Psych n Soul has been actively involved in the treatment of opiate dependent people using naltrexone and the research of this treatment method for some 14 years. The detoxification and rehabilitation program that has been supported by the Addiction Treatment Foundation and has implemented treatment of opiate dependent people using naltrexone both for detoxification using a rapid induction method (RION) and for maintenance of abstinence using oral and implant naltrexone. This is treatment program is embedded in a program of assessment, preparation counselling and after-care that includes the treatment of co-morbid problems uincluding other drug use, chronic pain and psycholgical issues. Psych n Soul is also involved in an on-going trial of implant naltrexone. The trial has been approved and registered with the TGA.
The program has succesfully treated people who are dependent on heroin, methadone, buprenorphine and morphine and other opiates. Studies have shown that treatment to provide abstinence from these substances, particularly methadone, has been highly effective and successful particularly compared to slow-tapering methods. The cost of a person completing detoxification from methadone in the program is $6000 compared to approximately $100,000 for the MTAR prgram, based on their reports. The NEPOD study showed that RION or ROD under sedation was not only the most effective method, but was cost effective.
Sunday, March 11, 2012
Friday, March 9, 2012
Confused mesages on alcohol harm leave consumers confused
I am not surprised that people do not know of or do not accept the NH&MRC Guidelines for safe drinking levels. A recent study, "Perception of low-risk drinking levels among Australians during a period of change in the official drinking guidelines" [http://www.fare.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/Perceptions-of-low-risk-drinking-levels-among-Australians-FINAL.pdf],found fewer than five per cent of people were able to correctly identify safe drinking levels to avoid short and long-term harms and between 30 and 50 per cent of respondents couldn't even provide estimates.
The report found that fewer than 5 per cent of people estimated the low-risk levels to avoid short and long term harms that matched those in the NHMRC Alcohol Guidelines . 21.1 per cent of males and 14.9 per cent of females accurately estimated that they should consume no more than two drinks per day to reduce the risk of long term harms. 6.4 per cent of males and 8.2 per cent of females accurately estimated that they should consume no more than four drinks per occasion to reduce the risk of short term harms. Two thirds of men and one third of women overestimated the number of drinks to consume in one day to reduce the risk of short term harms (binge-drinking). On average young men aged 14-19 years estimated 8.8 drinks and young women aged 14-17 years estimated 6.5 drinks to reduce the risk of short term harms. Both estimates were significantly higher than the four standard drinks recommended in the NHMRC Alcohol Guidelines.
Download the report
[http://www.fare.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/NHMRC-Forum-Program.pdf]
There may be three major reasons for these results. Firstly, many people believe the estimates of the amounts recommended to reduce risks of harm from alcohol consumption are not realistic given the acceptance of alcohol in Australian society as a means to facilitate social interaction and to celebrate. To begin with the Guidelines do not specify what constitutes a reduction in risk. If this reduction is minimal then the perceived benefit compared to the short-term loss of enjoyment is irrelevant. Moreover, for most people their perception of short-term harm is based on their experience and the recommended amounts in the Guidelines, particularly for drinks on one ocassion would not correlate to any perception of short-term and long-term harm. After two drinks most males would not feel any effect, let alone any harmful effect.
Secondly, most people are aware and have seen firsthand that the "harmful effects of alcohol occur at lower levels consumption than for men" because the higher proportion of body fat, smaller body mass and smaller livers compared to men (Hamilton, King and Ritter, 2000)and this is reflected in the surveyed estimates given for men and women. And yet the Guidlines specify similar levels of harm for the same level of consumption for men and women. Again, if the Guidelines do not reflect the perceived reality they are not likely to be considered credible.
Thirdly, the same authorities have for many years played down the harmful effects of cannabis use and called for it to be decriminalised and made legal for medical use. Again people are aware that cannabis use is harmful as they have experienced short-term memory loss and loss of motivation and interest in normal activities among those who smoke the drug and have seen enough psychosis they attribute to cannabis use to make it seem likely that cannabis plays a role in this problem. It is the same story for other drugs. Authotities have for years recommended the long-term use of methadone at lethal doses and with growing knoweldge of the long-term harm of this drug as a treatment for heroin dependence. The same authorities oppose abstinence based treatments including the use of naltrexone despite the clear evidence of its benefits in enhancing long-term recovery and the much higher levels of harm reduction for those who are abstinent compared to those who are dependent on methadone for many years.
When authorities continue to advance policies and Guidelines that do not equate with peoples' experience and are contradictory and confusing they will not be believed by consumers on issues such as harmful levels of alcohol use and will be ignored.
For information on abstinence-based treatment for drugs and alcohol go to www.psychnsoul.com.au
The report found that fewer than 5 per cent of people estimated the low-risk levels to avoid short and long term harms that matched those in the NHMRC Alcohol Guidelines . 21.1 per cent of males and 14.9 per cent of females accurately estimated that they should consume no more than two drinks per day to reduce the risk of long term harms. 6.4 per cent of males and 8.2 per cent of females accurately estimated that they should consume no more than four drinks per occasion to reduce the risk of short term harms. Two thirds of men and one third of women overestimated the number of drinks to consume in one day to reduce the risk of short term harms (binge-drinking). On average young men aged 14-19 years estimated 8.8 drinks and young women aged 14-17 years estimated 6.5 drinks to reduce the risk of short term harms. Both estimates were significantly higher than the four standard drinks recommended in the NHMRC Alcohol Guidelines.
Download the report
[http://www.fare.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/NHMRC-Forum-Program.pdf]
There may be three major reasons for these results. Firstly, many people believe the estimates of the amounts recommended to reduce risks of harm from alcohol consumption are not realistic given the acceptance of alcohol in Australian society as a means to facilitate social interaction and to celebrate. To begin with the Guidelines do not specify what constitutes a reduction in risk. If this reduction is minimal then the perceived benefit compared to the short-term loss of enjoyment is irrelevant. Moreover, for most people their perception of short-term harm is based on their experience and the recommended amounts in the Guidelines, particularly for drinks on one ocassion would not correlate to any perception of short-term and long-term harm. After two drinks most males would not feel any effect, let alone any harmful effect.
Secondly, most people are aware and have seen firsthand that the "harmful effects of alcohol occur at lower levels consumption than for men" because the higher proportion of body fat, smaller body mass and smaller livers compared to men (Hamilton, King and Ritter, 2000)and this is reflected in the surveyed estimates given for men and women. And yet the Guidlines specify similar levels of harm for the same level of consumption for men and women. Again, if the Guidelines do not reflect the perceived reality they are not likely to be considered credible.
Thirdly, the same authorities have for many years played down the harmful effects of cannabis use and called for it to be decriminalised and made legal for medical use. Again people are aware that cannabis use is harmful as they have experienced short-term memory loss and loss of motivation and interest in normal activities among those who smoke the drug and have seen enough psychosis they attribute to cannabis use to make it seem likely that cannabis plays a role in this problem. It is the same story for other drugs. Authotities have for years recommended the long-term use of methadone at lethal doses and with growing knoweldge of the long-term harm of this drug as a treatment for heroin dependence. The same authorities oppose abstinence based treatments including the use of naltrexone despite the clear evidence of its benefits in enhancing long-term recovery and the much higher levels of harm reduction for those who are abstinent compared to those who are dependent on methadone for many years.
When authorities continue to advance policies and Guidelines that do not equate with peoples' experience and are contradictory and confusing they will not be believed by consumers on issues such as harmful levels of alcohol use and will be ignored.
For information on abstinence-based treatment for drugs and alcohol go to www.psychnsoul.com.au
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)