This paper examines the barriers to employment faced by job seekers (JS) with mental illness and additional substance-use issues. Semi-structured interviews concerning barriers to employment for JS with mental illness and substance-use problems and strategies to improve employment outcomes were conducted with stakeholders associated with an employment service provider specialising in mental illness (n = 17). Stakeholders were JS, family members who provide significant support to JS [support persons (SP)] and staff [employment staff (ES)]. Data were collected between May and August 2009 at the premises of the employment service provider in metropolitan Sydney. Thematic analysis of transcribed interview data was conducted to develop a meaningful data framework. The expectations of JS and SP regarding employment outcomes were higher than those of ES. Length of time unemployed was perceived as the most important barrier to future employment associated with mental illness, and substance-use problems were associated with lower, more variable motivation, restrictions on the environments where JS could work and more negative community and employer perceptions. The findings are consistent with studies from non-vocational settings and provide direction for meeting the needs of clients with mental illness and additional substance-use problems. Ensuring alignment between JS and ES concerning service goals and expected timeframes may improve JS motivation, satisfaction with service delivery and ultimately, employment outcomes.

Screening and assessment (Chapter 2): screening techniques to identify patients with alcohol problems, and subsequent assessments for clinicians to undertake before providing specific treatments or interventions.• Interventions, treatments, relapse prevention and aftercare (Chapter 3): a range of varying interventions and treatments, including brief interventions, brief e-health interventions, psychosocial interventions, alcohol withdrawal management, pharmacotherapy options, and peer support programs. In the final section of this chapter, relapse prevention, aftercare, and long term follow-up strategies are discussed.• Considerations for specific populations (Chapter 4): the management of alcohol problems and treatment considerations for specific population groups of interest in Australia -genderspecific considerations, adolescents and young people, pregnant and breastfeeding women, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, culturally and linguistically diverse groups, sexually diverse and gender diverse populations, older people, and cognitively impaired people.• Understanding comorbidities (Chapter 5): the importance of considering a range of comorbidities when providing treatment for alcohol problems. Polydrug use, comorbid mental disorders, and physical-related comorbidities are discussed.The content of this supplement is based on the various chapters of the full Guidelines for the Treatment of Alcohol Problems, which were based on reviews of the evidence, including well designed meta-analyses and randomised controlled trials, wherever possible. Where this evidence was not available, recommendations were based on the best available research or clinical experience. Each recommendation in the guidelines is accompanied with a level of evidence based on National Health and Medical Research Council evidence recommendations (Box 2), 21 with "A" representing the most evidence and "GPP" (good practice point) indicating a recommendation with no evidence.For more on the Guidelines for the Treatment of Alcohol Problems, visit https://alcoh oltre atmen tguid elines.com.au/. Acknowledgements:The Guidelines for the Treatment of Alcohol Problems project was funded by the Australian Government, under the Drug and Alcohol Program. We would like to express our gratitude to members of the Guidelines Steering Committee for providing invaluable guidance and advice on this project. We thank Daniel Winter, Sophia Little, Brennan Geiger and James Pham for providing research and administrative support, and Joshua Watt for providing clinical support, across sections of this supplement. Finally, we thank Donna Ah Chee, Kylie Lee, Teagan Weatherall, Craig Holloway and Martin Nean for conversations and work which informed the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples section in the guidelines and Chapter 4 of this supplement.Competing interests: Paul Haber has been funded by the Lambert Initiative for Cannabinoid Therapeutics at the University of Sydney to undertake clinical trials of cannabinoid treatment for alcohol withdra...

In Australia, one in three people are born overseas, and one in five households speak languages other than English. This study explores substance use prevalence, related harms, and attitudes among these large groups in the population. Analysis was conducted using cross-sectional data (N = 22, 696) from the 2013 National Drug Strategy Household Survey. General linear model and binary logistic regression were used to assess substance use and harms, using stabilized inverse propensity score weighting to control for potential confounding variables. Between culturally and linguistically diverse populations and the population born in Australia, United Kingdom, or New Zealand who speak only English at home, there is no statistically significant variation in the likelihood of current smoking; using analgesics, tranquilizers, or sleeping pills; or administering drugs via injection. Culturally diverse populations are less likely to drink alcohol or use cannabis or methamphetamines. No difference between these two major groups in the population is observed in substance-related abuse from strangers; but culturally diverse respondents are less likely to report substance-related abuse from known persons. Lower substance use prevalence is not observed among people from culturally diverse backgrounds who have mental health issues. Australian-, UK-, or New Zealand-born respondents who speak only English at home are more likely to oppose drug and tobacco policies, including a range of harm reduction policies. We discuss the practical and ethical limitations of this major Australian data set for examining the burden of drug-related harms experienced by specific migrant populations. Avenues for potential future research are outlined.

No abstract

No abstract