Introduction and Aims. Governments across the globe invest considerable amounts in funding alcohol and other drug (AOD) treatment. Little attention however has been paid to the ways AOD service providers are chosen and how they are paid. This study sought to examine the perceptions of Australian AOD treatment purchasers and providers regarding different purchasing and payment mechanisms. Design and Methods. Qualitative interviews with AOD treatment providers and purchasers (N = 197) were undertaken across the eight Australian states/territories and the Commonwealth. Data were collated against six main AOD treatment purchasing and payment mechanisms (as identified in the literature), then an inductive, comparative analysis to assign codes was conducted, followed by interpretive analysis to explore emergent themes. Results. Five main themes were identified in relation to AOD treatment payment and purchasing mechanisms: (i) applying private sector principles to purchasing; (ii) innovation, sector stability and addressing client needs; (iii) performance monitoring and measuring outcomes; (iv) the threat to designated funding for AOD treatment; and (v) the costs and benefits of having multiple funding sources. Discussion and Conclusions. In many countries reforms are taking place in the health sector consistent with New Public Management principles. These principles, when applied to AOD treatment, have included introducing competition, output and outcomes-based funding models, standards and accountability. Purchaser and providers identified both strengths and weaknesses and highlighted the overarching concern that implementation of any (mix) of these mechanisms should always be underpinned by a client-centred and not a finance-centred approach.

The Drug Policy Modelling Program (DPMP) at the University of New South Wales has released a report on 'The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the non-government alcohol and other drug sector: future implications'. NADA commissioned DPMP to undertake the study to explore the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on it's members and provide advice on the immediate, medium and long-term actions that need to follow.

COVID-19 has demanded significant changes to funding arrangements, leadership and strategic planning, the types of care provided, and workforce requirements and support. It provides the opportunity to review all aspects of non government AOD treatment services, including the ways in which services are commissioned and funded by governments, and how services are supported, led, and delivered.

The actions resulting from the study are directed at treatment providers, NADA, and non government AOD funders. Whilst many of these actions have commenced, some are longstanding issues impacting on the sector, such as the underfunding of AOD treatment, and recruitment and retention of staff. NADA is committed to working with sector to implement the actions.

Introduction: The use of anabolic androgenic steroids (AAS) and other image- and performance-enhancing drugs is a growing public health concern. AAS use is associated with various physical and mental harms, including cardiovascular risks, cognitive deficiencies, and dependence. The aim of this study was to determine whether patterns of AAS use and other variables are associated with the presence of an AAS use disorder (AASUD). Methods: An online survey was completed by 103 male AAS consumers visiting gyms. The association of different patterns of AAS consumption (cycling vs. continuous forms of AAS use), psychoactive substance use, mental health disorders, and sociodemographic variables with moderate-severe AASUD (fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders ≥4 criteria) was investigated. The associations between duration of AAS use and the AAS dose with moderate-severe AASUD were investigated using logistic regression analysis with moderate-severe AASUD as the dependent variable. Results: Mod-erate-severe AASUD was present in 25 (24.3%) of the participants. AAS consumers meeting criteria for moderate-severe AASUD, compared to those that did not, in the last 12 months reported a longer duration of AAS use (in weeks), a higher average AAS dose (mg/week), and a greater number of AAS side effects. Duration of AAS use and the AAS dose were the only independent predictors, with an increase of 3.4% in the probability of moderate-severe AASUD with every week increase of the duration of AAS use in the last year (p < 0.05) and an increase in moderate-severe AASUD of 0.1% with every 10 mg increase in the average AAS dose per week (p < 0.05), respectively. Conclusion: Our findings show that moderate-severe AASUD is relatively frequent among male AAS consumers and is positively associated with the duration and average dose of AAS use in the last 12 months.

There is a long history and growing evidence base that the use of drugs, such as anabolic-androgenic steroids, to enhance human performance is common amongst armed forces, including in Australia. We should not be surprised that this might have occurred for it has long been predicted by observers. It is a commonplace of many recent discussion of the future of warfare and future military technology to proclaim the imminent arrival of Super Soldiers, whose capacities are modified via drugs, digital technology and genetic engineering, in ways that increase their performance exponentially. This is what some observers have referred to as the “Gladiator Model” wherein the aim is to create soldiers able to perform feats of which ordinary citizens are not capable. One key aspect of this “gladiator project” is the use of illicit drugs to enhance performance. Could we use drugs, such as steroids or amphetamines, to enhance performance? Should we use such drugs? In this paper we explore the ethics of creating Super Soldiers, and raise issues of consent, coercion and the extent to which such use is permitted or condemned by just war theory. We conclude that much will depend on the extent to which such use is harmful to the soldiers themselves and this is still an open question.

Objective: Both public (government-run), and not-for-profit (nongovernment) service providers provide alcohol and other drug (AOD) treatment services. Research has rarely studied the structural features of these providers, such as workforce characteristics, procurement arrangements, and funding security. The study reported here sought to document and analyze the differences between these two AOD treatment provider types in Australia.

Methods: The study administered an online survey instrument targeted at managers of AOD treatment sites. The survey comprised three sections: (1) the service (e.g., treatment types); (2) workforce (e.g., total number of staff); and (3) funding and procurement arrangements (e.g., contract length). The study completed a total of 207 site surveys. The studied compared government and nongovernment services on structural features that may create a more or less sustainable or vulnerable service (funding arrangements, payment mechanisms, and contract length).

Results: Government providers were more likely to provide medically oriented treatment types such as with-drawal management and pharmacotherapy, whereas nongovernment organization (NGO) providers were more likely to offer rehabilitation. Consistent with this, government services were more likely to employ medical professionals and nurses, indicative of a more medically oriented workforce, while NGO services were more likely to employ AOD workers, youth workers, peer workers, and counselors. Our data illustrate that NGO services were more likely to be subject to competitive tendering and to have shorter contract lengths, compared with government services, and overall to be more structurally vulnerable.

Conclusion: Despite the reliance on NGOs to provide the majority of specialist care (71% of all treatment episodes in Australia), these services are more vulnerable than their government counterparts. To ensure that a comprehensive suite of treatment services is available, procurement arrangements that support stability and security in nongovernment service providers and government service providers are essential.

Background: One sub-population potentially affected by the COVID-19 pandemic are strength athletes who use anabolic-androgenic steroids (AAS). We examined links between disruption in AAS use and training due to the pandemic and mental health outcomes in this population, hypothesising: (a) the pandemic would be linked with reduced training and AAS use; and (b) athletes perceiving greater impact on their training and AAS use would report increases in detrimental mental health outcomes.

Methods: Male strength athletes using AAS (N = 237) from 42 countries completed an online questionnaire in May 2020. A sub-sample (N = 90) from 20 countries participated again 4 months later. The questionnaire assessed pre-pandemic and current AAS use and training, alongside several mental health outcomes.

Results: At Time 1, most participants perceived an impact of the pandemic on AAS use (91.1%) and/or training (57.8%). Dependent t-tests demonstrated significant reductions in training frequency (t = 7.78; p < 0.001) and AAS dose (t = 6.44; p < 0.001) compared to pre-pandemic. Linear regression showed the impact of the pandemic on training was a significant positive predictor of excessive body checking (B = 0.35) and mood swings (B = 0.26), and AAS dose was a significant positive predictor of anxiety (B = 0.67), insomnia (B = 0.52), mood swings (B = 0.37). At Time 2, fewer participants perceived an impact of the pandemic on AAS use (29.9%) and/or training (66.7%) than at Time 1. Training frequency (t = 3.02; p < 0.01) and AAS dose (t = 2.11; p < 0.05) were depressed in comparison to pre-pandemic. However, AAS dose had increased compared to Time 1 (t = 2.11; p < 0.05). Linear regression showed the impact of the pandemic on training/AAS use did not significantly predict any mental-health outcomes. However, AAS dose was a significant negative predictor of depressive thoughts (B = −0.83) and mood swings (B = −2.65).

Conclusion: Our findings showed impact of the pandemic on the training and AAS use, reflected in reduced training frequency and AAS dose. However, whilst we detected some short-term consequential effects on mental health, these did not appear to be long-lasting.