Search

Buprenorphine was registered in Australia as a maintenance and detoxification agent for the management of opioid dependence in November, 2000, and became widely available in August, 2001. This paper provides an overview of key developments in the introduction of buprenorphine treatment in Australia, with an emphasis upon the delivery of services in community-based (primary care) settings. A central study in this work was the Buprenorphine Implementation Trial (BIT), a randomized, controlled trial comparing buprenorphine and methadone maintenance treatment delivered under naturalistic conditions by specialist and community-based service providers (general practitioners and community pharmacists) in 139 subjects across nineteen treatment sites. In addition to conventional patient outcome measures (treatment retention, drug use, psychosocial functioning, and cost effectiveness), the BIT study also involved the development and evaluation of clinical guidelines, training programs for clinicians, and client literature, which are described here. Integration of treatment systems (methadone with buprenorphine, specialist and primary-care programs) and factors thought to be important in the uptake of buprenorphine treatment in Australia since registration are discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim To evaluate the effectiveness of an online school-based prevention program for ecstasy (MDMA) and new psychoactive substances (NPS). Design Cluster randomized controlled trial with two groups (intervention and control). Setting Eleven secondary schools in Australia. Participants A total of 1126 students (mean age: 14.9 years). Intervention The internet-based Climate Schools: Ecstasy and Emerging Drugs module uses cartoon storylines to convey information about harmful drug use. It was delivered once weekly, during a 4-week period, during health education classes. Control schools received health education as usual. Measurement Primary outcomes were self-reported intentions to use ecstasy and NPS at 12 months. Secondary outcomes were ecstasy and NPS knowledge and life-time use of ecstasy and NPS. Surveys were administered at baseline, post-intervention and 6 and 12 month post-baseline. Findings At 12 months, the proportion of students likely to use NPS was significantly greater in the control group (1.8%) than the intervention group [0.5%; odds ratio (OR) = 10.17, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.31-78.91]. However, students' intentions to use ecstasy did not differ significantly between groups (control = 2.1%, intervention = 1.6%; OR = 5.91, 95% CI = 1.01-34.73). There was a significant group difference in the change from baseline to post-test for NPS knowledge (β = −0.42, 95% CI = −0.62 to −0.21, Cohen's d = 0.77), with controls [mean = 2.78, standard deviation (SD = 1.48] scoring lower than intervention students (mean = 3.85, SD = 1.49). There was also evidence of a significant group difference in ecstasy knowledge at post-test (control: mean = 9.57, SD = 3.31; intervention: mean = 11.57, SD = 3.61; β = −0.54, 95% CI = −0.97 to −0.12, P = 0.01, d = 0.73). Conclusions The Climate Schools: Ecstasy and Emerging Drugs module, a universal online school-based prevention program, appeared to reduce students' intentions to use new psychoactive substances and increased knowledge about ecstasy and new psychoactive substances in the short term. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]