We ask authors to describe their impressions regarding the implications of their accepted work, how their findings will change practice, and what is noteworthy about the work.

Evaluation of knowledge and confidence following opioid overdose prevention training: A comparison of types of training participants and naloxone administration methods
Lisham Ashrafioun , Stephanie Gamble , Michele Herrmann , Gloria Baciewicz
Substance Abuse
Vol. 37, Iss. 1, 2016

In this study, we assess the effectiveness of naloxone training on enhancing knowledge about opioid overdose and confidence to recognize and respond to an opioid overdose situation as a function of route of naloxone administration and training participant type.  Opioid overdose trainings are effective in increasing knowledge and confidence related to opioid overdose situations. Findings suggest that trainees are more confident administering naloxone via intranasal spray compared to injection.  This training is a relatively brief, easily transferrable and understandable training that appears to be effective in increasing participants’ knowledge and confidence to respond appropriately in opioid overdose situations.  Training on injection administration of naloxone should consider additional content aimed at decreasing potential concerns surrounding its administration and/or consider more skills training in order to increase confidence.

————————————————————————————————-
Our newly released issue is now online —> January-March 2016.
————————————————————————————————

We ask authors to describe their impressions regarding the implications of their accepted work, how their findings will change practice, and what is noteworthy about the work.

Optimizing psychosocial support during office-based buprenorphine treatment in primary care: Patients’ experiences and preferences
Aaron D. Fox , Mariya Masyukova , Chinazo O. Cunningham
Substance Abuse
Vol. 37, Iss. 1, 2016

We conducted a qualitative study with buprenorphine treatment-experienced patients to inquire about the supportive aspects of treatment that they received and valued. Providers, policy makers, or health insurers may require buprenorphine-treated patients to participate in individual or group counseling outside of buprenorphine provider visits, but more intensive psychosocial interventions have not consistently demonstrated improved buprenorphine outcomes in studies. We found that participants derived psychosocial support from their prescribing physician, but were also open to collaborative or group-based models of care, as long as they were voluntary and confidential. The implications are that some buprenorphine patient may receive adequate psychosocial support from an effective physician provider, while other patients may desire peer support or more intensive counseling and would be open to collaborative care or group counseling. We believe that our findings call for tailored, patient-centered treatment plans, not universal mandates for buprenorphine patients, but group-based treatment models appear to be acceptable.

————————————————————————————————-
Our newly released issue is now online —> January-March 2016.
————————————————————————————————-

We ask authors to describe their impressions regarding the implications of their accepted work, how their findings will change practice, and what is noteworthy about the work.

A comparative study of screening instruments and biomarkers for the detection of cannabis use
Paulien Meersseman , Simon Vanhoutte , Joris Van Damme , Lea Maes , Gilbert Lemmens , Gunter Heylens , Alain G. Verstraete
Substance Abuse
Vol. 37, Iss. 1, 2016

Questionnaires and biomarkers are used to estimate the extent of cannabis use within a designated population, but, it is not clear what screening instruments or biomarkers should be the option of choice. This study compares three screening questionnaires with two different biomarkers in order to investigate their usefulness in the detection of cannabis use. This study shows that the CAGE-AID and ProbCannabis-DT are two valid screening questionnaires in the detection of cannabis use compared to biomarkers in hair and plasma. Based on our results, biomarker analyses detect much fewer cannabis users than questionnaires.

————————————————————————————————-
Our newly released issue is now online —> January-March 2016.
————————————————————————————————-

We ask authors to describe their impressions regarding the implications of their accepted work, how their findings will change practice, and what is noteworthy about the work.

Usefulness and validity of the modified Addiction Severity Index: A focus on alcohol, drugs, tobacco, and gambling
Cécile Denis , Mélina Fatséas , Virginie Beltran , Fuschia Serre , Jean-Marc Alexandre , Romain Debrabant , Jean-Pierre Daulouède , Marc Auriacombe
Substance Abuse
Vol. 37, Iss. 1, 2016

Among patients who seek treatment for addiction, comorbid substance use problems sometimes combined with non-substance addictive disorders such as gambling disorder are common. The lack of use of a unique severity assessment instrument by clinicians might be an obstacle for patients to access integrated and comprehensive treatment. This paper presents a modified version of the 5th version of the Addiction Severity Index (mASI) to assess all substance use disorders, including tobacco and non-substance addictive disorders such as gambling disorder. Although the 6th version of the ASI added items relative to tobacco use and gambling, these new items did not generate specific scores and were not taken into account in the computation of the scores of the ASI domains. In its 6th version the ASI is still focused on assessment of alcohol and/or drugs and items relative to tobacco and gambling are only to assess side-use to other main alcohol and/or drug use and is not suited for assessment of individuals with tobacco or gambling as their declared main problem use. In this study, 833 participants were interviewed with the mASI and completed a validity battery questionnaire. The mASI was reliable and its nine assessed domains showed a relative independence supporting its multi-dimensionality. The standardized properties of this mASI permit a comprehensive and systematic assessment of all addictions independently of patients’ perceived problems and treatment settings, hence facilitating better-personalized treatment planning. A more systematic use of the mASI may be helpful for clinicians to design the best treatment plans for a patient, for policy makers to objectively understand the needs in treatment, care centers or other institutions but also for researchers to measure contemporary issues in addiction treatment. For research purposes, the use of a unique instrument allows researchers to better address the similarities and differences between addictions by avoiding potential artifact due to a multiplication of tools needed to assess a same individual. The difficulty to conclude about the impact of addictive behavior on the treatment outcome of another addictive behavior may be explained by the heterogeneity of the assessment tools. Treatment programs focused on promoting abstinence from substance use might consider monitoring all possible addictive behaviors including tobacco use and gambling as it is possible that the addictive disorder might still be active and individuals may switch their addictive behaviors to tobacco, gambling or other addictive behaviors.

————————————————————————————————-
Our newly released issue is now online —> January-March 2016.
————————————————————————————————-