Contrary to popular belief, researchers have found that the differences in individuals' styles of response to environmental cues can influence chemical reward patterns in the brain. This has a great impact for future treatment and prevention of a number of compulsive behaviours.
The age old question: to what extent is the dopamine released by the rat's brain related to the lever's ability to accurately predict the food. They concluded that it depends on your style!
An example the researchers used: "Some people will see a sign for an ice cream shop and for them it's simply that, an indicator that ice cream is available nearby. But other people will have a stronger reaction to the sign -- the tantalizing association between the sign and ice cream is so powerful, they can already taste the treat and often hurry to buy some."
Similar reactions could be said to occur when people are addicted to harmful substances, not just food.
Using a technique called 'fast-scan cyclic voltammetry,' researchers measured the dopamine responses in the rats' brains - Analysis showed that the rats that were fixated on the environmental cue (the lever) got a jolt of happiness just from the lever, while the other rats did not. This desire for the lever continued even after the food reward was removed - showing how the environmental cue was enough for some rats to be rewarded, but not for others.
So it seems that although maybe we all seem the same on the outside, inside we could all have vastly different chemical processes occuring, based upon our reaction to the world around us..
Journal Article
Showing posts with label substance misuse. Show all posts
Showing posts with label substance misuse. Show all posts
Thursday, 9 December 2010
Tuesday, 7 December 2010
Family History of Alcoholism linked with Decreased Neuronal Activity
New research exploring the neural processes of adolescents with alcohol abuse in their family history has indicated that a positive family history may confer a significant risk for future alcoholism in the teenager!
Researchers examined teenagers that had not begun to drink, but had a family history of alcoholism, to rule out any brain differences caused by alcohol as a direct result.
In the experiment, the participants were required to prevent themselves from reading a color word out loud, and focus instead on the color of the ink the word was written in.
The researchers discovered that the teens with a familt history of Alcoholism showed higher levels of frontal lobe activation during the Stroop Interference test, suggesting they had decreased neuronal efficiency, meaning - to get the same score as the control group their brain had to work harder.
Link to Article
Researchers examined teenagers that had not begun to drink, but had a family history of alcoholism, to rule out any brain differences caused by alcohol as a direct result.
In the experiment, the participants were required to prevent themselves from reading a color word out loud, and focus instead on the color of the ink the word was written in.
The researchers discovered that the teens with a familt history of Alcoholism showed higher levels of frontal lobe activation during the Stroop Interference test, suggesting they had decreased neuronal efficiency, meaning - to get the same score as the control group their brain had to work harder.
Link to Article
Monday, 29 November 2010
Gambling away your health..
Although just a correlation, a recent study has found that Pathological Gamblers are at risk of Mental Health Disorders - they are 3 times more likely to commit suicisde than non-gamblers.
"..Pathological gamblers account for five percent of all suicides. These staggering statistics motivated us to study the difference between gamblers and non-gamblers," says study co-author, Richard Boyer.
The study examined 122 suicides between 2006 and 2009 and found that 49 (40%) were pathological gamblers.
Those committing suicide were found to be twice as likely to be suffering from Specific Mental Disorders than other suicide cases, suggesting that the personality disorder is a significant flag towards increased suicide risk.
Boyer reported that there are three elements generally recognised: depression, alcohol or drug consumption and a personality disorder. They believed that it was the interaction between these problems that led ultimately to suicide.
But they didn't stop there. The study also found that gamblers who committed suicide were three times less likely to have seen the doctor the year preceding their death.
Boyer believes this is because they see their financial or alcohol/drug problems as a result of their gambling addiciton and seek help for that rather than get help for their other issues.
Do you know anybody in your life with a gambling problem? It could affect anybody! Just keep an eye out for the warning signs and remember that gambling may not be their only problem!
Link to Article
"..Pathological gamblers account for five percent of all suicides. These staggering statistics motivated us to study the difference between gamblers and non-gamblers," says study co-author, Richard Boyer.
The study examined 122 suicides between 2006 and 2009 and found that 49 (40%) were pathological gamblers.
Those committing suicide were found to be twice as likely to be suffering from Specific Mental Disorders than other suicide cases, suggesting that the personality disorder is a significant flag towards increased suicide risk.
Boyer reported that there are three elements generally recognised: depression, alcohol or drug consumption and a personality disorder. They believed that it was the interaction between these problems that led ultimately to suicide.
But they didn't stop there. The study also found that gamblers who committed suicide were three times less likely to have seen the doctor the year preceding their death.
Boyer believes this is because they see their financial or alcohol/drug problems as a result of their gambling addiciton and seek help for that rather than get help for their other issues.
Do you know anybody in your life with a gambling problem? It could affect anybody! Just keep an eye out for the warning signs and remember that gambling may not be their only problem!
Link to Article
Tuesday, 16 November 2010
Marijuana use and its cognitive effects
Although recent papers have been released suggesting that it is Alcohol and not Marijuana that is the most harmful drug, this study by Staci Gruber highlights the risks that are still present in long term, young-starting marijuana use.
Cognitive flexibility - the ability to switch behavioural responses according to feedback from your surroundings, was found to be highly affected after long-term marijuana use.
Using a Wisconsin Card Sorting Task, the participants are shown four cards that differ in color, symbol, and value. The participants are asked to sort the cards, but not told what the rules are, leaving them to work out what the rules must be when receiving 'correct' or 'incorrect' feedback. Half way through the rules are changed and the participant must change their behaviour accordingly. This is an indicator of how strong a participant's cognitive flexibility is.
But what did they find?
Habitual marijuana users made more repeated errors than those that started after 16 and who did not habitually use marijuana and also had difficulty maintaining rules once they were set.
I guess it's not particularly new, and kind of obvious - but the study concluded that the younger you start, and the more you use, the greater effect Marijuana has on your cognitive functioning.
Those that claim Marijuana has no long term on them be warned! You may be killing your brain without even knowing it!
Link to Article
Cognitive flexibility - the ability to switch behavioural responses according to feedback from your surroundings, was found to be highly affected after long-term marijuana use.
Using a Wisconsin Card Sorting Task, the participants are shown four cards that differ in color, symbol, and value. The participants are asked to sort the cards, but not told what the rules are, leaving them to work out what the rules must be when receiving 'correct' or 'incorrect' feedback. Half way through the rules are changed and the participant must change their behaviour accordingly. This is an indicator of how strong a participant's cognitive flexibility is.
But what did they find?
Habitual marijuana users made more repeated errors than those that started after 16 and who did not habitually use marijuana and also had difficulty maintaining rules once they were set.
I guess it's not particularly new, and kind of obvious - but the study concluded that the younger you start, and the more you use, the greater effect Marijuana has on your cognitive functioning.
Those that claim Marijuana has no long term on them be warned! You may be killing your brain without even knowing it!
Link to Article
Friday, 5 November 2010
Alcohol: More harmful than Heroin or Cocaine?
Alcohol, although one of the only legal 'recreational drugs' available to the public, has been seen in a new light recently with the publishing of a paper by Professor David Nutt.
A new system that ranks drugs on the basis of harm caused to both the user and others has placed alcohol as the most harmful drug - this is above even heroin and crack!
Professor Nutt attempted this assessment in 2007, which provoked major interest and public debate, although it raised concerns about the choice of the nine criteria and the absence of any differential weighting of them.
Drugs were scored with points out of 100, with 100 assigned to the most harmful drug on a specific criterion. Zero indicated no harm. Explaining their model, the authors say: "In scaling of the drugs, care is needed to ensure that each successive point on the scale represents equal increments of harm. Thus, if a drug is scored at 50, then it should be half as harmful as the drug that scored 100."
The nine categories in harm to self are:
- Drug-specific mortality
- Drug-related mortality
- Drug-specific damage
- Drug-related damage
- Dependence
- Drug-specific impairment of mental function
- Drug-related impairment of mental functioning
- Loss of tangibles
- Loss of relationships
- Injury.
The harm to others categories are:
- Crime
- Environmental damage
- Family conflict
- International damage
- Economic cost
- Decline in community cohesion.
Heroin, crack, and crystal meth were the most harmful drugs to the individual.
Alcohol, heroin, and crack were the most harmful to others.
This system showed alcohol was the most harmful drug (overall harm score 72), then heroin (55) then crack (54.)
The implications this study could have on drugs policy is potentially huge. But one ahs to question, with such a large number of people drinking alcohol opposed to, say, taking heroin - has this made a difference to their results? Surely there are more people that enjoy alcohol with relatively little harm than those taking heroin or cocain?
However accurate/valid the study, it cannot be denied that it has and will cause much controversy. It will be interesting to see if future studies find similar results.
What are your opinions?
Is alcohol more harmful than heroin or cocaine?
Link to Article
Link to Paper
A new system that ranks drugs on the basis of harm caused to both the user and others has placed alcohol as the most harmful drug - this is above even heroin and crack!
Professor Nutt attempted this assessment in 2007, which provoked major interest and public debate, although it raised concerns about the choice of the nine criteria and the absence of any differential weighting of them.
Drugs were scored with points out of 100, with 100 assigned to the most harmful drug on a specific criterion. Zero indicated no harm. Explaining their model, the authors say: "In scaling of the drugs, care is needed to ensure that each successive point on the scale represents equal increments of harm. Thus, if a drug is scored at 50, then it should be half as harmful as the drug that scored 100."
The nine categories in harm to self are:
- Drug-specific mortality
- Drug-related mortality
- Drug-specific damage
- Drug-related damage
- Dependence
- Drug-specific impairment of mental function
- Drug-related impairment of mental functioning
- Loss of tangibles
- Loss of relationships
- Injury.
The harm to others categories are:
- Crime
- Environmental damage
- Family conflict
- International damage
- Economic cost
- Decline in community cohesion.
Heroin, crack, and crystal meth were the most harmful drugs to the individual.
Alcohol, heroin, and crack were the most harmful to others.
This system showed alcohol was the most harmful drug (overall harm score 72), then heroin (55) then crack (54.)
The implications this study could have on drugs policy is potentially huge. But one ahs to question, with such a large number of people drinking alcohol opposed to, say, taking heroin - has this made a difference to their results? Surely there are more people that enjoy alcohol with relatively little harm than those taking heroin or cocain?
However accurate/valid the study, it cannot be denied that it has and will cause much controversy. It will be interesting to see if future studies find similar results.
What are your opinions?
Is alcohol more harmful than heroin or cocaine?
Link to Article
Link to Paper
Tuesday, 28 September 2010
The link between popularity, friends and drug consumption
"Our study highlights a correlation between popularity and consumption," says Jean-Sébastien Fallu, lead researcher and professor at the Université de Montréal's School of Psychoeducation. "The teenagers we studied were well-accepted, very sensitive to social codes, and understood the compromises that it takes to be popular."
The findings showed an increase in consumption, as the child got older regardless of their popularity level. However, the more popular a child and their friends were, the greater this consumption was.
"Teenagers don't consume to belong to the group or to increase their popularity level, they do it to remain well-liked," says Fallu. "It's more about keeping their status than increasing it."
Teenagers who aren't considered popular are more inclined to develop violent behaviors than consume alcohol or drugs.
Is drug taking cool? Maybe it was just the area I grew up in, but popularity in my school wasn't measured in the amount of drugs consumed! This study highlights a motivation for drug consumption that maybe hadn't been considered previously.
But what are your thoughts? Is social popularity the cause of drug consumption in teens? Or is the level of popularity the result of the drug consumption? Is level of social status enough motivation for teenagers to consume drugs? Is this type of peer pressure overt or just expected?
Why is drug taking considered 'cool' behaviour? Is it just because rules are being broken? Or is there another reason?
Let us know what you think.
Link to Article
The findings showed an increase in consumption, as the child got older regardless of their popularity level. However, the more popular a child and their friends were, the greater this consumption was.
"Teenagers don't consume to belong to the group or to increase their popularity level, they do it to remain well-liked," says Fallu. "It's more about keeping their status than increasing it."
Teenagers who aren't considered popular are more inclined to develop violent behaviors than consume alcohol or drugs.
Is drug taking cool? Maybe it was just the area I grew up in, but popularity in my school wasn't measured in the amount of drugs consumed! This study highlights a motivation for drug consumption that maybe hadn't been considered previously.
But what are your thoughts? Is social popularity the cause of drug consumption in teens? Or is the level of popularity the result of the drug consumption? Is level of social status enough motivation for teenagers to consume drugs? Is this type of peer pressure overt or just expected?
Why is drug taking considered 'cool' behaviour? Is it just because rules are being broken? Or is there another reason?
Let us know what you think.
Link to Article
Thursday, 3 June 2010
Drinking coffee doesn't make you more alert, caffeine study reveals
Coffee drinkers may think they're getting a caffeine boost, but they're no more alert than people who never drink the stuff.
The millions of people who depend on a shot of coffee to kickstart their day are no more alert than those who are not regular coffee drinkers, say researchers.
A cup of coffee, suggests a study, only counteracts the effects of caffeine withdrawal that has built up overnight.
"Someone who consumes caffeine regularly when they're at work but not at weekends runs the risk of feeling a bit rubbish by Sunday," said Peter Rogers, who led the research at Bristol University. "It's better to stick with it or keep off it altogether."
The research is significant because previous studies into the effects of caffeine have involved far fewer participants.
"It's an interesting piece of evidence, and a very ambitious study," said Lorenzo Stafford, a psychologist at the University of Portsmouth. "Getting the DNA samples of so many participants is a huge effort."
Wednesday, 12 August 2009
It's official: 30-50 % of your clients have substance misuse problems!
The UK National Statistics Information Centre has indicated that "30-50% of clients with mental health problems have current drug or alcohol issues". This would suggest that up to every one in two clients we work with on a daily basis, have an additional substance misuse issue.
This has enormous implications:
Firstly is the simple question of do we know who these clients are? How do we find out?
Secondly, we know that this will have implications for the work we do with them. These range most obviously from the impact of the substance(s) on mood through to clients' ability to remember what we say to them.
There are of course numerous other issues ranging from the impact on client motivation through to knowing which to work with first.
I've raised this issue because there is still a great tendency to divorce substance misuse from the other problems clients present with. Even in the field of anger management, where the connection between substance use and the problem is very obvious, this is so. Kassuinove and Taffrate's otherwise excellent "Anger Management: A Complete Treatment Guidebook" has only two and a half pages (out of three hundred) on substance misuse — and those are right at the end before the index! Take a brief look through the indexes of the books you have relating to your field of work. Are they any different?
This separation is also reflected in services. Clients with "substance misuse problems" usually go to a "substance misuse service" (with the possible exception of those working with offenders). But this assumes that substance misuse is the presenting problem and that the client sees themselves as having a difficulty with substances. What do you do if the don't? How do you work out which of your clients use which substances? Do you know the effects of substances on the client? How do you manage the issue within your work? Do you refuse to work with people if they use? Refuse when they are intoxicated? Refuse when they are withdrawing?Ignore the problem altogether?
As always, we are interested in how you approach this whole topic and what your thoughts are on it.
Yours
Paul Grantham
This has enormous implications:
Firstly is the simple question of do we know who these clients are? How do we find out?
Secondly, we know that this will have implications for the work we do with them. These range most obviously from the impact of the substance(s) on mood through to clients' ability to remember what we say to them.
There are of course numerous other issues ranging from the impact on client motivation through to knowing which to work with first.
I've raised this issue because there is still a great tendency to divorce substance misuse from the other problems clients present with. Even in the field of anger management, where the connection between substance use and the problem is very obvious, this is so. Kassuinove and Taffrate's otherwise excellent "Anger Management: A Complete Treatment Guidebook" has only two and a half pages (out of three hundred) on substance misuse — and those are right at the end before the index! Take a brief look through the indexes of the books you have relating to your field of work. Are they any different?
This separation is also reflected in services. Clients with "substance misuse problems" usually go to a "substance misuse service" (with the possible exception of those working with offenders). But this assumes that substance misuse is the presenting problem and that the client sees themselves as having a difficulty with substances. What do you do if the don't? How do you work out which of your clients use which substances? Do you know the effects of substances on the client? How do you manage the issue within your work? Do you refuse to work with people if they use? Refuse when they are intoxicated? Refuse when they are withdrawing?Ignore the problem altogether?
As always, we are interested in how you approach this whole topic and what your thoughts are on it.
Yours
Paul Grantham
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
