A structured interview and standardized rating scales were used to assess a sample of 194 outpatients with schizophrenia in a regional Australian mental health service for substance use, abuse, and dependence. Case manager assessments and urine drug screens were also used to determine substance use. Additional measurements included demographic information, history of criminal charges, symptom self-reports, personal hopefulness, and social support. The sample was predominantly male and showed relative instability in accommodations, and almost half had a history of criminal offenses, most frequently drug or alcohol related. The 6-month and lifetime prevalence of substance abuse or dependence was 26.8 and 59.8 percent, respectively, with alcohol, cannabis, and amphetamines being the most commonly abused substances. Current users of alcohol comprised 77.3 percent and current users of other nonprescribed substances (excluding tobacco and caffeine) comprised 29.9 percent of the sample. Rates of tobacco and caffeine consumption were high. There was a moderate degree of concordance between case manager determinations of a substance-use problem and research diagnoses. Subjects with current or lifetime diagnoses of substance abuse/dependence were predominantly young, single males with higher rates of criminal charges; however, there was no evidence of increased rates of suicide attempts, hospital admissions, or daily doses of antipsychotic drugs in these groups compared with subjects with no past or current diagnosis of substance abuse or dependence. Subjects with a current diagnosis of substance use were younger at first treatment and currently more symptomatic than those with no past or current substance use diagnosis. The picture emerging from this study replicates the high rate of substance abuse in persons with schizophrenia reported in North American studies but differs from the latter in finding a slightly different pattern of substances abused (i.e., absence of cocaine), reflecting relative differences in the availability of certain drugs.

Background: Few randomised controlled trials have been aimed specifically at substance use reduction among people with psychotic disorders.Aims: To investigate whether a 10-session intervention consisting of motivational interviewing and cognitive-behavioural therapy (CBT) was more efficacious than routine treatment in reducing substance use and improving symptomatology and general functioning.Method: A community sample of people with a psychotic disorder and who reported hazardous alcohol, cannabis and/or amphetamine use during the preceding month was recruited. Participants were randomly allocated to motivational interviewing/CBT (n=65) or treatment as usual (n=65), and were assessed on multiple outcomes at baseline, 15 weeks, 6 months and 12 months.Results: There was a short-term improvement in depression and a similar trend with regard to cannabis use among participants who received the motivational interviewing/CBT intervention, together with effects on general functioning at 12 months. There was no differential benefit of the intervention on substance use at 12 months, except for a potentially clinically important effect on amphetamine use.Conclusions: The motivational interviewing/CBT intervention was associated with modest improvements.

Objective: Deliberate self-harm (DSH), general hospital admission and psychiatric hospital admission are common in women meeting criteria for borderline personality disorder (BPD). Dialectical behaviour therapy (DBT) has been reported to be effective in reducing DSH and hospitalization. Method: A randomized controlled trial of 73 female subjects meeting criteria for BPD was carried out with intention-to-treat analyses and per-protocol analyses. The intervention was DBT and the control condition was treatment as usual plus waiting list for DBT (TAU+WL), with outcomes measured after 6 months. Primary outcomes were differences in proportions and event rates of: any DSH; general hospital admission for DSH and any psychiatric admission; and mean difference in length of stay for any hospitalization. Secondary outcomes were disability and quality of life measures. Results: Both groups showed a reduction in DSH and hospitalizations, but there were no significant differences in DSH, hospital admissions or length of stay in hospital between groups. Disability (days spent in bed) and quality of life (Physical, Psychological and Environmental domains) were significantly improved for the DBT group. Conclusion: DBT produced non-significant reductions in DSH and hospitalization when compared to the TAU+WL control, due in part to the lower than expected rates of hospitalization in the control condition. Nevertheless, DBT showed significant benefits for the secondary outcomes of improved disability and quality of life scores, a clinically useful result that is also in keeping with the theoretical constructs of the benefits of DBT.