Issues: Numerous studies have examined the impact of the COVID‐19 pandemic on alcohol use changes in Europe, with concerns raised regarding increased use and related harms.Approach: We synthesised observational studies published between 1 January 2020 and 31 September 2021 on self‐reported changes in alcohol use associated with COVID‐19. Electronic databases were searched for studies evaluating individual data from European general and clinical populations. We identified 646 reports, of which 56 general population studies were suitable for random‐effects meta‐analyses of proportional differences in alcohol use changes. Variations by time, sub‐region and study quality were assessed in subsequent meta‐regressions. Additional 16 reports identified were summarised narratively.Key Findings: Compiling reports measuring changes in overall alcohol use, slightly more individuals indicated a decrease than an increase in their alcohol use during the pandemic [3.8%, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.00–7.6%]. Decreases were also reported more often than increases in drinking frequency (8.0%, 95% CI 2.7–13.2%), quantity consumed (12.2%, 95% CI 8.3–16.2%) and heavy episodic drinking (17.7%, 95% CI 13.6–21.8%). Among people with pre‐existing high drinking levels/alcohol use disorder, high‐level drinking patterns appear to have solidified or intensified.Implications: Pandemic‐related changes in alcohol use may be associated with pre‐pandemic drinking levels. Increases among high‐risk alcohol users are concerning, suggesting a need for ongoing monitoring and support from relevant health‐care services.Conclusion: Our findings suggest that more people reduced their alcohol use in Europe than increased it since the onset of the pandemic. However high‐quality studies examining specific change mechanisms at the population level are lacking.

Background: The lack of an agreed international minimum approach to measuring cannabis use hinders the integration of multidisciplinary evidence on the psychosocial, neurocognitive, clinical and public health consequences of cannabis use.Methods: A group of 25 international expert cannabis researchers convened to discuss a multidisciplinary framework for minimum standards to measure cannabis use globally in diverse settings.Results: The expert‐based consensus agreed upon a three‐layered hierarchical framework. Each layer—universal measures, detailed self‐report and biological measures—reflected different research priorities and minimum standards, costs and ease of implementation. Additional work is needed to develop valid and precise assessments.Conclusions: Consistent use of the proposed framework across research, public health, clinical practice and medical settings would facilitate harmonisation of international evidence on cannabis consumption, related harms and approaches to their mitigation.

Background: Many people attending primary care (PC) have anxiety-depressive symptoms and work-related burnout compounded by a lack of resources to meet their needs. The COVID-19 pandemic has exacerbated this problem, and digital tools have been proposed as a solution. Objective: We aimed to present the development, feasibility, and potential effectiveness of Vickybot, a chatbot aimed at screening, monitoring, and reducing anxiety-depressive symptoms and work-related burnout, and detecting suicide risk in patients from PC and health care workers. Methods: Healthy controls (HCs) tested Vickybot for reliability. For the simulation study, HCs used Vickybot for 2 weeks to simulate different clinical situations. For feasibility and effectiveness study, people consulting PC or health care workers with mental health problems used Vickybot for 1 month. Self-assessments for anxiety (Generalized Anxiety Disorder 7-item) and depression (Patient Health Questionnaire-9) symptoms and work-related burnout (based on the Maslach Burnout Inventory) were administered at baseline and every 2 weeks. Feasibility was determined from both subjective and objective user-engagement indicators (UEIs). Potential effectiveness was measured using paired 2-tailed t tests or Wilcoxon signed-rank test for changes in self-assessment scores. Results: Overall, 40 HCs tested Vickybot simultaneously, and the data were reliably transmitted and registered. For simulation, 17 HCs (n=13, 76% female; mean age 36.5, SD 9.7 years) received 98.8% of the expected modules. Suicidal alerts were received correctly. For the feasibility and potential effectiveness study, 34 patients (15 from PC and 19 health care workers; 76% [26/34] female; mean age 35.3, SD 10.1 years) completed the first self-assessments, with 100% (34/34) presenting anxiety symptoms, 94% (32/34) depressive symptoms, and 65% (22/34) work-related burnout. In addition, 27% (9/34) of patients completed the second self-assessment after 2 weeks of use. No significant differences were found between the first and second self-assessments for anxiety (t8=1.000; P=.34) or depressive (t8=0.40; P=.70) symptoms. However, work-related burnout scores were moderately reduced (z=−2.07, P=.04, r=0.32). There was a nonsignificant trend toward a greater reduction in anxiety-depressive symptoms and work-related burnout with greater use of the chatbot. Furthermore, 9% (3/34) of patients activated the suicide alert, and the research team promptly intervened with successful outcomes. Vickybot showed high subjective UEI (acceptability, usability, and satisfaction), but low objective UEI (completion, adherence, compliance, and engagement). Vickybot was moderately feasible. Conclusions: The chatbot was useful in screening for the presence and severity of anxiety and depressive symptoms, and for detecting suicidal risk. Potential effectiveness was shown to reduce work-related burnout but not anxiety or depressive symptoms. Subjective perceptions of use contrasted with low objective-use metrics. Our results are promising but suggest the need to adapt and enhance the smartphone-based solution to improve engagement. A consensus on how to report UEIs and validate digital solutions, particularly for chatbots, is required.

Background: Citizens affected by substance use disorders are high-risk populations for both SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19-related mortality. Relevant vulnerabilities to COVID-19 in people who suffer substance use disorders are described in previous communications. The COVID-19 pandemic offers a unique opportunity to reshape and update addiction treatment networks. Main body: Renewed treatment systems should be based on these seven pillars: (1) telemedicine and digital solutions, (2) hospitalization at home, (3) consultation-liaison psychiatric and addiction services, (4) harm-reduction facilities, (5) person-centered care, (6) promote paid work to improve quality of life in people with substance use disorders, and (7) integrated addiction care. The three “best buys” of the World Health Organization (reduce availability, increase prices, and a ban on advertising) are still valid. Additionally, new strategies must be implemented to systematically deal with (a) fake news concerning legal and illegal drugs and (b) controversial scientific information. Conclusion: The heroin pandemic four decades ago was the last time that addiction treatment systems were updated in many western countries. A revised and modernized addiction treatment network must include improved access to care, facilitated where appropriate by technology; more integrated care with addiction specialists supporting non-specialists; and reducing the stigma experienced by people with SUDs.

Background.: Cannabis use and misuse have become a public health problem. There is a need for reliable screening and assessment tools to identify harmful cannabis use at an early stage. We conducted a systematic review of published instruments used to screen and assess cannabis use disorders.Method.: We included papers published until January 2013 from seven different databases, following the PRISMA guidelines and a predetermined set of criteria for article selection. Only tools including a quantification of cannabis use and/or a measurement of the severity of dependence were considered.Results.: We identified 34 studies, of which 25 included instruments that met our inclusion criteria: 10 scales to assess cannabis use disorders, seven structured interviews, and eight tools to quantify cannabis use. Both cannabis and substance use scales showed good reliability and were validated in specific populations. Structured interviews were also reliable and showed good validity parameters. Common limitations were inadequate time-frames for screening, lack of brevity, undemonstrated validity for some populations (e.g. psychiatric patients, female gender, adolescents), and lack of relevant information that would enable routine use (e.g. risky use, regular users). Instruments to quantify consumption did not measure grams of the psychoactive compounds, which hampered comparability among different countries or regions where tetrahydrocannabinol concentrations may differ.Conclusions.: Current instruments available for assessing cannabis use disorders need to be further improved. A standard cannabis unit should be studied and existing instruments should be adapted to this standard unit in order to improve cannabis use assessment.