Helping someone with problem drug use: a delphi consensus study of consumers, carers, and clinicians
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Problem use of illicit drugs (i.e. drug abuse or dependence) is associated with considerable health and social harms, highlighting the need for early intervention and engagement with health services. Family members, friends and colleagues play an important role in supporting and assisting individuals with problem drug use to seek professional help, however there are conflicting views about how and when such support should be offered. This paper reports on the development of mental health first aid guidelines for problem drug use in adults, to help inform community members on how to assist someone developing problem drug use or experiencing a drug-related crisis. METHODS: A systematic review of the scientific and lay literature was conducted to develop a 228-item survey containing potential first-aid strategies to help someone developing a drug problem or experiencing a drug-related crisis. Three panels of experts (29 consumers, 31 carers and 27 clinicians) were recruited from Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, and the United States. Panel members independently rated the items over three rounds, with strategies reaching consensus on importance written into the guidelines. RESULTS: The overall response rate across three rounds was 80% (86% consumers, 81% carers, 74% clinicians). 140 first aid strategies were endorsed as essential or important by 80% or more of panel members. The endorsed strategies provide information and advice on what is problem drug use and its consequences, how to approach a person about their problem drug use, tips for effective communication, what to do if the person is unwilling to change their drug use, what to do if the person does (or does not) want professional help, what are drug-affected states and how to deal with them, how to deal with adverse reactions leading to a medical emergency, and what to do if the person is aggressive. CONCLUSIONS: The guidelines provide a consensus-based resource for community members who want to help someone with a drug problem. It is hoped that the guidelines will lead to better support and understanding for those with problem drug use and facilitate engagement with professional help.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.104 | 0.119 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".