wales, Australia, will be recruited and randomised. Practice nurses will be trained to implement the HAPPI MIND intervention or a brief intervention. Patients of participating practices aged 45–65 years with ≥2 potential dementia risk factors will be identified and recruited (approximately 15 patients/clinic). Brief intervention participants receive a personalised report outlining their risk factors for dementia based on Australian National University Alzheimer’s Disease Risk Index (ANU-ADRI) scores, education booklet and referral to their general practitioner as appropriate. HAPPI MIND participants receive the brief intervention as well as six individualised dementia risk reduction sessions with a nurse trained in motivational interviewing and principles of behaviour change, a personalised risk reduction action plan and access to the purpose-built HAPPI MIND smartphone app for risk factor self-management. Follow-up data collection will occur at 12, 24 and 36 months. Primary outcome is ANU-ADRI score change at 12 months from baseline. Secondary outcomes include change in cognition, quality of life and individual risk factors of dementia. Ethics and dissemination Project approved by Monash University Human Research Ethics Committee (ID: 28273). Results will be disseminated in peer-reviewed journals and at healthcare conferences. If effective in reducing dementia risk, the HAPPI MIND intervention could be integrated into primary care, scaled up nationally and sustained over time. Trial registration number ACTRN12621001168842.

Background: Tobacco smoking rates are higher in rural, regional, and remote (RRR) areas in Australia, and strategies to improve access to quit supports are required. This pilot study examined the feasibility of a smoking cessation intervention for people in RRR areas who smoke with the intention of using this data to design a powered effectiveness trial.Methods: A randomised controlled trial (RCT) of the feasibility of a 12‐week ‘Outback Quit Pack’ intervention consisting of mailout combination nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) and a proactive referral to Quitline, compared with a minimal support control (1‐page smoking cessation support information mailout) was conducted between January and October 2021. Participants recruited via mailed invitation or Facebook advertising, were adults who smoked tobacco (≥10 cigarettes/day) and resided in RRR areas of New South Wales, Australia. Participants completed baseline and 12‐week follow‐up telephone surveys. Outcomes were feasibility of trial procedures (recruitment method; retention; biochemical verification) and acceptability of intervention (engagement with Quitline; uptake and use of NRT).Results: Facebook advertising accounted for 97% of participant expressions of interest in the study (N = 100). Retention was similarly high among intervention (39/51) and control (36/49) participants. The intervention was highly acceptable: 80% of the intervention group had ≥1 completed call with Quitline, whilst Quitline made 3.7 outbound calls/participant (mean 14:05 mins duration). Most of the intervention group requested NRT refills (78%). No differences between groups in self‐reported cessation outcomes. Biochemical verification using expired air breath testing was not feasible in this study.Conclusion: The Outback Quit Pack intervention was feasible and acceptable. Alternative methods for remote biochemical verification need further study.So What?: A powered RCT to test the effectiveness of the intervention to improve access to evidence‐based smoking cessation support to people residing in RRR areas is warranted.

Procedural anxiety is a concern for a number of patients undergoing radiation therapy. While procedural anxiety is often treated pharmacologically, there is a clinical need for effective alternative strategies for patients who are contraindicated from medication use, and those who prefer not to take unnecessary medications.Objectives: The primary objective was to assess the efficacy of nonpharmacological interventions delivered to adults with cancer, in the radiation oncology department, just prior to, or during radiation therapy, in reducing levels of self‐reported procedural anxiety. The secondary objectives were to assess the efficacy of these interventions in reducing physiological symptoms of procedural anxiety and anxiety‐related treatment disruptions.Design: Systematic review.Data Sources: Electronic databases (MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, PsycINFO and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials) were searched from inception up until February 2022.Inclusion Criteria: Population: Adult patients with cancer undergoing external beam radiation therapy. Intervention: Nonpharmacological interventions delivered within the radiation therapy department. Comparison: standard care controls, or standard care plus an alternative intervention. Outcomes: level of self‐reported procedural anxiety (primary), physiological symptoms of anxiety (secondary) and measures of anxiety‐related treatment disruptions (secondary).Data Extraction and Analysis: Two reviewers independently extracted data. A meta‐analysis was originally planned but deemed not feasible as the studies could not be confidently pooled for meta‐analysis, due to the variability in the interventions, study designs and the generally low number of studies. Therefore, a narrative synthesis is presented.Results: Screening of 2363 records identified nine studies that met inclusion criteria: six studies of music interventions, two of video‐based patient education and one of aromatherapy. Overall, three studies received a global rating of strong methodological quality and low risk of bias. Three studies reported a significant effect of the intervention on reducing the primary outcome of self‐reported procedural anxiety: two music interventions (both strong methodological quality), and one video‐based patient education (moderate methodological quality). One of the studies (a music intervention) also reported a significant reduction in the secondary outcome of physiological symptoms of procedural anxiety (systolic blood pressure).Conclusions: The evidence for nonpharmacological interventions delivered to adults with cancer just prior to, or during radiation therapy, in reducing levels of self‐reported procedural anxiety is limited, with very few well‐designed studies. There is a need for interventions for procedural anxiety during radiation therapy to be evaluated through rigorous randomised controlled trials.

Aims: Despite the magnitude of alcohol use problems globally, treatment uptake remains low. This study sought to determine the proportion of people presenting to telephone-delivered alcohol treatment who are first-time help-seekers, and explored perceived barriers to help-seeking to understand the barriers this format of treatment may help to address. Methods: Secondary analysis of baseline data from a randomized controlled trial of a telephone-delivered intervention for alcohol use problems. Latent class analysis (LCA) identified participant profiles according to self-reported barriers to alcohol treatment. Results: Participants’ (344) mean age was 39.86 years (SD = 11.36, 18–73 years); 51.45% were male. Despite high alcohol problem severity (Alcohol Use Disorder Identification Test: mean = 21.54, SD = 6.30; 63.37% probable dependence), multiple barriers to accessing treatment were endorsed (mean = 5.64, SD = 2.41), and fewer than one-third (29.36%) had previously accessed treatment. LCA revealed a two-class model: a ‘low problem recognition’ class (43.32%) endorsed readiness-for-change and attitudinal barriers; a ‘complex barriers’ class (56.68%) endorsed stigma, structural, attitudinal and readiness-to-change barriers, with complex barrier class membership predicted by female sex (adjusted OR = 0.45, 95% CI 0.28, 0.72) and higher psychological distress (adjusted OR = 1.13, 95% CI 1.08, 1.18). Conclusion: The majority of people accessing this telephone-delivered intervention were new to treatment, yet had high alcohol problem severity. Two distinct profiles emerged, for which telephone interventions may overcome barriers to care and tailored approaches should be explored (e.g. increasing problem awareness, reducing psychological distress). Public health strategies to address stigma, and raise awareness about the low levels of drinking that constitute problem alcohol use, are needed to increase help-seeking.

Introduction: The COVID‐19 pandemic prompted the transition of Australian Self‐Management and Recovery Training (SMART) Recovery mutual support groups to virtual delivery. This study examined the self‐reported experience of online SMART Recovery groups for people seeking support for methamphetamine use (alone or in combination with other behaviours) compared to those who did not endorse methamphetamine use as a reason for seeking support.Methods: An online survey invitation was embedded in the post‐group exit page. Items assessed participant demographic characteristics, experience, engagement and perceived contribution of the online group to recovery. Unique responses (n = 1414) were analysed using chi‐square.Results: After alcohol, methamphetamine use was the second most common behaviour to prompt online SMART Recovery group attendance (n = 205, 14.5%). People attending for methamphetamine use were more likely to endorse multiple addictive behaviours (n = 137, 66.8% vs. n = 371, 30.7%, p < 0.001). Irrespective of whether people attended for methamphetamine use or not, participant ratings of experience, engagement and perceived contribution to recovery were positive and largely comparable. People attending for methamphetamine use were significantly less likely to set a 7‐day plan (72.7% vs. 81.9%; χ² = 9.47, p = 0.002).Discussion and Conclusions: Findings support the acceptability of online SMART Recovery groups for people experiencing addictive behaviours, including methamphetamine use. To maximise the benefits of these groups, further evidence on how best to support people to develop a change plan within a time‐limited, online group setting is needed. Online mutual support groups may help to reach and support people who might not otherwise engage in treatment and support, including people who use methamphetamine.