The use of amphetamines is a global public health concern. We summarise global data on use of amphetamines and mental health outcomes. A systematic review and meta-analysis (CRD 42017081893). We searched Medline, EMBASE, PsycInfo for methamphetamine or amphetamine combined with psychosis, violence, suicidality, depression or anxiety. Included studies were human empirical cross-sectional surveys, case-control studies, cohort studies and randomised controlled trials that assessed the association between methamphetamine and one of the mental health outcomes. Random effects meta-analysis was used to pool results for any use of amphetamines and amphetamine use disorders. 149 studies were eligible and 59 were included in meta-analyses. There was significant heterogeneity in effects. Evidence came mostly from cross-sectional studies. Any use of amphetamines was associated with higher odds of psychosis (odds ratio [OR] = 2.0, 95%CI 1.3-3.3), violence (OR = 2.2, 95%CI 1.2-4.1; adjusted OR [AOR] = 1.4, 95%CI 0.8-2.4), suicidality OR = 4.4, 95%CI 2.4-8.2; AOR = 1.7, 95%CI 1.0-2.9) and depression (OR = 1.6, 95%CI 1.1-2.2; AOR = 1.3, 95%CI 1.2-1.4). Having an amphetamine use disorder was associated with higher odds of psychosis (OR = 3.0, 95%CI 1.9-4.8; AOR = 2.4, 95%CI 1.6-3.5), violence (OR = 6.2, 95%CI 3.1-12.3), and suicidality (OR = 2.3, 95%CI 1.8-2.9; AOR = 1.5, 95%CI 1.3-1.8). Methamphetamine use is an important risk factor for poor mental health. High quality population-level studies are needed to more accurately quantify this risk. Clinical responses to methamphetamine use need to address mental health harms.

The world prison population is growing at a rate that exceeds the rate of population growth. This issue of Epidemiologic Reviews comprises articles in which researchers summarize what is known about some of the key health issues facing people in prison, particularly in relation to human immunodeficiency virus and other blood-borne viral infections. A key recurring theme is that addressing the health needs of people in prison is important to reducing health inequalities at the population level—that prisoner health is public health. The reviews also highlight some critical evidence gaps, notably the lack of evidence from low- and middle-income countries, and the limited number of longitudinal studies in which health behaviors, health outcomes, or health service experiences after release from prison are documented. Despite growing evidence of the poor health of detained adolescents, none of the included reviews considered this population. Further research on the health of young people who cycle through juvenile detention should be a priority. Despite a rapidly growing literature on the health of people who experience incarceration, some critical health issues remain poorly understood, and there has been insufficient attention devoted to co-occurring health conditions and the consequent need for coordinated care. Key populations in custodial settings remain understudied, limiting capacity to develop targeted, evidence-based responses to their health needs. The quality of many studies is suboptimal, and although rigorous, independent research in correctional settings can be challenging, it is not impossible and is critical to laying the groundwork for evidence-based reform.

Methamphetamine use is associated with a range of poor health, social and justice outcomes. In many parts of the world increased methamphetamine use has been identified as a major public health concern. Methamphetamine treatment programmes have been effective in reducing and ceasing use, however a range of barriers have prevented these programmes being widely adopted by methamphetamine users. This review examines the barriers to accessing meth/amphetamine treatment identified in the literature. Databases were systematically searched using relevant terms for peer-reviewed articles describing original research exploring the barriers to accessing treatment for meth/amphetamine use. Reviews and grey literature were excluded. Eleven studies conducted in 5 countries were included in data synthesis; this involved a systematic review of all 11 studies, and meta-analysis of the prevalence of barriers reported in 6 studies that published sufficient quantitative data. Psychosocial/internal barriers to accessing methamphetamine treatment were most prevalent across studies (10/11 studies). Meta-analysis confirmed the four most commonly endorsed barriers to treatment access across studies all psychosocial barriers were embarrassment or stigma (60%, 95% CI: 54-67%); belief that treatment was unnecessary (59%, 95% CI:54-65%); preferring to withdraw alone without assistance (55%, 95% CI:45-65); and privacy concerns (51%, 95% CI:44-59%). The primary barriers to accessing methamphetamine treatment are psychosocial/internal. Services and treatment models that address these barriers are urgently required. There is a growing need for methamphetamine-appropriate treatment services. Further research evaluating treatment engagement and effectiveness for methamphetamine and polysubstance use, including the development of effective pharmacotherapies is warranted.

The large and growing population of people who experience incarceration makes prison health an essential component of public health and a critical setting for reducing health inequities. People who experience incarceration have a high burden of physical and mental health care needs and have poor health outcomes. Addressing these health disparities requires effective governance and accountability for prison health care services, including delivery of quality care in custody and effective integration with community health services. Despite the importance of prison health care governance, little is known about how prison health services are structured and funded or the methods and processes by which they are held accountable. A number of national and subnational jurisdictions have moved prison health care services under their ministry of health, in alignment with recommendations by the World Health Organization and the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime. However, there is a critical lack of evidence on current governance models and an urgent need for evaluation and research, particularly in low- and middle-income countries. Here we discuss why understanding and implementing effective prison health governance models is a critical component of addressing health inequities at the global level.

Aims.: There are growing calls to reduce, and where possible eliminate, the use of seclusion and restraint in mental health settings, but the attitudes and beliefs of consumers, carers and mental health professionals towards these practices are not well understood. The aim of this study was to compare the attitudes of mental health service consumers, carers and mental health professionals towards seclusion and restraint in mental health settings. In particular, it aimed to explore beliefs regarding whether elimination of seclusion and restraint was desirable and possible.Methods.: In 2014, an online survey was developed and widely advertised in Australia via the National Mental Health Commission and through mental health networks. The survey adopted a mixed-methods design, including both quantitative and qualitative questions concerning participants’ demographic details, the use of seclusion and restraint in practice and their views on strategies for reducing and eliminating these practices.Results.: In total 1150 survey responses were analysed. A large majority of participants believed that seclusion and restraint practices were likely to cause harm, breach human rights, compromise trust and potentially cause or trigger past trauma. Consumers were more likely than professionals to view these practices as harmful. The vast majority of participants believed that it was both desirable and feasible to eliminate mechanical restraint. Many participants, particularly professionals, believed that seclusion and some forms of restraint were likely to produce some benefits, including increasing consumer safety, increasing the safety of staff and others and setting behavioural boundaries.Conclusions.: There was strong agreement across participant groups that the use of seclusion and restraint is harmful, breaches human rights and compromises the therapeutic relationship and trust between mental health service providers and those who experience these restrictive practices. However, some benefits were also identified, particularly by professionals. Participants had mixed views regarding the feasibility and desirability of eliminating these practices.