- Details
- Hits: 16
In May 2026, the National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre (NDARC) marked thirty years of its Drug Trends program with a quiet announcement and a new bulletin series. NDARC framed the launch as a milestone: three decades of monitoring Australia’s drug markets, a commitment to drawing together multiple data sources, and a new series designed to make evidence more accessible to policymakers and health services. Yet for anyone watching Australian drug prevention policy, the milestone carries an uncomfortable weight.
The first bulletin the program produced, a detailed snapshot of cocaine in Australia, is among the more damning indictments of drug policy published in recent years. Not because NDARC intended it that way, but because the numbers tell a story the framing does not. Cocaine use among Australians aged 14 and over has grown from 1% in 2004 to 4.5% in 2022–23. Wastewater analysis recorded the highest cocaine consumption in Australian history in 2024–25. Deaths have risen fivefold since 2000. Hospitalisations have tripled since 2011. Cocaine is now the second most commonly used illicit drug in Australia. The market is, in the bulletin’s own words, “growing and more established.”
Thirty years of monitoring and every indicator moving in the wrong direction.
The question worth asking at this anniversary is not whether Drug Trends has done its job. It has, on its own terms. The real question is what job its designers intended it to do, and what that choice has meant for Australian drug prevention policy over three decades.
What Drug Trends Was Built to Measure
The anniversary announcement describes the four monitoring systems that make up the Drug Trends program in plain terms. The Illicit Drug Reporting System (IDRS) monitors “trends in illicit drug markets” through annual interviews with people who inject drugs. The Ecstasy and Related Drugs Reporting System (EDRS) tracks “emerging trends” in ecstasy and stimulant markets through interviews with people who regularly use those substances. The National Illicit Drug Indicators Project (NIDIP) disseminates “trends in the epidemiology of drug-related harms.” The Drugs and New Technologies project monitors online drug marketplaces and dark web availability.
Every one of these systems focuses on people already using drugs, markets already operating, and harms already occurring. None of them measure whether fewer Australians are choosing to use drugs in the first place. The word ‘prevention’ does not appear in any of their frameworks, let alone as something to track or evaluate. Nor does any system ask whether the policy environment is discouraging uptake among people who have not yet begun.
This is not a criticism of the researchers who built and operate these systems. Monitoring markets and harms is necessary work. However, the architecture of Drug Trends reflects a set of assumptions about what Australian drug prevention policy is fundamentally for, and preventing uptake is not among them. Over thirty years, that architecture has shaped what evidence researchers generate, what questions they ask, and what policy responses policymakers receive.
The Drift Toward Harm Reduction
Australia’s shift toward harm reduction as the dominant policy framework did not happen at once, and it did not begin recently. When the Hawke government launched the National Campaign Against Drug Abuse in 1985, harm minimisation was introduced as the organising principle from the start. Every iteration of the National Drug Strategy since then, through 1993, 1998, 2004, 2010, and 2017, has carried the same overarching commitment to harm minimisation across three pillars: supply reduction, demand reduction, and harm reduction. Prevention of uptake was folded into demand reduction, never given its own pillar, and never given proportionate funding. A 2024 UNSW report found that of the $5.45 billion Australian governments spent on illicit drug countermeasures in 2021-22, just 7% went to prevention. Law enforcement consumed 64%. Treatment took 27%. Prevention, the only pillar directly aimed at stopping people from starting, received $363 million in a $5.45 billion budget.
By the time Drug Trends reached its thirtieth year, harm reduction had become the dominant logic of most public health responses to illicit drug use in Australia. Drug checking services now operate in the ACT and Victoria. Needle and syringe programmes proliferate nationally. Supervised consumption facilities have ended their so-called trials and opened for business in two states with disastrous community outcomes. Over those decades, the language shifted from discouraging use to managing damage more ‘safely’.
The cocaine bulletin reflects this orientation precisely. Its policy recommendations identify three priorities: continued monitoring of cocaine markets and harms; expansion of drug checking and public risk communication systems; and improved access to treatment and early intervention services.
Notably, the word “prevention” does not appear in the policy implications section. The bulletin makes no recommendation directed at reducing the number of Australians who begin using cocaine. It sets no target for reducing uptake. It offers no acknowledgement that the fourfold increase in cocaine use over two decades represents a failure that warrants a different kind of response.
This absence is not accidental. It is where a monitoring framework arrives after thirty years of progressively redefining success. Success no longer means fewer people using drugs. The framework was supposed to mean fewer people dying or ending up in hospital per unit of drug use, but with increasing use these relative numbers also increase, though the ‘spin’ may be that we are seeing ‘less’ such incidences. These are different goals, and pursuing one does not automatically serve the other.
Harm Reduction’s Real Limits
The cocaine bulletin documents that drug checking services in the ACT and Victoria found some samples sold as cocaine contained opioids, a contamination risk that kills people. Multiple drug alerts between 2024 and 2026 flagged opioids in cocaine samples across NSW, ACT, and Victoria. In that specific context, drug checking has a clear purpose. Even so, consumption of ‘uncontaminated’ substances does not slow.
Harm reduction as a primary policy framework, rather than one tool among many, carries consequences the bulletin’s own data make visible. Across thirty years of Drug Trends monitoring, cocaine use has grown every decade. The market has become more established, not less. Perceived availability among people who regularly use ecstasy and other stimulants reached over 40% in 2025, with many reporting cocaine was “very easy to obtain.” The domestic price, at $300 to $350 per gram, remains among the highest in the world, not because supply is constrained, but because demand is strong enough to sustain it.
Harm reduction does not reduce demand. In fact, it can paradoxically increase it, not least by normalising engagement with addictive substances. It manages the consequences of demand that already exists, but when demand grows, as it has in Australia across thirty years, the harm reduction burden grows with it. Hospitalisations multiply. Treatment episodes balloon, having quadrupled for cocaine over the past decade alone. Ambulance attendances climb with them.
That is not a system succeeding. It is a system absorbing the consequences of a problem its designers never intended it to prevent.
Where Did Prevention Go?
Prevention exists on paper, but little more than that. Reducing the number of people who initiate drug use has all but disappeared from Australian drug policy in practice. Governments have progressively marginalised and underfunded it, and much of public health discourse treats it with scepticism.
Some of that scepticism has legitimate roots. School-based drug education programmes of the 1980s and 1990s produced mixed results, mostly because of a lack of volume, consistency, and follow-through. Mass media campaigns have a complicated evidence base, depending heavily on who scripts the messaging. Consequently, those experiences generated real caution about prevention as a category.
Caution, however, became abandonment. The monitoring infrastructure Drug Trends built over thirty years reinforced that abandonment, because it generated no evidence about prevention outcomes. You cannot make the case for investment in something you have no data on. The IDRS interviews people who inject drugs. The EDRS interviews people who regularly use ecstasy and stimulants. Neither system asks how those people came to begin using, what might have changed that trajectory, or what keeps non-users from starting.
The cocaine bulletin contains a figure that should be at the centre of any serious prevention conversation. Only 3% of people who used cocaine in 2022–23 did so weekly or more frequently. A full 97% used occasionally. The shift to more harmful, more entrenched patterns of use is not yet widespread at population level. There is a large cohort of occasional users who have not crossed into frequent use, and a broader population of non-users who have not started at all.
The bulletin itself acknowledges that “increased availability and, as a result, potential reductions in price may contribute to broader uptake and more frequent use over time.” It then recommends drug checking and treatment access. It spots the window and walks straight past it.
What the Numbers Say About Policy
The cocaine data in this bulletin covers a period during which Australia maintained one of the world’s most sophisticated drug monitoring systems, spent heavily on law enforcement, including record seizures of 5.6 tonnes in 2023–24 and a single operation that netted 2 tonnes in November 2024, and progressively expanded harm reduction services. Throughout that same period, cocaine use grew fourfold.
The bulletin is careful about causality, noting that researchers conducted no statistical testing to support statements about change over time. Fair enough. Still, what can be said is that the current framework has not produced a reduction in cocaine use, or in cocaine-related harm at population level. Cocaine already accounts for 11% of the burden of disease attributable to illicit drug use in Australia, within a broader context where illicit drug use contributes 2.9% of total disease burden. As use grows, that share will grow further.
A monitoring system that tracks harms but not prevention outcomes will produce evidence that supports harm reduction responses. That is not a conspiracy. It is simply how evidence framing works. The questions you ask determine the answers you get, and the answers you get determine the policies that follow. For Australian drug prevention policy to change direction, researchers and policymakers must first change the questions they ask.
What Needs to Change
Any serious prevention complement to the existing Drug Trends framework would need to do things the current systems do not. It would need to understand the social and cultural factors driving cocaine uptake among the specific populations the bulletin identifies: young, employed, city-dwelling Australians with tertiary education, and gay, lesbian, and bisexual Australians, who report use at 15.1%, more than three times the general population rate. Furthermore, it would need to develop and evaluate targeted prevention approaches for these groups, rather than treating prevention as a spent category.
Policymakers would need to set and measure explicit targets for reducing uptake, not just death rates per user. Researchers would need to build prevention outcome data into the monitoring system, so that after another thirty years there is actually evidence on which to base prevention investment.
None of this requires dismantling what Drug Trends has built. A framework that measures harms without measuring whether fewer people are choosing to use drugs is, though, an incomplete one. The cocaine bulletin, read carefully, makes that incompleteness impossible to ignore.
Conclusion
NDARC’s thirty-year anniversary marks a genuine achievement in Australian public health research. The Drug Trends program has built a sustained, rigorous evidence base that the sector depends on.
The anniversary also marks, however, thirty years in which cocaine use grew from a marginal issue to the second most commonly used illicit drug in Australia. It marks thirty years in which the monitoring framework watching that growth never asked whether anyone could have stopped it. Above all, it marks thirty years in which harm reduction expanded and prevention contracted, without anyone explicitly deciding that this was the right direction for Australian drug prevention policy to travel.
The bulletin series NDARC has launched is titled Trends in Drug Markets, Use and Health Impacts in Australia. It is an accurate title. Markets, use, and health impacts are what Drug Trends measures. After thirty years, it is reasonable to ask whether a system that does not measure prevention can ever produce the evidence needed to achieve it.
This article draws on the NDARC announcement ‘Marking 30 Years of Drug Trends: Introducing a New Bulletin Series’ (28 May 2026) and the associated bulletin ‘Trends in Drug Markets, Use and Health Impacts in Australia: Cocaine’ (May 2026). WRD News provides prevention-focused analysis of drug policy and public health in Australia.
Author DALGARNO INSTITUTE
(Source: WRD News)
- Details
- Hits: 101
Preventing Drug and Alcohol Use Starts With the World Around Us
Most conversations about substance use focus on the individual. Their choices. Their circumstances. However, a growing area of research is asking a different question entirely. What if the spaces and environments around us are quietly making drug and alcohol use more likely in the first place? New findings from the University of Calgary suggest that preventing drug and alcohol use requires us to look beyond personal decisions and examine the spaces people move through every day. The numbers, moreover, are hard to ignore.
One in Four Students: A Drug and Alcohol Prevention Crisis on Campus
More than one in four university students are affected by substance use or addiction-related challenges. That figure comes from ongoing research across 27 post-secondary institutions in Alberta. It points to something far larger than a handful of individuals making poor choices.
“This is a health issue that affects over one in four students. It is not a niche issue,” says Dr Victoria Burns, founder and director of Recovering on Campus (ROC).
When a quarter of any population faces the same problem, the environment they share deserves serious scrutiny. Substance use does not emerge in isolation. It grows in conditions. Therefore, understanding those conditions is the essential first step toward changing them.
How Everyday Environments Work Against Drug and Alcohol Prevention
Dr Burns identifies a set of environmental pressures that most people will recognise. Campus events where alcohol takes centre stage. Workplace cultures built around after-work drinking. Social norms that treat substance use as a rite of passage. As a result, abstinence can feel awkward or even socially costly.
These are not dramatic influences. They are quiet, ambient ones. They accumulate over time and shape behaviour in ways that rarely feel like pressure in the moment.
Her research, published in two peer-reviewed articles, examines how environments and social systems either protect people or expose them to greater risk. The core insight is important. Drug and alcohol prevention cannot rely on individual resolve alone when the surrounding environment works against it. In other words, the spaces and cultures people inhabit need to change as well.
The Architecture of Drug and Alcohol Prevention
Nooshin Esmaeili is an architect, PhD candidate and sessional instructor at the University of Calgary. She studies how physical spaces affect human wellbeing and behaviour. Her research draws on environmental psychology and neuroaesthetics. She wants to understand why some spaces make people feel safe and grounded, while others generate stress and disconnection.
“Human beings don’t just occupy space, we absorb it,” Esmaeili says. “Place can stabilise or destabilise someone’s sense of self.”
Her findings carry clear implications for drug and alcohol prevention. Spaces with natural light, access to green areas and welcoming layouts tend to reduce stress and build community. These are precisely the conditions linked to lower rates of substance use. Chronic stress and social isolation, on the other hand, are among the most well-established risk factors for developing a problematic relationship with alcohol and drugs.
Furthermore, the design of a building is never truly neutral. It either supports or quietly undermines the conditions that protect people from substance use.
Peer Visibility as a Tool for Preventing Drug and Alcohol Use
One of the clearest lessons from UCalgary’s research is that visible, substance-free community acts as a powerful preventive force. When people see others openly choosing not to drink or use substances, it challenges the assumption that everyone is doing it.
“The more people that are out and visible, the more likely others are to seek help or feel less isolated,” says Burns. Additionally, addiction thrives on isolation, and isolation is partly a product of environments that leave people with nowhere else to go.
Consequently, UCalgary’s Recovering on Campus programme offers substance-free events, peer networks and genuine social alternatives. These are not token gestures. They are structural changes that shift what feels normal. What feels normal, in turn, is one of the most powerful forces shaping human behaviour.
The programme now runs across 27 post-secondary institutions. That scale reflects both the urgency and the practical reach of this prevention-through-environment approach.
What Needs to Change for Real Drug and Alcohol Prevention
The research from Calgary points to clear priorities for anyone serious about drug and alcohol prevention in young people and wider communities.
Social spaces need substance-free options that are genuinely appealing. Institutions need to examine the ways their own cultures quietly normalise drinking. Built environments need natural light, warmth and human-centred design. These qualities reduce the stress and disconnection that drive substance use.
“I think what we’re doing at the University of Calgary is a smaller scale for a recovery-friendly city,” says Esmaeili. The same thinking applies equally to a prevention-friendly workplace or a prevention-friendly school.
Preventing drug and alcohol use has always required collective effort. Yet what this research makes plain is that community is not just a group of people. It is also the spaces those people share. The question worth asking now is whether those spaces are built to protect people or to leave them exposed.
(Source: WRD News)
- Details
- Hits: 135
Addiction has long been treated as a matter of willpower, a personal failing, or a moral weakness. But a growing body of neuroscience tells a very different story. A landmark study published in Translational Psychiatry in 2025 found that people dependent on wildly different substances share a remarkably consistent set of addiction brain patterns. This applies across alcohol, cocaine, heroin, and nicotine alike. The findings are not just academically interesting. They go to the heart of why some people struggle so profoundly to stop, and why understanding the brain is central to understanding addiction itself.
The Science Behind the Addiction Brain Patterns Discovery
Researchers at the First Hospital of Shanxi Medical University in China conducted a comprehensive meta-analysis. They pooled data from 53 resting-state functional MRI (rs-fMRI) studies. In total, the team examined 1,700 people with substance use disorder and 1,792 healthy individuals used as a comparison group.
The team focused on five key brain regions that form the core of the brain’s reward circuit: the anterior cingulate cortex, the prefrontal cortex, the striatum, the thalamus, and the amygdala. What they found was striking. Despite different substances and different stages of addiction, the same disrupted addiction brain patterns kept appearing, again and again. Nine substances were covered in total, including alcohol, nicotine, cocaine, cannabis, heroin, ketamine, amphetamine, and methamphetamine.
A Reward Circuit Gone Wrong
People with substance use disorder show significant dysfunction in the cortical-striatal-thalamic-cortical (CSTC) circuit. This is a critical neural loop. It connects the brain’s frontal regions, which govern logic and decision-making, with the striatum, the area central to motivation and reward, and with the thalamus, which relays sensory and motor signals throughout the brain.
Within this circuit, some connections become overactive. Others become underactive. The prefrontal cortex develops stronger-than-usual connections with areas involved in executive attention. But it also shows notably weaker connections with the inferior frontal gyrus, a region crucial for suppressing impulses. Put simply, the part of the brain that says “stop” loses its grip.
The striatum overconnects with the superior frontal gyrus. This suggests an exaggerated response to drug-related cues. At the same time, it underconnects with the median cingulate gyrus, a region involved in emotional regulation. The thalamus shows reduced connections across several frontal and cingulate regions. This aligns with the difficulties in concentration and impulse control that so many people with addiction report.
These substance use disorder brain changes cut across all substances studied. It did not matter whether participants relied on alcohol, heroin, or nicotine. The pattern held.
Impulsivity Is Not Just a Character Trait
One of the most compelling findings concerns impulsivity. The study found a direct statistical link between a weakened brain connection and higher scores on a validated impulsivity scale, the Barratt Impulsiveness Scale (BIS-11). The weaker the connection between the striatum and the median cingulate gyrus, the more impulsive the individual tended to be. The correlation was strong (r = 0.96, p = 0.0006), and it held even after statistical correction.
This matters enormously. People often cite impulsivity as a reason someone “chooses” to keep using substances. But this research tells a different story. For many, impulsivity reflects a measurable, observable disruption in specific brain circuits. The addiction brain patterns identified here point to a neurobiological reality, not a character flaw.
Substance Use Disorder Brain Changes Extend to Memory and Emotion
Beyond the CSTC loop, researchers identified a second disrupted circuit. This one connects the striatum to regions that handle memory and emotion, including the hippocampus and amygdala. The researchers called it the cortical-striatal-hippocampal-amygdala-cortical (CSHAC) circuit. It integrates emotional memory and sends signals back to the frontal cortex.
Disruption here helps explain something many people observe but struggle to articulate. Certain places, people, or feelings can trigger intense craving. Memory and emotion do not sit separately from addiction. The brain weaves them directly into it.
What This Means for Prevention
These substance use disorder brain changes are real, measurable, and consistent. That fact carries several important implications.
Consider what it means for early action. The longer substance use continues, the more entrenched these disruptions in the reward circuit tend to become. Intervening early, before patterns of use escalate into dependency, offers the best chance of preventing these brain changes from solidifying. Research consistently shows that prevention efforts targeting young people, before the brain’s reward and impulse control systems fully develop, deliver the greatest long-term benefit. Adolescence and early adulthood represent a window of both heightened vulnerability and genuine opportunity.
It also reframes the conversation around struggling. If someone finds it hard to stop using substances, that difficulty may partly reflect disrupted neural architecture, not simply a lack of effort. The environment matters too. Social norms, peer influence, and the easy availability of substances all shape whether someone ever reaches the point where these brain changes take hold.
Limitations Worth Noting
No single study tells the whole story, and this one is no exception. The research relied on existing data, which meant notable differences in age and gender between the addiction and healthy control groups. Women made up only 19% of the SUD group, compared to 30% of the control group. People with serious co-occurring psychiatric conditions did not appear in the original studies, which limits how broadly these findings apply in clinical settings where dual diagnosis is common.
Longitudinal studies will help determine whether these brain patterns cause addiction, result from it, or both. For now, that question stays open.
A Clearer Picture of Addiction
This research offers a clearer, more grounded picture of addiction. It is not simply a lifestyle choice. These addiction brain patterns involve measurable changes in circuits that govern reward, decision-making, impulse control, and emotional regulation. Those changes appear across substances and across people, pointing to shared mechanisms rather than isolated personal failures.
Understanding addiction as a brain-based condition does not remove personal responsibility. But it does invite a more honest, better-informed approach to the conversation. And that matters, because the way we talk about addiction shapes the decisions people make, the help they seek, and the support communities choose to offer.
(Source: WRD News)
- Details
- Hits: 78
Supervised consumption sites were sold as a disciplined, tightly monitored answer to the overdose crisis. In Alberta, the evidence suggests something far messier: weak oversight, fuzzy statistics, rising disorder, and a public policy that keeps asking citizens to trust what it does not fully measure. The claim that these facilities are “safe” has become a rhetorical shield, not a serious description of reality.
The sites may prevent some immediate drug poisonings, but the Alberta review and related reporting (among other evidence and an ever-increasing deluge of site situated negative community anecdata) raise serious concerns about transparency, neighbourhood disorder, weak treatment linkage, and a widening gap between what the sites promise and what they actually deliver.
One prominent piece of research, the Alberta review, is hard to read as anything other than a warning. It describes inconsistent record-keeping, undefined terms like “overdose” and “reversal,” and reporting practices that blurred the line between a genuine naloxone rescue and something far less dramatic, such as oxygen administration. That is not transparency. It is branding.
Then there is the small but crucial footnote in the B.C. coroner’s report: “no deaths” at supervised consumption sites does not include cases where the injury happened at the site and death occurred later in hospital. That distinction matters. It means the headline statistic can flatter the model while quietly excluding the worst outcomes. In public policy, what gets left out of the count often matters as much as what gets included.
The neighbourhood impact is where the smiley-face narrative really falls apart. Alberta’s review records persistent complaints about discarded needles, loitering, open drug use, urination, defecation, harassment, theft, and visible drug dealing around several sites. It also found that calls for service and social disorder often rose more sharply near the sites than in surrounding areas. To residents and businesses, that is not abstract “discomfort.” It is a daily loss of safety, dignity, and faith that public space still belongs to the public.
If that still sounds like a sterile list of grievances, consider the kind of firsthand account that rarely makes it into the policy briefs. Toronto-based investigative journalist Derek Finkle has described living across the street from the South Riverdale Community Health Centre in Leslieville, where an injection site began operating in late 2017. He has recounted watching the neighbourhood shift from the pre-site baseline, through the early months, into what he says became a prolonged period of escalating frustration among residents and local business owners—followed, in his telling, by a sense of being routinely dismissed when concerns were raised.
He has also described neighbours feeling compelled to document what they were seeing themselves—using a shared incident log and photographs—because official channels did not appear to capture the everyday reality on the perimeter. In a short window of roughly three and a half weeks, he says the community recorded close to 150 separate incidents. The pattern he describes mirrors the Alberta complaints almost point for point: open drug use, assaults, lewd behaviour, discarded needles, visible dealing, and the predictable intimidation that follows when drug markets harden around a fixed location.
And the policy drift is obvious. These sites were justified as a response to the opioid crisis, yet the Alberta review shows substantial methamphetamine use at some locations, including inhalation booths that widened the model beyond its original purpose. Naloxone can reverse opioids. It does nothing for stimulant psychosis, aggression, or the erratic behaviour that communities are left to absorb after users walk back onto the street. A program built for one crisis should not be judged successful simply because it keeps expanding into other crises.
The deeper failure is that supervised consumption has too often become an endpoint rather than an entry point. The Alberta review found weak evidence that sites consistently moved people into detox, treatment, or recovery, and it criticized the whole system for leaning toward “permanent maintenance” rather than genuine exit routes from addiction. That is the uncomfortable truth proponents rarely emphasize: if a site does not meaningfully connect people to recovery, then it risks becoming a holding pattern for despair.
None of this means every supervised consumption site is identical, or that every study points the same way. Some research has found reductions in poisoning mortality and ambulance calls in certain settings. But a serious society does not settle for slogans on either side. It asks harder questions: Who is being helped? Who is bearing the cost? What is actually being counted? And what happens to the neighbourhood when a policy built on compassion stops being accountable?
Finkle’s account becomes still harder to wave away because, in his telling, the frustration did not remain merely rhetorical. He has linked the breakdown in order around the site to a neighbourhood tragedy: a woman killed by stray gunfire during an alleged dispute among drug dealers nearby—an event that, he notes, only forced attention onto issues residents felt had been minimized for months. He has also pointed to the ensuing controversy in which a harm reduction worker connected to the site was arrested and charged as an accessory after the fact and with obstructing justice—an extreme and rare allegation, but a useful illustration of the broader point here: when systems are insulated from scrutiny, the public is asked to accept reassurances even when events demand documentation, clear lines of responsibility, and verifiable oversight.
The real scandal is not that the debate exists. It is that governments have allowed it to be conducted with so little rigor. If these sites are to continue, they must be subjected to clear audits, independent oversight, standardized reporting and honest reporting on treatment outcomes, neighbourhood impacts, and adverse events.
Anything less is not harm reduction – it is policy by fog.
(Source: WRD News Team)
- Details
- Hits: 75
A New Lens: Research Domain Criteria
Researchers from UCLA took a different approach. Rather than relying solely on clinical diagnoses in the NVDRS, they used the Research Domain Criteria (RDoC) framework. Developed by the National Institute of Mental Health, RDoC looks at psychological functioning across six broad domains:
- Negative valence (distress, hopelessness, anxiety)
- Positive valence (motivation, reward, substance use patterns)
- Social processes (relationships, belonging)
- Arousal processes (agitation, sleep disturbance)
- Cognitive systems (attention, memory, decision-making)
- Sensorimotor systems
Rather than asking “does this person have a diagnosis?”, RDoC asks: “in what ways was this person’s psychological functioning disrupted?”
To extract this from NVDRS death narratives, the researchers applied two machine learning methods. One was a token-based scoring system. The other was a large language model (LLM), the technology behind modern AI tools. Both had previously been validated against psychiatric inpatient records.
What the Research Found About Psychological Dysfunction and Suicide
The study analysed death records for 72,585 people who died by suicide in 2020 and 2021. These came from all 50 US states. The results were striking.
Using the LLM scoring method, more than 90% of suicide decedents showed at least one clinically significant RDoC domain score. This means evidence of dysfunction serious enough to require treatment. It was true in both law enforcement and coroner narratives.
Compare that to what the NVDRS had recorded: only 44.4% with any mental health disorder and only 27.9% described as currently depressed.
The domains most frequently elevated were negative valence and arousal processes. These capture hopelessness, distress, anxiety, and agitation. These are emotional states that do not always lead to a formal diagnosis. Yet they are deeply relevant to suicide risk and mental health outcomes.
Female decedents and younger decedents showed consistently higher levels of dysfunction across most domains. Among younger adults aged 25 to 44, clinically relevant arousal process dysfunction appeared in around 65% of law enforcement narratives. Among those aged 65 and over, this figure dropped to around 41%. Even so, dysfunction remained widespread in that older group.
Substance Use and Psychological Dysfunction and Suicide
One finding deserves particular attention. The RDoC framework links positive valence dysfunction directly to substance use patterns and their effects on reward processing. This dysfunction was significantly more common among decedents than standard NVDRS alcohol and drug measures suggested.
The standard NVDRS measure recorded problematic alcohol or drug use in 27.5% of decedents. But RDoC positive valence dysfunction, which captures disrupted reward and motivation, showed clinically relevant levels in around 31 to 41% of decedents.
Substance use does not just create health risks in isolation. It fundamentally alters how people experience reward, motivation, and relief from distress. It reshapes emotional life in ways that heighten vulnerability. That connection is essential to understand.
Why This Changes the Conversation
The traditional approach to suicide prevention has often focused on identifying people with a clinical diagnosis. If someone has a recorded diagnosis of depression or an anxiety disorder, systems are more likely to flag them for intervention. But a large proportion of people who die by suicide do not have that flag.
The RDoC approach offers a different way in. By looking at how someone is actually functioning, it is possible to detect risk that a diagnosis alone would miss.
This is especially relevant for men. Men made up 80.6% of decedents in this study. They were consistently less likely than women to have formal mental health diagnoses recorded. The suffering was still there. It was simply less likely to have been named.
(Complete Research: JAMA Network)
- Naloxone May Not Be Enough: Why One Dose Could Leave Overdose Victims in Danger
- New Clinical Standards Set to Transform Substance Use Disorder Treatment for Young People
- What You Drink and Smoke at 20 Could Rob You of Your Memory at 65
- The Hidden Crisis: Violence Against Women Who Use Drugs and Why So Few Get Help