Cargando…

Mandatory treatment for methamphetamine use in Australia

BACKGROUND: In 2016, following a flurry of government inquiries and taskforces including calls for mandatory treatment regimes, the Australian community nominated methamphetamine as the drug most likely to be associated as a problem substance. Mandatory treatment for alcohol and other drug problems...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Coleman, Mathew, Ridley, Kelly, Christmass, Michael
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8033652/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33836785
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13011-021-00370-1
_version_ 1783676439042719744
author Coleman, Mathew
Ridley, Kelly
Christmass, Michael
author_facet Coleman, Mathew
Ridley, Kelly
Christmass, Michael
author_sort Coleman, Mathew
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: In 2016, following a flurry of government inquiries and taskforces including calls for mandatory treatment regimes, the Australian community nominated methamphetamine as the drug most likely to be associated as a problem substance. Mandatory treatment for alcohol and other drug problems in Australia consists of broadly two mechanisms compelling a person into treatment: involuntary treatment or civil commitment regimes; and coercive treatment regimes, usually associated with the criminal justice system. This paper aims to provide a review of the evidence for mandatory treatment regimes for people who use methamphetamines. METHODS: Using a narrative review methodology, a comprehensive literature and citation search was conducted. Five hundred two search results were obtained resulting in 41 papers that had cited works of interest. RESULTS: Small, but robust results were found with coercive treatment programs in the criminal justice system. The evidence of these programs specifically with methamphetamine use disorders is even less promising. Systematic reviews of mandatory drug treatment regimes have consistently demonstrated limited, if any, benefit for civil commitment programs. Despite the growing popular enthusiasm for mandatory drug treatment programs, significant clinical and ethical challenges arise including determining decision making capacity in people with substance use disorders, the impact of self determination and motivation in drug treatment, current treatment effectiveness, cost effectiveness and unintended treatment harms associated with mandatory programs. CONCLUSION: The challenge for legislators, service providers and clinicians when considering mandatory treatment for methamphetamines is to proportionately balance the issue of human rights with effectiveness, safety, range and accessibility of both existing and novel mandatory treatment approaches.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8033652
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-80336522021-04-09 Mandatory treatment for methamphetamine use in Australia Coleman, Mathew Ridley, Kelly Christmass, Michael Subst Abuse Treat Prev Policy Review BACKGROUND: In 2016, following a flurry of government inquiries and taskforces including calls for mandatory treatment regimes, the Australian community nominated methamphetamine as the drug most likely to be associated as a problem substance. Mandatory treatment for alcohol and other drug problems in Australia consists of broadly two mechanisms compelling a person into treatment: involuntary treatment or civil commitment regimes; and coercive treatment regimes, usually associated with the criminal justice system. This paper aims to provide a review of the evidence for mandatory treatment regimes for people who use methamphetamines. METHODS: Using a narrative review methodology, a comprehensive literature and citation search was conducted. Five hundred two search results were obtained resulting in 41 papers that had cited works of interest. RESULTS: Small, but robust results were found with coercive treatment programs in the criminal justice system. The evidence of these programs specifically with methamphetamine use disorders is even less promising. Systematic reviews of mandatory drug treatment regimes have consistently demonstrated limited, if any, benefit for civil commitment programs. Despite the growing popular enthusiasm for mandatory drug treatment programs, significant clinical and ethical challenges arise including determining decision making capacity in people with substance use disorders, the impact of self determination and motivation in drug treatment, current treatment effectiveness, cost effectiveness and unintended treatment harms associated with mandatory programs. CONCLUSION: The challenge for legislators, service providers and clinicians when considering mandatory treatment for methamphetamines is to proportionately balance the issue of human rights with effectiveness, safety, range and accessibility of both existing and novel mandatory treatment approaches. BioMed Central 2021-04-09 /pmc/articles/PMC8033652/ /pubmed/33836785 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13011-021-00370-1 Text en © The Author(s) 2021 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
spellingShingle Review
Coleman, Mathew
Ridley, Kelly
Christmass, Michael
Mandatory treatment for methamphetamine use in Australia
title Mandatory treatment for methamphetamine use in Australia
title_full Mandatory treatment for methamphetamine use in Australia
title_fullStr Mandatory treatment for methamphetamine use in Australia
title_full_unstemmed Mandatory treatment for methamphetamine use in Australia
title_short Mandatory treatment for methamphetamine use in Australia
title_sort mandatory treatment for methamphetamine use in australia
topic Review
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8033652/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33836785
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13011-021-00370-1
work_keys_str_mv AT colemanmathew mandatorytreatmentformethamphetamineuseinaustralia
AT ridleykelly mandatorytreatmentformethamphetamineuseinaustralia
AT christmassmichael mandatorytreatmentformethamphetamineuseinaustralia