Polysubstance Use in Substance Use Disorder (1 CE)
Course Level: Intermediate
This course is for: Â Clinical Psychologists, Counselors, Nurses, Social Workers
Course By: Tim Grigsby, PhD & Kristin Ceppaluni, LMHC, NCC
Content By: Crummy, E. A., O’Neal, T. J., Baskin, B. M., & Ferguson, S. M. (2020). One is not enough: understanding and modeling polysubstance use. Frontiers in Neuroscience, 14, e569.
Course Description: The majority of substance use research to date has examined the independent effects of drugs on behavioral and health outcomes including risk for substance use disorder. However, the majority of substance users report using one or more drugs either at the same time (concurrently) or sequentially (over time). Understanding patterns of polysubstance use and their neurobiological effects is necessary for developing effective prevention and treatment interventions. The heterogeneity of polysubstance use challenges researchers and clinicians to identify common issues facing polydrug users that can be leveraged through targeted interventions.
Learning Objectives:
- Compare and contrast patterns of polydrug use
- Identify the physical and psychological consequences of polydrug use for alcohol, cannabis, nicotine, psychostimulant, and opioid use
- Describe two possible intervention strategies to address polydrug use in preclinical and clinical samples of drug users
Course Outline:
- Read and understand One is not enough: understanding and modeling polysubstance use
- Review the Course Description and Learning Objectives
- Reflect on the effects of polydrug use on users of stimulant, depressant, and analgesic drugs
- Work through the post-test questions; keep in mind that answer selections should be derived from the respective article
- Return to the referenced article for any missed questions and/or to better understand the etiology and consequences of polydrug use as well as intervention strategies to reduce polydrug useÂ
BRN Required Content
Implicit biases incorporate an association that occurs outside of conscious awareness that may resultantly lead to a negative patient evaluation derived from irrelevant characteristics; i.e. gender and/or race. A systematic review of the literature was conducted. Thirty-five studies identified the existence of implicit bias in healthcare professionals; all correlational studies evidenced a significant positive relationship between implicit bias levels and lower quality of care (FitzGerald & Hurst, 2017). Continued research in health care settings, combined with greater method homogeneity, should be employed to examine the occurrence and prevalence of implicit biases in healthcare settings as a strategic approach for mitigating related disparities (FitzGerald & Hurst, 2017).
Reference:
FitzGerald, C., & Hurst, S. (2017). Implicit bias in healthcare professionals: A systematic review. BMC Med Ethics 18, 19. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12910-017-0179-8
Approvals:
Board Approvals | American Psychological Association (APA), Association of Social Work Boards (ASWB), NBCC, Florida Board - Social Work, MFT, Counseling, and Psychology, NYSED - Social Work, MFT and Counseling Only, American Academy of Health Care Providers in the Addictive Disorders |
---|---|
CE Format | Online, Text-Based |