Employee alcohol and other drug use can negatively impact the workplace, resulting in absenteeism, reduced productivity, high turnover, and worksite safety issues. As the workplace can influence employee substance use through environmental and cultural factors, it also presents a key opportunity to deliver interventions, particularly to employees who may not otherwise seek help. This is a systematic review of workplace-based interventions for the prevention and treatment of problematic substance use. Five databases were searched for efficacy, effectiveness and/or cost-effectiveness studies and reviews published since 2010 that measured use of psychoactive substances (i.e., alcohol, cannabis, hallucinogens, inhalants, opioids, sedatives, hypnotics, anxiolytics, and stimulants) as a primary or secondary outcome, in employees aged over 18. Thirty-nine articles were identified, 28 describing primary research and 11 reviews, most of which focused solely on alcohol use. Heterogeneity between studies with respect to intervention and evaluation design limited the degree to which findings could be synthesized, however, there is some promising evidence for workplace-based universal health promotion interventions, targeted brief interventions, and universal substance use screening. The few studies that examined implementation in the workplace revealed specific barriers including lack of engagement with e-health interventions, heavy use and reluctance to seek help amongst male employees, and confidentiality concerns. Tailoring interventions to each workplace, and ease of implementation and employee engagement emerged as facilitators. Further high-quality research is needed to examine the effectiveness of workplace substance use testing, Employee Assistance Programs, and strategies targeting the use of substances other than alcohol in the workplace.Systematic review registrationhttps://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=227598, PROSPERO [CRD42021227598].

No abstract

Introduction: Trauma exposure among clients of substance use treatment services is almost universal and rates of trauma-related symptoms are correspondingly high.This study examined one aspect of clinical care-clinical documentation-and sought to systematically assess the documentation of trauma-related comorbidities and their treatment in a substance use treatment setting.Methods: A retrospective chart review was conducted on a sample of 300 patient records in a public substance use treatment setting. Rates of documentation of trauma-related events, symptoms and treatment, along with variables influencing the documentation of these issues, were examined. Results: Trauma-related documentation was present in 45.3% of records. There were documented trauma-related symptoms in 15.3% of records, although treatment activities addressing trauma were only present in 2.3% of records. Being female (odds ratio [OR] 2.58, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.42, 4.69), having prior mental health treatment (OR 1.82, 95% CI 1.05, 1.12) and having more treatment sessions (OR 1.08, 95% CI = 1.05, 1.12) increased the odds of trauma-related documentation being present, while being in the first episode of treatment (OR 0.49, 95% CI = 0.28, 0.84) decreased the odds.Discussion and Conclusions: This study highlights significant under documentation of trauma-related comorbidities in substance-use treatment. There is limited evidence of consideration of trauma-related symptoms or diagnoses, and trauma-related comorbidities are rarely included in treatment planning activities. The lack of documented trauma-related information has important clinical and medico-legal implications for patients, and provides evidence to suggest a lack of integration of treatment for trauma-related disorders in substance use settings.

Purpose Evidence is lacking as to the superiority of dual-focused versus single-focused approaches in treating depression and alcohol use comorbidity. Different people may also value the different features of treatment options differently, necessitating a decision-support tool. This study aims to test the acceptability, feasibility, safety and potential usefulness of the Alcohol and Depression Decision-Aid for Psychological Treatments (ADDAPT). Design/methodology/approach ADDAPT was developed according to International Patient Decision-Aid Standards and in consultation with potential end users. Adults with depression and alcohol use comorbidity, who were considering/recently considered psychological treatments, were recruited via online advertisements. After clicking on the study URL, participants accessed the ADDAPT e-book and completed validated and purpose-designed questionnaires. Findings Of the 24 participants, most would recommend ADDAPT to others (79.2% agree) and endorsed it as easy-to-use (75%), useful in decision-making (79.2%), presenting balanced (87.5%), up-to-date (91.7%), easy-to-understand (79.2%) and trustworthy information (83.3%), which did not provoke anxiety (i.e. safety; 75%). Post-use, participants felt well prepared to decide on treatment (M = 3.48/5) and demonstrated good treatment knowledge (M = 65.83%). All but one participant indicated a treatment choice supported by best available evidence, and decisional conflict scores except for the uncertainty subscale were below the threshold for decisional delay (all M < 37.5/100). Originality/value ADDAPT is the first decision-aid of its kind, with pilot findings supporting its acceptability, feasibility, safety and potential usefulness for improving decision-making quality among people considering psychological treatment options for depression and alcohol use comorbidity.

No abstract