2017
DOI: 10.1111/dar.12518
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Health service utilisation attributable to methamphetamine use in Australia: Patterns, predictors and national impact

Abstract: Frequent methamphetamine use has a significant impact on emergency medical and psychiatric services. Better provision of non-acute health care services to address the multiple health and social needs of dependent methamphetamine users may reduce the burden on these acute care services. [McKetin R, Degenhardt L, Shanahan M, Baker AL, Lee NK, Lubman DI. Health service utilisation attributable to methamphetamine use in Australia: patterns, predictors and national impact. Drug Alcohol Rev 2017;00:000-000].

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

6
60
1
3

Year Published

2018
2018
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
8
2

Relationship

3
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 72 publications
(70 citation statements)
references
References 40 publications
(48 reference statements)
6
60
1
3
Order By: Relevance
“…Methamphetamine was identified as the primary drug of concern in just 4.4% of cases over the 5-year study period. This relatively low number of methamphetamine-related calls is consistent with previous research identifying that people with more problematic use of methamphetamine present less frequently to non-acute health services, such as general practice [49]; conversely, while more problematic methamphetamine use is associated with greater use of emergency health services [49], presentations for emergency care are less likely to generate a call to DACAS. Additionally, while there are medical treatments available for opioid and alcohol use disorders, for which practitioners often seek advice, there are currently no approved pharmacotherapies for methamphetamine use disorder.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 86%
“…Methamphetamine was identified as the primary drug of concern in just 4.4% of cases over the 5-year study period. This relatively low number of methamphetamine-related calls is consistent with previous research identifying that people with more problematic use of methamphetamine present less frequently to non-acute health services, such as general practice [49]; conversely, while more problematic methamphetamine use is associated with greater use of emergency health services [49], presentations for emergency care are less likely to generate a call to DACAS. Additionally, while there are medical treatments available for opioid and alcohol use disorders, for which practitioners often seek advice, there are currently no approved pharmacotherapies for methamphetamine use disorder.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 86%
“…Conversely, individuals who use methamphetamine in a regular or dependent manner may aim to use the sedative effects of GHB to manage stimulant withdrawal symptoms [16,17]. The latter is potentially the most probable driver, given the growing proportion of dependent methamphetamine-using adults in the Australian population during the time-period in this study [18] and mirrored in other markers of acute health burden, such as ambulance [19], emergency and psychiatric in-patient presentations [20]. For instance, data from the Ambo Project suggest that methamphetamine-related ambulance attendances in Victoria increased significantly during the 2012-18 time-period, from 872 in 2012 to 3024 in 2018.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 96%
“…Half of the services had specific guidelines for the management of violent psychostimulant patients although the management strategies differed and essentially reflected the services' guidelines for managing severely agitated patients. In Australasia, one of the most common psychostimulants associated with agitation and violence in acute care services is crystal methamphetamine . Methamphetamine‐related psychosis represented 93% of all stimulant‐related psychosis attended by AV, and patients were largely young males in metropolitan areas who required police co‐attendance because of the risk of violence .…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%