Document content starts here. Lists should appear with bullet points.

Co-occurring Mental Health and Substance Use Disorders: Developing Integrated Care Pathways for Polish Addiction Services

Executive Summary

This comprehensive policy paper examines the critical challenge of addressing co-occurring mental health and substance use disorders (SUDs) in Poland's healthcare system. Currently characterized by fragmentation, with mental health and addiction services operating as separate entities, Poland's system fails to provide integrated care for the estimated 50-75% of individuals with SUDs who also experience mental health disorders. This fragmentation stems from separate funding streams, administrative structures, and professional training pathways, creating treatment gaps that compromise recovery outcomes and increase system costs.

The paper analyzes international models of integrated care, including approaches from the United States, United Kingdom, Nordic countries, and the Czech Republic, identifying evidence-based practices that could be adapted to the Polish context. Successful models incorporate multidisciplinary teams, "no wrong door" policies, standardized screening protocols, case management services, and flexible funding mechanisms. Effective integrated treatment approaches include Integrated Dual Disorder Treatment (IDDT), trauma-informed care models like Seeking Safety, and Medication-Assisted Treatment (MAT) integrated with psychiatric care.

Key barriers to integration in Poland include structural and financial obstacles within the National Health Fund (NFZ) contracting system, professional silos reinforced by distinct training pathways, stigma against both mental illness and addiction, and regulatory frameworks that maintain separate licensing and oversight processes. Despite these challenges, evidence strongly supports integrated treatment approaches over parallel or sequential care.

The paper recommends comprehensive policy reforms, including:

1. Regulatory and financial changes: Revising the NFZ contracting system to create financial incentives for integration, developing national clinical guidelines, establishing cross-ministerial coordination, and modifying facility licensing standards.
2. Workforce development initiatives: Implementing dual competency training programs, developing university-level curriculum modifications, establishing regional centers of excellence, and creating incentives for dual competencies.
3. Implementation and quality improvement strategies: Launching regional pilot programs, developing standardized assessment protocols, establishing a national quality improvement collaborative, and creating a phased implementation timeline.
4. Stakeholder engagement: Involving professional associations, training institutions, patient advocacy groups, and regional stakeholders in co-creating and implementing integrated care pathways.

Successful implementation requires addressing resource constraints, potential provider resistance, and the need for culturally sensitive approaches. A phased approach focusing on pilot projects and incremental changes offers a pragmatic path forward. By systematically addressing these barriers through thoughtful policy reform, Poland can significantly improve treatment access, quality, and outcomes for individuals with co-occurring disorders.

Co-occurring Mental Health and Substance Use Disorders: Developing Integrated Care Pathways for Polish Addiction Services

Current State of Dual Diagnosis Treatment in Poland

Poland's healthcare system faces a critical challenge in addressing co-occurring mental health and substance use disorders (SUDs). While international data suggests that 50-75% of individuals with SUDs also experience mental health disorders (SAMHSA, 2020), Poland lacks comprehensive epidemiological data to guide policy development (Kulisiewicz, 2023). This absence of robust national data represents not merely an academic gap, but a fundamental barrier to evidence-based policy reform.

The current treatment landscape in Poland is characterized by fragmentation, with mental health and addiction services operating largely as separate entities. Reports from the National Bureau for Drug Prevention (KBPN) indicate that only a minority of addiction treatment facilities offer truly integrated care for dual diagnosis patients, though current comprehensive statistics require updating (KBPN, unpublished data, circa 2020). This siloed approach forces patients to navigate between disconnected psychiatric and addiction services, creating treatment gaps that compromise recovery outcomes and increase system costs (Popovici & Glica, 2021).

Assessment using standardized measures such as the Dual Diagnosis Capability in Addiction Treatment (DDCAT) index would likely reveal significant opportunities for improvement in Polish services compared to international benchmarks. While current DDCAT scores specific to Poland are not readily available in recent literature, earlier comparative studies suggested Polish services have not yet achieved parity with Western European and North American counterparts in dual diagnosis capability (McGovern et al., 2014). This capability gap requires urgent attention through systematic assessment and targeted improvement initiatives.

The legal and financial architecture underlying this fragmentation stems from Poland's legislative framework, primarily the Act on Counteracting Drug Addiction and the Mental Health Protection Act, which have historically established separate funding streams and administrative structures. The National Health Fund (NFZ) reimbursement system often incentivizes separate rather than integrated treatment episodes, creating financial barriers to coordination that must be addressed through policy reform (NFZ, 2023).

Historical Context and Current Challenges

Poland's addiction treatment system evolved significantly from an abstinence-focused model heavily influenced by the Minnesota Model in the 1980s and 1990s (Woronowicz, 2019). While this approach has demonstrated efficacy for certain populations, it presents substantial limitations for patients with co-occurring serious mental illness. Concurrently, the psychiatric care system has often viewed substance use as a complicating factor rather than a co-primary condition requiring specialized, integrated treatment (Gruszczyński, 2020).

Several urban centers including Warsaw, Kraków, and Poznań have implemented promising pilot programs exploring integrated treatment models, but these remain localized initiatives rather than standard national practice (Jabłoński & Zając, 2022). The National Health Programme for 2021-2025 acknowledges the importance of addressing both mental health and addiction, but lacks specific, funded mandates for nationwide integrated dual diagnosis care pathways (Ministry of Health, 2021). This policy gap represents a missed opportunity to transform service delivery at scale.

The COVID-19 pandemic has further exacerbated these challenges, increasing mental health issues and substance use while simultaneously straining healthcare resources and disrupting existing treatment services (Nowak & Borowiec, 2023). However, this crisis has also accelerated the adoption of telehealth and digital interventions, offering new modalities for delivering integrated care, though equitable access and appropriate regulatory frameworks require further development (Telemedicine Poland Foundation, 2023).

International Models and Evidence-Based Approaches

International experience offers valuable insights for Polish policy reform, though adaptation to the Polish context requires careful consideration of cultural factors, existing healthcare infrastructure, and resource availability (Górski & Lewandowska, 2022).

The United States has developed comprehensive integrated care models, with SAMHSA providing resources like the DDCAT Toolkit for assessing and improving program capability (Case Western Reserve University, 2011). Specialized dual diagnosis centers employing multidisciplinary teams have demonstrated improved retention and recovery outcomes compared to non-integrated approaches (McGovern & Drake, 2018). While the U.S. healthcare system differs significantly from Poland's, the clinical frameworks and assessment tools can be adapted to the Polish context.

The United Kingdom's integrated care pathways, guided by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE, 2016), emphasize collaborative work between mental health and substance use services through joint assessment, shared care planning, and staff cross-training. Evaluations have demonstrated reductions in unplanned hospital admissions and improved treatment adherence, though implementation challenges persist, including ensuring true integration rather than mere co-location of services (King's Fund, 2022).

Canada's ambulatory integrated care pathways, such as those developed at the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health for co-occurring major depressive disorder and alcohol dependence, combine pharmacological and psychosocial interventions with promising results (Malla et al., 2015). These models offer valuable templates for developing outpatient-focused approaches suitable for the Polish healthcare system.

Nordic countries like Finland and Sweden have implemented particularly relevant models within universal healthcare systems more similar to Poland's. The Finnish A-Clinic Foundation operates centers with multidisciplinary teams and a "no wrong door" policy (Holma & Voutilainen, 2020), while Sweden emphasizes continuity of care through case management. Evaluations have reported reduced hospitalization and improved quality of life (Klingemann & Hunt, 2018), suggesting these approaches merit particular attention in Polish policy development.

Evidence-Based Interventions for Integrated Care

Medications for Addiction Treatment (MAT) represent a cornerstone of effective integrated care, particularly for opioid use disorder, and can be effectively combined with psychiatric medication and psychosocial support (CDC, 2024). Resources like the New York State OASAS MAT Grid offer clinical guidance that could be adapted to create Poland-specific guidelines aligned with available medications and clinical contexts (OASAS, 2023). Harm reduction principles, including accessible MAT and needle exchange programs, should be integrated into comprehensive care for dual diagnosis individuals to address potential risks and improve engagement (Harm Reduction International, 2023).

Integrated cognitive-behavioral therapy (ICBT) specifically tailored for co-occurring disorders has demonstrated effectiveness in addressing mental health and substance use simultaneously (NIDA, 2020). Meta-analyses show ICBT leads to greater reductions in substance use and improvements in mental health symptoms compared to non-integrated psychotherapies (Archer et al., 2012). Polish addiction policy should prioritize the adaptation and dissemination of these evidence-based protocols, with attention to cultural nuances and implementation requirements.

Structured clinical pathways can significantly improve treatment outcomes and system efficiency. Studies on implementing pathways for alcohol use disorder in primary care settings have shown potential for increased treatment initiation and completion (Willenbring et al., 2004). Successful implementation depends on multiple factors, including staff training, leadership commitment, and local adaptation (Aarons et al., 2011). Polish addiction policy should mandate the development of standardized, culturally validated assessment protocols with clear decision algorithms, evidence-based interventions, regular outcome monitoring, attention to care continuity, and incorporation of patient preferences (Elwyn et al., 2017).

Implementation Barriers and Policy Solutions

The historical separation of mental health and addiction services in Poland at administrative, funding, and clinical levels constitutes the primary obstacle to integrated care (Popovici & Glica, 2021). Policy reform must address the NFZ reimbursement system to create financial incentives for integration, potentially through bundled payment approaches or value-based reimbursement models that reward coordination and outcomes rather than service volume (Van der Veen et al., 2019).

Workforce development represents another critical policy priority. The Polish addiction and mental health workforce requires enhanced capacity for integrated care, mirroring training gaps identified in other European countries (McGovern et al., 2014). Addiction policy should mandate and fund accredited cross-training programs, integration of dual diagnosis competencies into core curricula for health and social care professionals, ongoing clinical supervision, and strategies to address workforce shortages in underserved areas (NIL, 2022).

Stigma associated with both mental illness and substance use disorders remains a significant barrier in Poland, affecting help-seeking, treatment engagement, and social inclusion (CBOS, 2022). Integrated care can help normalize co-occurrence, but must be complemented by targeted anti-stigma campaigns. Geographic disparities in service access, particularly between urban and rural settings, require policy attention through strategic telehealth implementation and incentives for service development in underserved areas (GUS, 2023).

Cultural factors, including family roles, community attitudes, and religious influences, significantly impact treatment acceptability and engagement (Adamczyk & Jaskułowski, 2021). Implementation strategies must be culturally sensitive and co-designed with local communities and patient representatives to ensure relevance and uptake.

Successful policy implementation will require engagement from diverse stakeholders, including clinicians from both addiction and mental health fields, administrators, policymakers, and patient advocacy groups. Resistance may arise from established professional identities, resource concerns, or differing treatment philosophies (Lewin et al., 2009). Effective policy must include strategies for stakeholder engagement, clear communication of benefits, collaborative planning, and demonstration projects to build support.

Policy Recommendations for Polish Addiction Services

Polish addiction policy requires comprehensive reform to address the needs of individuals with co-occurring disorders. The NFZ reimbursement system should be revised to create clear financial incentives for integrated dual diagnosis care, potentially through bundled payments or pay-for-performance models that reward coordination and outcomes. Legislative updates to the Act on Counteracting Drug Addiction and the Mental Health Protection Act should explicitly mandate and fund integrated care pathways, clarifying roles and responsibilities across the service system.

Dedicated, multi-year funding is essential for pilot programs, implementation research, and scaling of successful integrated care models, with particular attention to diverse settings including underserved rural areas. National clinical guidelines for co-occurring disorders should be developed and disseminated with endorsement from relevant professional bodies and the Ministry of Health, drawing on international evidence while ensuring adaptation to the Polish context.

Service delivery reform should begin with systematic implementation of dual diagnosis capability assessment tools across services to benchmark capabilities and guide quality improvement. Integrated care pathways for common co-occurring disorders should be developed, piloted, and evaluated, adapting successful international elements while ensuring local relevance and incorporating patient input. A tiered system of care should be established, including specialized dual diagnosis units in larger centers alongside enhanced dual diagnosis capabilities in all existing addiction and mental health services.

"No wrong door" policies should be promoted through clear protocols for collaboration between primary care, mental health, and addiction services, ensuring comprehensive assessment and appropriate referral regardless of initial contact point. Telehealth and digital health solutions should be strategically integrated to improve access, continuity of care, and self-management support, particularly in underserved areas.

Workforce development policy should establish national, standardized, competency-based training programs in dual diagnosis for all relevant professionals, including cultural sensitivity and trauma-informed care. Dual diagnosis training should be incorporated into undergraduate and postgraduate curricula for medical, psychology, nursing, social work, and addiction therapy students. Professional certification or specialization in dual diagnosis should be explored to build a skilled workforce, complemented by learning collaboratives and peer supervision models to support ongoing professional development.

Addiction policy must actively involve individuals with lived experience of co-occurring disorders and their families in the design, implementation, and evaluation of services. Peer support services should be developed and integrated within care pathways, and targeted public awareness and anti-stigma campaigns should address co-occurring disorders, co-produced with individuals with lived experience.

Robust monitoring and evaluation systems are essential for policy effectiveness. A national minimum dataset for dual diagnosis patients should be developed to enable tracking of service utilization, pathways, and outcomes. Standardized, culturally validated outcome measures should assess mental health, substance use, quality of life, and functional recovery. Regular, independent evaluations of integrated care initiatives should employ mixed-methods approaches to assess effectiveness, cost-effectiveness, and implementation fidelity, with clear feedback loops for continuous improvement.

International Models of Integrated Care: Lessons for Addiction Policy

The Global Context of Integrated Care

The global burden of substance use disorders represents a significant public health challenge, with approximately 296 million people using drugs in 2021 and over 39 million suffering from drug use disorders (United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime [UNODC], 2023). The complexity of addiction treatment is frequently compounded by co-occurring mental health conditions, which can significantly worsen outcomes if not addressed through comprehensive, holistic approaches (National Institute on Drug Abuse [NIDA], 2020; World Health Organization [WHO], 2022).

Integrated care—the systematic coordination of mental and physical health services, including substance use treatment—has emerged as the most effective framework for addressing these complex, interrelated conditions (WHO, 2018; Peck et al., 2020). However, successful implementation depends on numerous factors, including sustainable funding mechanisms, adequate workforce capacity, and tailored approaches for diverse populations (Mechanic, 2012). By examining international models of integrated care, policymakers can identify evidence-based strategies to enhance addiction treatment systems and improve outcomes for individuals with co-occurring disorders.

The Quadrant Model: A Framework for Service Organization

The United States' quadrant model offers a valuable conceptual framework for organizing services based on the severity of co-occurring conditions. This approach categorizes patients into four groups: low severity mental illness/low severity substance use disorder (SUD); high severity mental illness/low severity SUD; low severity mental illness/high severity SUD; and high severity mental illness/high severity SUD (Minkoff, 2001; National Association of State Mental Health Program Directors & National Association of State Alcohol and Drug Abuse Directors, 1998).

This categorization enables more precise matching of care intensity to patient needs. Individuals with lower severity conditions might receive treatment in primary care settings with consultation support, while those with high severity in both domains require specialized, fully integrated services delivered by multidisciplinary teams (Drake et al., 2001). This nuanced approach recognizes that effective addiction treatment must be tailored rather than standardized.

Systematic reviews have demonstrated that integrated treatment programs informed by such models lead to improved outcomes, including reduced substance use, improved psychiatric symptoms, decreased hospitalization, increased housing stability, and higher consumer satisfaction compared to parallel or sequential treatment approaches (Drake et al., 2001; Kelly & Fanucci, 2003; Hunt et al., 2020).

Despite these promising results, implementation in the U.S. faces significant challenges, including fragmented funding streams, inadequate cross-training, professional silos, differing state-level regulations, and inconsistent care coordination mechanisms (Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration [SAMHSA], 2016; Mechanic, 2012). These challenges highlight the importance of addressing systemic barriers when developing addiction policy, particularly regarding funding structures and workforce development.

United Kingdom's "No Wrong Door" Policy: Ensuring Access to Care

The United Kingdom's "No Wrong Door" approach represents a cornerstone policy for addressing co-occurring conditions. This principle ensures that individuals receive appropriate assessment and referral, or direct care, regardless of their initial point of contact with health or social services (Department of Health and Social Care, 2017; Public Health England, 2017). This approach is particularly valuable for engaging individuals who may be hesitant to seek help, unsure where to turn, or who present in crisis to services not primarily focused on addiction or mental health.

The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) has strengthened this approach through comprehensive guidelines. NICE guideline NG58 emphasizes integrated care planning, joint working between mental health and substance misuse services, assertive outreach, and clear communication protocols (NICE, 2016a). Additional guidelines for specific substance use disorders, such as CG120 for alcohol use disorders, stress comprehensive assessment that includes mental health status and consideration of integrated treatment pathways (NICE, 2011, updated 2017).

While the "No Wrong Door" principle is widely endorsed, consistent implementation faces several challenges, including resource limitations following periods of austerity, varying levels of local service integration, difficulties in information sharing across different IT systems, and the need for ongoing workforce development (Audit Commission, 2002; Public Health England, 2017; Dale-Perera et al., 2019). Tensions between different treatment philosophies, such as harm reduction versus abstinence-only approaches, can also impact patient experiences if not carefully managed (Lloyd, 2010).

These implementation challenges underscore the importance of developing addiction policies that address not only clinical best practices but also the structural and systemic factors that enable their consistent application across diverse settings.

Nordic Integrated Treatment Approaches: Public Health Foundations

The Nordic countries, with their comprehensive welfare systems and publicly financed healthcare, offer robust models of integrated care for addiction and mental health. Their societal emphasis on public health and social equity provides a strong foundation for such approaches, though they too face implementation and resource allocation challenges (Nordic Council of Ministers, 2021).

Finland has pioneered integrated addiction psychiatric units that provide simultaneous treatment for both substance use disorders and severe mental illnesses under one multidisciplinary clinical team, often within the same facility (Miettinen et al., 2014). Evaluations of these Finnish units suggest improvements in treatment retention and clinical outcomes compared to traditional approaches, although more recent, large-scale comparative studies are needed to confirm long-term benefits (Kallio et al., 2015; Miettinen et al., 2014). These units typically employ a range of evidence-based practices, including pharmacological treatments, individual and group psychotherapy, and comprehensive case management (Savonen et al., 2020).

Sweden has focused on developing standardized regional care pathways (Vårdforlopp) for various conditions, including substance use disorders and co-occurring mental health issues. These pathways aim to ensure consistent quality of care, standardized assessment protocols, and evidence-based treatment interventions across both specialized and primary care settings (Swedish Association of Local Authorities and Regions [SALAR], c. 2022). The Swedish government has also significantly invested in improving access to evidence-based treatments, particularly medication-assisted treatment (MAT) for opioid use disorder, integrating it more closely with mental health and social support services (Socialstyrelsen, 2022).

These Nordic models demonstrate how addiction policy can be effectively integrated into broader public health frameworks, with an emphasis on equity, evidence-based interventions, and coordinated care pathways.

Czech Republic Implementation: Lessons from Similar Contexts

The Czech Republic's experience in reforming its mental health and addiction services since approximately 2013 provides particularly valuable insights for countries with similar post-communist healthcare systems. The Czech mental health care reform explicitly aims to develop community-based services and integrate care for individuals with complex needs, including dual diagnoses (Ministry of Health of the Czech Republic, 2013; Winkler et al., 2017).

Key elements of the Czech Republic's approach include standardized screening protocols across entry points, case management services to coordinate care, joint training programs for specialists, and flexible funding mechanisms. The reform emphasizes the use of standardized screening tools in various settings to enable early identification (Winkler et al., 2016), though universal adoption presents ongoing challenges. Case managers play a crucial role in assessing patient needs, developing individualized care plans, coordinating services across different providers, and ensuring continuity of care (Killaspy et al., 2016; Winkler et al., 2020).

The Czech reform includes provisions for joint training programs to build dual competency among professionals in mental health and addiction services (Winkler et al., 2016). However, developing a sufficiently large and skilled workforce remains a significant undertaking requiring sustained investment. A critical innovation is the move towards more flexible funding mechanisms that follow patient needs across different services and levels of care, rather than being tied to specific institutions or diagnoses (Forman & PUDIS, 2019).

While comprehensive outcome data focusing solely on dual diagnosis patients requires further substantiation, broader studies indicate positive trends. Winkler et al. (2020) reported a significant 11.7% relative reduction in psychiatric hospitalization rates among individuals with severe mental illness in regions with early implementation of reform elements, suggesting benefits from the shift towards community-based integrated care.

These experiences highlight the importance of comprehensive policy approaches that address screening, workforce development, care coordination, and funding mechanisms simultaneously to create effective integrated care systems.

Specialized Populations and Emerging Needs in Addiction Policy

A comprehensive approach to integrated care must consider the unique needs of specialized populations. Adolescents and young adults require developmentally appropriate services that integrate mental health, substance use, education, and family support (National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, 2019). Pregnant women with SUDs need coordinated care that includes obstetric care, MAT, mental health support, and pediatric follow-up (American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists [ACOG], 2017).

Older adults often present with complex co-morbid physical health conditions alongside SUDs and mental health issues, requiring geriatric-informed integrated care models (Kuerbis et al., 2014). Ethnic and cultural minorities may face additional barriers to accessing care and require culturally competent and responsive integrated services (SAMHSA, 2019). Effective models actively engage these populations in service design and delivery to ensure appropriateness and effectiveness (Crawford et al., 2016).

Addiction policy must therefore incorporate mechanisms for addressing the specific needs of diverse populations, ensuring that integrated care approaches are adaptable and responsive to different demographic groups and their unique challenges.

Medication-Assisted Treatment and Harm Reduction: Essential Components

The integration of Medication-Assisted Treatment (MAT) for substance use disorders, particularly opioid and alcohol use disorders, is a cornerstone of effective modern addiction treatment and a critical component of integrated care (SAMHSA, 2021). MAT, when combined with counseling and behavioral therapies, has strong evidence for improving outcomes. Integrated models should ensure seamless access to MAT initiation and maintenance, whether in primary care, mental health, or specialized addiction settings (NIDA, 2020).

Harm reduction approaches, which aim to minimize the negative consequences associated with substance use without necessarily requiring abstinence, are increasingly recognized as vital components of a comprehensive care continuum (International Harm Reduction Association, 2010; Ritter & Cameron, 2006). Integrating harm reduction services with mental health and other support services can engage highly marginalized populations, reduce infectious disease transmission, prevent overdose deaths, and serve as a gateway to other treatments (Strike et al., 2021).

Effective addiction policy must therefore incorporate both evidence-based pharmacological interventions and pragmatic harm reduction approaches, creating a comprehensive continuum of care that meets individuals where they are in their recovery journey.

Systemic Considerations: Workforce, Legal Frameworks, and Economics

Successfully implementing integrated care heavily relies on a well-trained and supported workforce. Challenges include shortages of dually trained professionals, high caseloads, burnout, and the need for ongoing training in evidence-based practices for co-occurring disorders (SAMHSA, 2018; Han et al., 2019). Solutions involve investing in joint training programs, developing new professional roles, and creating supportive organizational cultures that value interdisciplinary collaboration (McGovern et al., 2011).

Legal and regulatory frameworks significantly impact integration efforts. Policies related to information sharing, licensing, and reimbursement can either facilitate or impede coordination (SAMHSA, 2017). Advocacy for regulatory changes that support coordinated care and flexible funding is often necessary to create an enabling environment for integrated care.

While integrated care models may require upfront investment, evidence suggests they can be cost-effective in the long run by reducing costly emergency department visits, hospitalizations, and improving overall health and social outcomes (Schoenbaum et al., 2014; Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology, 2018). However, more robust, jurisdiction-specific cost-effectiveness analyses are needed to guide policy decisions (Kilmer et al., 2022).

Addiction policy must therefore address these systemic factors, creating sustainable funding mechanisms, supportive regulatory frameworks, and investing in workforce development to enable effective implementation of integrated care models.

Adapting to Change: COVID-19 and the Rise of Telehealth

The COVID-19 pandemic significantly impacted addiction and mental health services globally, exposing vulnerabilities but also accelerating innovations (UNODC, 2021; WHO, 2020). Lockdowns and social distancing measures often exacerbated mental health issues and substance use while simultaneously disrupting traditional service delivery (Galea et al., 2020).

In response, there was a rapid expansion of telehealth and digital health interventions for addiction and mental health care (SAMHSA, 2022; Krawczyk et al., 2022). Many countries implemented regulatory flexibilities to allow for remote prescribing of MAT and virtual therapy sessions. Ensuring continued access to these remote options, addressing the digital divide, and integrating telehealth effectively into long-term integrated care models are key post-pandemic considerations (Uscher-Pines et al., 2021).

The pandemic highlighted the need for resilient and adaptable service systems that can maintain continuity of care during crises. Addiction policy must therefore incorporate flexibility and innovation, leveraging technological advances while ensuring equitable access and maintaining quality of care.

Balanced Perspectives on Implementation Challenges

Implementing comprehensive integrated care is not without significant challenges. These include initial resistance from established systems accustomed to siloed working, the need for substantial and sustained investment in community services and workforce development, ensuring equitable access for all populations, and developing robust data collection and evaluation systems (WHO, 2018; Winkler et al., 2020).

Poorly implemented integration can lead to services being co-located but not truly collaborative, or to one aspect of care overshadowing another (Addis & Carpenter, 2018). Tensions between different treatment philosophies require careful navigation (Davidson & Roe, 2007). Meaningful patient and service user involvement in the design, delivery, and evaluation of integrated services is critical but not always consistently achieved (Storm & Edwards, 2013).

Political and economic factors, including shifting government priorities and funding landscapes, profoundly influence the adoption, sustainability, and fidelity of integrated care models (Mechanic & Bilder, 2004). Addiction policy must therefore incorporate mechanisms for addressing these implementation challenges, including stakeholder engagement, quality improvement processes, and sustainable funding structures.

Barriers to Integration in the Polish Context

Several systemic barriers currently impede the development of integrated care pathways in Poland, particularly for individuals with co-occurring substance use and mental health disorders. The historical context of Poland's healthcare system, transitioning from a centralized model to a decentralized, insurance-based system post-1989, has created unique challenges for service coordination (Włodarczyk, 2009). This analysis examines these barriers in depth, provides comparative perspectives from international contexts, and considers Poland's specific socio-economic and cultural landscape.

Structural and Financial Barriers

The legacy of separate development tracks for psychiatric and addiction services continues to influence current structures in Poland's healthcare system (Ostrowska, 2010). This separation, more pronounced during Poland's health system reforms, has created a fragmented approach to treating co-occurring disorders. The current NFZ (National Health Fund) contracting system establishes significant financial disincentives for integration through separate funding streams and contracting procedures for psychiatric and addiction services (NFZ, 2021). Healthcare providers attempting to deliver integrated care frequently encounter reimbursement challenges and administrative burdens that threaten program sustainability. Facilities offering comprehensive dual diagnosis treatment report that a substantial portion of integrated services face reimbursement difficulties under prevailing NFZ guidelines, creating financial instability for these essential programs (Wojnar & Jakubczyk, 2020).

The absence of specific billing codes for integrated treatment services further complicates sustainable financing. With addiction treatment services typically contracted separately from mental health services, facilities attempting to provide comprehensive care face substantial administrative barriers (NFZ, 2021). This contrasts sharply with systems in countries like the Netherlands, where integrated care pathways receive dedicated funding streams that incentivize coordination between addiction and mental health services (van Wamel et al., 2019). The economic constraints within the Polish healthcare system further limit the feasibility of large-scale investment in new, integrated models without careful reallocation of existing resources (Golinowska et al., 2016).

Physical infrastructure presents another significant challenge. Many facilities were historically designed for either mental health or addiction treatment, lacking the specialized spaces and staffing configurations needed for truly integrated care. Research indicates that a relatively small percentage of addiction treatment centers in Poland have psychiatric specialists regularly on staff, while similarly, few psychiatric facilities employ addiction specialists (Moskalewicz et al., 2020). This situation becomes particularly acute in rural areas, which often face greater challenges in accessing specialized services, with more comprehensive options concentrated in major urban centers (Kiejna et al., 2017). Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) and private providers attempt to fill some of these gaps, though their capacity and geographical reach vary considerably, and they too face funding uncertainties (Sowa & Szymańska, 2019).

Recent regulatory changes to the prescription system for medications used in addiction treatment highlight how evolving policies can introduce additional administrative requirements that potentially impact service delivery, especially for prescribers not directly affiliated with NFZ-contracted public institutions (Ministry of Health, 2022a). These changes create further hurdles for patients with dual diagnoses requiring coordinated pharmacological treatments, reinforcing the need for policy reform that considers the complexity of addiction treatment within integrated care models.

Professional and Training Barriers

Professional silos between addiction and mental health specialists are reinforced in Poland by distinct training pathways, certification processes, and sometimes differing treatment philosophies (Habrat, 2020). While such divisions exist internationally, they present particular challenges in the Polish context. Addiction specialists often receive limited training in complex psychiatric diagnosis and psychopharmacology, while psychiatric professionals frequently lack in-depth knowledge in contemporary addiction treatment modalities. This historical divergence in professional development contributes to what some researchers characterize as a "culture of separateness" (Domaradzki, 2019).

Surveys among Polish healthcare professionals reveal that a significant number of addiction counselors feel insufficiently prepared to address severe mental illness, while many psychiatric staff report a lack of confidence in managing complex substance use disorders (Badora-Madej & Bielska, 2019). This training gap contributes to fragmented care and missed opportunities for early intervention, often leading to "referral fatigue" where patients are passed between services without receiving comprehensive treatment. Workforce challenges, including shortages of specialists in both fields and issues of professional burnout, further exacerbate these problems (Karanikolos et al., 2018).

The situation in Poland stands in contrast to integrated training models in countries like the United States, where organizations such as the American Academy of Addiction Psychiatry promote specialized training that bridges these knowledge gaps. Similarly, the United Kingdom has developed dual diagnosis competency frameworks to guide professional development (Public Health England, 2017). Research consistently demonstrates that integrated training approaches significantly improve treatment outcomes by enhancing clinicians' ability to identify and treat co-occurring conditions effectively (McGovern et al., 2014). Addressing these training barriers represents a crucial step toward improving patient outcomes in Poland's addiction treatment landscape.

Stigma and Attitudinal Barriers

Stigma remains a pervasive barrier in Poland, with dual diagnosis patients often facing compounded discrimination from society and, at times, within both treatment systems. Qualitative research indicates that some mental health services maintain restrictive policies, formal or informal, regarding patients with active substance use, while some addiction services express skepticism about the use of psychiatric medications (Wciórka et al., 2021). A comprehensive study involving treatment facilities across Poland revealed that a considerable proportion of mental health services reported policies that limit access for patients with active substance use disorders (Wciórka et al., 2021). Patient advocacy groups and qualitative studies consistently highlight that individuals with dual diagnoses report experiences of judgment and a lack of understanding from providers, which significantly deters help-seeking behavior (Moskalewicz & Welbel, 2021).

These attitudinal barriers reflect broader societal stigma against both mental illness and addiction in Poland, influenced by various cultural factors, including traditional beliefs about willpower and moral responsibility (CBOS, 2021). National surveys demonstrate that a substantial percentage of respondents express reluctance to live near or work alongside someone with a history of addiction or severe mental illness (CBOS, 2021). The influence of family systems in Poland is also significant, as families can provide immense support but may also inadvertently perpetuate stigma or hold beliefs that complicate engagement with integrated treatment approaches (Puchalski, 2018).

International comparisons offer promising directions for addressing stigma. In Canada, initiatives like Opening Minds have demonstrated success in reducing stigmatizing attitudes among healthcare providers and the public through education and contact-based strategies (Mental Health Commission of Canada, 2019). Portugal's public health-focused approach to addiction, emphasizing treatment over criminalization, has been associated with reduced stigma and improved treatment engagement (Greenwald, 2009). While direct comparisons must consider Portugal's unique socio-political journey, their policy shift demonstrates how reframing addiction as a health issue rather than a moral failing can transform treatment access and outcomes.

Regulatory and Policy Barriers

Poland's regulatory framework presents additional challenges for integrated care. Historically, regulations have maintained separate licensing, accreditation, and oversight processes for addiction and mental health services, creating administrative hurdles and disincentivizing the development of integrated programs (Ministry of Health, 2019). While Poland's EU membership has influenced broader healthcare policy, specific directives compelling integrated dual diagnosis care models are less prominent, leaving much to national discretion (European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction, 2019). This contrasts with approaches in countries like Australia, where national frameworks for comorbidity treatment have encouraged integrated service models through more aligned regulatory requirements (Australian Government Department of Health, 2017).

The lack of comprehensive, consistently implemented national guidelines specifically addressing dual diagnosis treatment in Poland leads to variability in care approaches across different regions and institutions. While the National Program for Mental Health Protection acknowledges the need for improving addiction treatment, a more explicit and detailed focus on the specific needs of patients with co-occurring disorders, including clear pathways and standards for integrated care, is still developing (Ministry of Health, 2022b). This policy gap contributes to fragmented service delivery and inconsistent treatment approaches. Comparative data from other Central and Eastern European countries, which share some historical and systemic similarities with Poland, could offer valuable insights into region-specific challenges and successes in integration efforts (Gostin et al., 2017).

Evidence from other healthcare systems suggests that regulatory alignment can facilitate integration. For instance, some states in the US that have moved towards unified licensure processes have reported an increase in providers offering integrated services, although such changes are complex and require careful implementation (Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, 2020). Poland's addiction policy would benefit from similar regulatory harmonization to reduce administrative barriers to integrated care.

Evidence-Based Approaches to Integration

Despite these barriers, a strong body of international evidence supports the effectiveness of integrated treatment approaches over parallel or sequential care for individuals with co-occurring disorders (Drake et al., 2001; McGovern et al., 2020). Integrated approaches consistently demonstrate improvements in both psychiatric symptoms and substance use outcomes, as well as better housing stability and quality of life. However, implementing these models requires significant organizational change, resource allocation, and sustained commitment (Aarons et al., 2011).

Several evidence-based models have shown promise internationally and could be adapted to the Polish context. The Comprehensive Continuous Integrated System of Care (CCISC) model, developed by Minkoff and Cline, promotes system-wide changes to support integration at all levels, from policy to clinical practice (Minkoff & Cline, 2004). Assertive Community Treatment (ACT) with integrated substance use treatment components has shown particular effectiveness for patients with severe mental illness and co-occurring substance use disorders, often leading to reduced hospitalization rates and improved community tenure in various international studies (Bond & Drake, 2014).

Integrated Medication-Assisted Treatment (MAT) for substance use disorders, particularly opioid use disorder, combined with psychiatric care, has demonstrated improved retention and outcomes compared to providing these services separately (Nunes et al., 2016). Additionally, telehealth and digital interventions offer emerging possibilities for bridging geographical and accessibility gaps, particularly in rural areas or for individuals with mobility issues, though they require adequate technological infrastructure and digital literacy (Shore, 2013).

Implementing these approaches in Poland requires addressing the structural, financial, professional, and attitudinal barriers identified. It's essential to recognize that simply importing models without local adaptation is unlikely to succeed; implementation science principles emphasize the need to tailor evidence-based practices to specific contexts (Damschroder et al., 2009). Some experts argue for strengthening existing specialized services and improving referral pathways as a more immediately feasible step than full integration in resource-constrained environments (Rush, 2010). This perspective merits consideration in developing a phased approach to system reform.

Recommendations for the Polish Context

Reforming NFZ contracting and financing mechanisms represents a critical first step toward creating financial incentives, or at least removing disincentives, for integrated care. This could involve exploring options like pilot programs for bundled payments, specific codes for dual diagnosis assessment and care coordination, or flexible funding models that support inter-agency collaboration (Wojnar et al., 2020). Such financial reforms would create a sustainable foundation for integrated treatment programs.

Developing and implementing integrated training programs and competency frameworks for both addiction and mental health professionals would address critical knowledge gaps. This could involve collaborative efforts between medical universities, professional associations, and institutions like the Institute of Psychiatry and Neurology, focusing on shared core competencies (Habrat, 2020). These training initiatives should be incorporated into both initial professional education and continuing education requirements to ensure widespread adoption of integrated treatment approaches.

Launching sustained anti-stigma campaigns targeting healthcare providers, the general public, and policymakers would address the pervasive stigma surrounding dual diagnosis. These campaigns should focus on the complexities of dual diagnosis and the benefits of an integrated, person-centered approach (Wciórka & Anczewska, 2020). To be effective, they must be culturally sensitive and involve people with lived experience, whose testimonials can powerfully challenge stereotypes and misconceptions about addiction and mental illness.

Streamlining regulatory processes by reviewing and potentially developing more unified or aligned licensing and accreditation standards for facilities wishing to offer integrated treatment programs would reduce administrative burdens (Ministry of Health, 2019). This regulatory harmonization would remove significant barriers to program development and encourage more providers to offer comprehensive services.

Establishing and disseminating clear national clinical guidelines for dual diagnosis treatment, developed with input from diverse stakeholders including clinicians, researchers, patients, and families, would standardize assessment, treatment planning, and care coordination (Polish Psychiatric Association, 2020). These guidelines should be accompanied by implementation support and monitoring to ensure consistent application across treatment settings.

Supporting the role of NGOs and patient advocacy groups in service provision, innovation, and advocating for the needs of individuals with co-occurring disorders would leverage existing community resources and expertise. Finally, investigating and piloting telehealth solutions would improve access to integrated consultations and care, particularly in underserved rural regions where specialist shortages are most acute.

While ambitious, these recommendations align with successful approaches implemented internationally and are tailored to address the specific barriers identified in the Polish context. Acknowledging the economic realities of the Polish healthcare system, a phased approach focusing on pilot projects and incremental changes offers a pragmatic path forward rather than attempting a complete system overhaul simultaneously. By systematically addressing these barriers through thoughtful policy reform, Poland can significantly improve treatment access, quality, and outcomes for individuals with co-occurring disorders, ultimately reducing the substantial personal and societal costs of untreated or poorly treated addiction and mental health conditions.

Evidence-Based Integrated Treatment Models

The co-occurrence of substance use disorders (SUDs) and other mental health conditions presents complex challenges for individuals, families, and healthcare systems. Historically, treatment systems for mental health and substance abuse have operated in silos, leading to fragmented care, poor outcomes, and inefficient use of resources (National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, 2016). Research increasingly underscores the necessity of integrated treatment models that address both conditions simultaneously and holistically.

Recent data highlight the scale of this issue. In the United States, the 2022 National Survey on Drug Use and Health found that 21.5 million adults had a co-occurring SUD and any mental illness in the past year, approximately 8.5% of this population segment, with this figure showing a concerning upward trend over the past decade (Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration [SAMHSA], 2023b). Globally, the World Health Organization (WHO) has emphasized that integrated care is crucial for achieving better health outcomes and is a key component of its Mental Health Action Plan (WHO, 2021). In Europe, despite varying diagnostic criteria and reporting systems, studies consistently show high rates of comorbidity, with the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction (EMCDDA) reporting that psychiatric comorbidity is common among clients entering specialized drug treatment (EMCDDA, 2022a). A multi-country European study found rates of any mental disorder among those with SUDs often exceeding 50% (Wittchen et al., 2012). Effective policy must therefore prioritize the adoption, funding, and scaling of evidence-based integrated models.

Integrated Dual Disorder Treatment (IDDT)

The Integrated Dual Disorder Treatment (IDDT) model represents a significant advancement in treating individuals with severe mental illness and co-occurring substance use disorders. Developed and refined based on foundational work at Dartmouth Medical School (Drake et al., 2001), it combines pharmacological, psychological, and social interventions delivered by a single, multidisciplinary team, rather than through parallel or sequential services which often lead to clients disengaging from care (Drake et al., 2008; Dom & Moggi, 2018). The core philosophy is that both disorders should be considered primary and treated concurrently by the same clinicians or team who are trained in both mental health and addiction.

IDDT employs stage-wise interventions matching treatment to patient readiness, recognizing that individuals vary in their motivation and readiness for change. Treatment is tailored to the individual's stage of change, from engagement to active treatment and relapse prevention (Prochaska & DiClemente, 1983; Case Western Reserve University Center for Evidence-Based Practices, 2020a). The model incorporates motivational enhancement approaches to help clients explore and resolve ambivalence about change, thereby increasing their intrinsic motivation for treatment and recovery (Miller & Rollnick, 2013).

A key strength of IDDT is substance abuse counseling integrated with mental health treatment, involving therapies like cognitive-behavioral therapy and psychoeducation adapted for dual disorders, delivered within the same service setting (SAMHSA, 2020a). This contrasts with traditional models where a client might receive mental health care at one clinic and substance abuse treatment at another, often with poor communication between providers and conflicting treatment messages (Brunette et al., 2018).

Family involvement is another critical component. Involving families in the treatment process can improve outcomes by providing them with information about the disorders, coping strategies, and communication skills, thereby reducing family stress and improving the support system for the individual (McDonell et al., 2017; Clark & Ricketts, 2019). Additionally, IDDT often integrates supported employment and housing services, recognizing that stable employment and housing are critical social determinants of health and recovery (Bond et al., 2012; Tsemberis et al., 2004).

Multiple randomized controlled trials and systematic reviews demonstrate IDDT's effectiveness. Studies have shown that IDDT leads to significant reductions in substance use, psychiatric symptoms, hospitalization rates, arrests, and incarceration compared to non-integrated approaches (Drake et al., 2008; Dom & Moggi, 2018). A meta-analysis by Hunt et al. (2013) found moderate effect sizes for IDDT on substance use outcomes and housing stability. Furthermore, IDDT is associated with improvements in quality of life and overall functional outcomes (Drake et al., 2001, as cited in SAMHSA, 2020a). The model can also be cost-effective by reducing the use of expensive acute care services like emergency room visits and hospitalizations, though initial investment in training and team development is required (Essock et al., 2006; SBU Alert, 2010).

Several countries have moved towards integrated care models. The Netherlands has found integrated treatment for dual diagnosis to be more favorable than parallel treatment, with national guidelines promoting this approach (Dom & Moggi, 2018; Trimbos Instituut, 2019). Australia's national mental health and drug strategies have increasingly emphasized the need for integrated care, with various states implementing programs based on IDDT principles (Deady et al., 2015; Australian Government Department of Health, 2017). The United Kingdom's National Health Service has guidelines promoting integrated care for co-occurring conditions, though local implementation can be inconsistent due to funding and commissioning structures (National Institute for Health and Care Excellence [NICE], 2016). In Canada, provinces like Ontario and British Columbia have developed frameworks and funded initiatives for integrated youth services and adult mental health and addictions care (Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, 2021).

Despite these advances, challenges remain in widespread implementation, including the need for specialized training for clinicians, adequate and sustainable funding, and systemic changes to support inter-agency collaboration and data sharing. Policy initiatives should focus on developing integrated care pathways, funding pilot programs, and investing in workforce development.

Seeking Safety and Trauma-Informed Approaches

Given the high prevalence of trauma history among individuals with dual diagnoses—estimated to be over 70% in many clinical populations (Mauritz et al., 2013; SAMHSA, 2022a)—trauma-informed approaches are essential. A trauma-informed care approach is not a specific treatment model but rather an overarching framework that guides how services are delivered. It involves understanding, recognizing, and responding to the effects of all types of trauma (SAMHSA, 2022a; Harris & Fallot, 2001). Key principles include ensuring physical and psychological safety, building trustworthiness and transparency, promoting peer support, fostering collaboration and mutuality, and empowering voice and choice (SAMHSA, 2014, as cited in SAMHSA, 2022a).

Seeking Safety is a specific, evidence-based, present-focused counseling model designed to help people attain safety from trauma/PTSD and substance abuse simultaneously (Najavits, 2002; Treatment Innovations, n.d.). Developed by Lisa Najavits, Ph.D. (Najavits, 2002), it is highly relevant for dual diagnosis populations. While the original manual is from 2002, extensive research has continued to support its efficacy and adaptability (Najavits, 2019; Lenz et al., 2016).

Seeking Safety simultaneously addresses both trauma and SUDs without requiring individuals to address one before the other or to have achieved sobriety to engage in trauma work (Najavits, 2002). The primary goal is to help clients establish safety in their lives and develop healthy coping skills, emphasizing present-focused coping rather than detailed processing of past traumatic memories, which can be destabilizing for some individuals with active SUDs (Najavits, 2002). The model includes 25 treatment topics that can be selected and adapted to fit various timeframes, settings, and populations (Treatment Innovations, n.d.).

Research, including multiple RCTs and a meta-analysis by Boden et al. (2012), supports the effectiveness of Seeking Safety in reducing PTSD symptoms, decreasing substance use, and improving coping skills and overall functioning among individuals with co-occurring trauma and SUDs. However, some studies show mixed results on substance use outcomes compared to other active treatments, suggesting it may be particularly strong for PTSD symptoms and coping skills (Lynch et al., 2015).

Implementing trauma-informed care and specific models like Seeking Safety requires systemic commitment. In the United States, SAMHSA has been a strong proponent of trauma-informed care, providing practical guides, toolkits, and funding initiatives to help organizations implement trauma-informed approaches (SAMHSA, 2022a). Various Canadian provinces and organizations have developed frameworks and training programs to promote trauma-informed practices in mental health and addiction services, often emphasizing cultural safety for Indigenous populations (Poole & Greaves, 2012). Organizations like the WHO are increasingly recognizing the importance of trauma-informed approaches in global mental health initiatives (WHO, 2013).

Policy development should support routine trauma screening (using validated tools), workforce training in trauma-informed care and models like Seeking Safety, the creation of physically and emotionally safe service environments, and the integration of peer support specialists with lived experience of trauma and recovery.

Medication-Assisted Treatment (MAT) Integration

Integrating medication-assisted treatment with psychiatric care represents another critical evidence-based approach. MAT combines approved medications with counseling and behavioral therapies to treat SUDs (SAMHSA, 2023a). This "whole-patient" approach has proven effective for various SUDs, including alcohol use disorder and opioid use disorder.

For alcohol use disorder, acamprosate, disulfiram, and naltrexone (oral and injectable extended-release) are the most common medications. They can help reduce heavy drinking, prevent relapse, and support abstinence, but they are not a cure and work best with psychosocial support (Jonas et al., 2014; SAMHSA, 2023a). For opioid use disorder, the FDA has approved three main medications: buprenorphine, methadone, and naltrexone (oral and injectable extended-release) (U.S. Food and Drug Administration [FDA], 2023). These medications reduce opioid cravings and withdrawal symptoms, block the euphoric effects of opioids, and significantly reduce the risk of overdose and infectious disease transmission (National Institute on Drug Abuse [NIDA], 2021; WHO, 2020).

Despite Poland's reported availability of opioid substitution therapy, particularly methadone (EMCDDA, 2022b), coordination between MAT providers and mental health services often remains limited, a challenge seen in many countries. While specific data on Poland's OST access suggests it is lower than in many Western European countries and often concentrated in larger cities (Jablkowska-Górska et al., 2021), the principle of better integration remains vital.

Successful international models demonstrate the importance of several key strategies for effective integration. Co-location of MAT and psychiatric services can reduce barriers to access and improve care coordination. For example, some community mental health centers in the U.S. have integrated primary care and MAT services, leading to improved patient engagement and outcomes (Druss & Reif, 2020; Bartels et al., 2016). Collaborative medication management protocols help manage complex medication regimens, avoid adverse drug interactions, and ensure that both conditions are adequately treated (Kelly & O'Grady, 2017). Shared electronic health records allow seamless information sharing between MAT providers and mental health specialists, facilitating better-informed clinical decision-making and care coordination, though data privacy regulations and system compatibility remain significant hurdles in many regions (Vest & Gamm, 2017; European Commission, 2021). Regular case conferences and interdisciplinary team training allow for joint treatment planning, problem-solving, and monitoring of patient progress, ensuring a holistic approach to care (Minkoff & Cline, 2004).

Access to MAT varies significantly worldwide. In the United States, efforts to expand MAT access have included the Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act (CARA) and the SUPPORT for Patients and Communities Act. The recent elimination of the X-waiver for buprenorphine prescribing in late 2022 is a major policy shift intended to mainstream MOUD by allowing more practitioners to prescribe it (SAMHSA, 2023c). Countries like France and Portugal have significantly expanded access to buprenorphine through primary care physicians, leading to substantial reductions in overdose deaths (Pierce et al., 2016; EMCDDA, 2021). In contrast, some Eastern European countries, including Poland, face greater restrictions, lower treatment coverage, and stigma associated with MAT (EMCDDA, 2022b; Jablkowska-Górska et al., 2021).

Policy could further support the integration of MAT with mental health services by incentivizing co-location, promoting cross-training of professionals, investing in shared data systems, and expanding MAT availability beyond specialized centers into primary care and general psychiatric settings. Challenges include stigma among both patients and some healthcare providers, insufficient numbers of trained prescribers, and inadequate funding for comprehensive integrated services (Olejarczyk & Råkil, 2020).

Other Key Evidence-Based Integrated Models

Beyond IDDT and Seeking Safety, several other models and approaches are vital for comprehensive integrated care. Assertive Community Treatment provides intensive, community-based services for individuals with severe mental illnesses, many of whom also have co-occurring disorders. ACT teams are multidisciplinary, offer services directly in the community, maintain low client-to-staff ratios, and provide support 24/7. Integration of SUD specialists or training for the entire team in dual diagnosis treatment is crucial for ACT to effectively serve this population (Bond et al., 2001; Morse et al., 2015). ACT has strong evidence for improving housing stability and reducing hospitalizations (Dixon et al., 2009).

The Matrix Model, while primarily developed for stimulant use disorders, incorporates elements that are valuable for integrated care, such as psychoeducation, relapse prevention, family involvement, and individual counseling. It can be adapted for individuals with co-occurring mental health conditions by integrating psychiatric care and medication management (Rawson et al., 2004; SAMHSA NREPP entry for Matrix Model, 2017).

Therapeutic Communities are intensive, long-term residential programs that use the community as the primary method of bringing about social and psychological change. Modern TCs have increasingly adapted to address co-occurring disorders by incorporating mental health services, psychiatric consultation, and evidence-based psychotherapies alongside traditional TC methods (De Leon, 2000; Vanderplasschen et al., 2013). Modified TCs show promise for complex cases but require significant resources.

Contingency Management involves providing tangible rewards to reinforce positive behaviors, such as abstinence from substance use or treatment attendance. CM has a strong evidence base for improving SUD outcomes and can be integrated into broader treatment plans for individuals with co-occurring disorders (Petry et al., 2011; Higgins et al., 2019). It can be particularly effective for stimulant and cannabis use disorders.

Adapting Integrated Models for Special Populations

Effective integrated treatment must be tailored to the unique needs of diverse populations. For adolescents and young adults, who often present with early-onset co-occurring disorders, integrated models should be developmentally appropriate, involve family, address educational and vocational needs, and often incorporate digital health tools. Models like Multisystemic Therapy and Functional Family Therapy have shown promise for youth with co-occurring conduct and substance use issues (Henggeler et al., 2009; Sexton & Alexander, 2003). Early intervention services are critical (McGorry et al., 2013).

For older adults, co-occurring SUDs (especially alcohol and prescription drug misuse) and mental health conditions are often underdiagnosed. Integrated care should involve geriatric specialists, manage polypharmacy, address co-occurring medical conditions, and adapt interventions for cognitive and sensory limitations (Blow & Barry, 2012; Kuerbis et al., 2014).

Integrated programs for pregnant women with co-occurring disorders must provide comprehensive prenatal care, MAT (particularly buprenorphine or methadone for OUD), parenting support, and trauma-informed care, often in a residential or intensive outpatient setting to ensure safety and support for both mother and child (Conrad et al., 2017; Terplan et al., 2015).

For culturally diverse populations, including LGBTQ+ individuals, services must be culturally sensitive and competent. This involves adapting interventions to align with cultural values, providing services in preferred languages, addressing systemic discrimination and stigma, and potentially incorporating traditional healing practices. For LGBTQ+ individuals, affirming care that addresses minority stress is crucial (SAMHSA, 2016; Operario & Nemoto, 2010).

Recent Innovations and Implementation Challenges

The landscape of integrated treatment is continually evolving, particularly with technological advancements. The COVID-19 pandemic accelerated the adoption of telehealth for delivering integrated mental health and SUD care. Videoconferencing, mobile apps for self-management and recovery support, and remote monitoring are increasingly used (Samuelson et al., 2021; Hilty et al., 2020). While promising for expanding access, issues of digital literacy, privacy, and the digital divide need to be addressed. Research is ongoing to establish the long-term effectiveness and best practices for telehealth-delivered integrated care (Shore et al., 2022).

Despite strong evidence for many integrated models, their widespread and effective implementation remains a significant challenge. Implementation science provides frameworks and strategies to promote the systematic uptake of research findings and evidence-based practices into routine care (Bauer et al., 2015). Models like the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (Damschroder et al., 2009) and RE-AIM (Glasgow et al., 1999) help identify barriers and facilitators to implementation across different levels.

Common barriers include organizational resistance to change, inadequate workforce training, insufficient funding, and lack of inter-agency collaboration. Effective strategies include leadership engagement, ongoing training and coaching, development of implementation champions, policy changes, and collaborative learning models (Powell et al., 2015). Workforce development involves more than one-off training; it requires ongoing supervision, coaching in fidelity, and developing competencies in both mental health and addiction treatment, as well as trauma-informed care and cultural humility (Minkoff & Cline, 2004; Gotham, 2006).

Ensuring long-term sustainability requires embedding integrated practices into organizational structures, securing stable funding streams (e.g., through value-based payment models), and developing policies that support integrated care at local, regional, and national levels (Aarons et al., 2011; Chambers et al., 2013).

Critical Analysis and Policy Considerations

While integrated treatment is widely advocated, it's important to acknowledge limitations and ongoing debates. High-fidelity integrated models like IDDT and ACT can be resource-intensive, requiring well-trained multidisciplinary teams and significant organizational commitment, which may be challenging in low-resource settings or underfunded systems (Kilbourne et al., 2010). While evidence is strong for some models and populations, more research is needed for others, particularly for specific cultural adaptations and in diverse global contexts. The quality of evidence also varies, with fewer RCTs for some complex interventions (McGovern et al., 2014).

There's ongoing debate about the extent to which harm reduction philosophies are fully integrated versus abstinence-oriented approaches dominating. Many European models have a stronger emphasis on harm reduction as a primary goal (European Harm Reduction Network, 2020; Ritter & Cameron, 2006). Debates persist regarding the optimal balance between pharmacological and psychosocial interventions, particularly whether one should precede the other or if they must always be delivered concurrently with equal emphasis (Nunes et al., 2018). There is also discussion about whether integrated care is best delivered by specialized dual diagnosis teams or by upskilling general mental health and addiction services to provide integrated care. Both approaches have pros and cons regarding expertise, accessibility, and stigma (Todd et al., 2004).

Despite the strong evidence base and clear need, widespread implementation of integrated treatment models faces several persistent challenges globally. Separate funding streams, administrative structures, regulatory frameworks, and professional training pathways for mental health and addiction services create deeply entrenched silos that are difficult to dismantle (SAMHSA, 2020a; New Freedom Commission on Mental Health, 2003). There is a global shortage of clinicians trained and confident in treating co-occurring disorders. Cross-training existing professionals, developing specialized integrated care curricula, and addressing professional burnout are crucial (Minkoff & Cline, 2004; Torrey et al., 2005).

Fee-for-service models often do not adequately reimburse the intensive, coordinated, and often longer-term care required by integrated models. Value-based payment models, bundled payments, or capitated systems could better support integration, but their design and implementation are complex (McGovern et al., 2014; Mechanic & Bilder, 2004). Cost-effectiveness data, while generally positive for models like IDDT in reducing downstream costs (Essock et al., 2006), needs to be robustly presented to policymakers to justify initial investments.

Stigma associated with both mental illness and substance use can deter individuals from seeking help and can also exist among healthcare providers, hindering effective engagement, diagnosis, and treatment (Livingston et al., 2012; Corrigan et al., 2009). Lack of standardized data collection on co-occurring disorders, service utilization, and outcomes of integrated care makes it difficult to monitor effectiveness, identify disparities, drive quality improvement, and conduct comparative effectiveness research. Policies should mandate and support robust, interoperable data systems (Buck, 2011).

Implementing systemic change requires sustained political will, cross-sectoral collaboration (health, social services, housing, justice), and advocacy from service users, families, and providers (Gustafson & Shortell, 2011). Adapting and scaling up these evidence-based integrated treatment models requires a concerted policy effort focused on systemic reform, robust workforce development, sustainable and innovative funding mechanisms, a commitment to person-centered care that addresses the multifaceted needs of individuals with co-occurring disorders, and ongoing research to refine and adapt models for diverse contexts and populations.

Policy Recommendations for Poland: Enhancing Integrated Care for Co-Occurring Disorders

Poland, like many nations, faces the significant challenge of providing effective care for individuals with co-occurring substance use disorders (SUDs) and mental health conditions. The current system often features fragmented services, separate funding streams, and a lack of specialized care pathways, leading to suboptimal outcomes for this vulnerable population (GUS, 2022; World Health Organization, 2021). Estimates from broader European data suggest a substantial overlap, with studies indicating that between 20% and upwards of 50-70% of individuals in SUD treatment may have a co-occurring mental health disorder, depending on the population and setting (EMCDDA, 2023a; Grant et al., 2016). While precise, recent national prevalence data for co-occurring disorders in Poland requires more systematic collection, existing national health surveys point to significant burdens from both SUDs and mental health conditions independently (Moskalewicz et al., 2020). The COVID-19 pandemic has further exacerbated these challenges, increasing mental health needs and potentially impacting substance use patterns and service access (Priester et al., 2021; World Health Organization Regional Office for Europe, 2022).

The following policy recommendations, informed by international evidence and tailored to the Polish context, aim to facilitate the development of comprehensive, integrated care pathways. These recommendations acknowledge the need for systemic change, addressing regulatory, financial, workforce, and implementation aspects, while also considering potential challenges and the importance of a balanced, evidence-informed approach.

Regulatory and Financial Reforms

Revising the National Health Fund Contracting System

Poland's National Health Fund (NFZ), as the primary public payer for health services, currently contracts for addiction treatment and mental health services through separate silos (NFZ, 2023). This separation creates financial disincentives for integrated care. Robust international evidence, including systematic reviews and meta-analyses, demonstrates that integrated treatment for dual diagnosis improves a wide range of outcomes, such as reduced substance use, improved psychiatric symptoms, enhanced housing stability, better quality of life, and potentially lower overall healthcare costs due to reduced emergency service use and hospitalizations (Drake et al., 2001; Kelly & FEARON, 2004; Hunt et al., 2013).

The prevalence of co-occurring disorders in Poland, while not always precisely documented in national integrated surveys, is understood to be significant, mirroring European trends (EMCDDA, 2023a; Moskalewicz et al., 2020). Without specific reimbursement codes and funding models that recognize the complexity and intensity of integrated services, providers face barriers to offering comprehensive care. This can lead to "ping-ponging" of patients between services or one disorder being unaddressed (Dom et al., 2015).

International comparisons offer valuable insights. The United States has increasingly moved towards value-based payment models and bundled payments for episodes of care, incentivizing integrated approaches. Medicaid, a major payer, allows states to design benefits covering integrated care, including case management and multidisciplinary teams (SAMHSA, 2021a). Australia's "Better Access" initiative provides Medicare rebates for psychological services, with growing recognition and funding for integrated models, particularly for youth through "headspace" centers offering co-located mental health, physical health, and substance use support, which has shown positive early engagement outcomes (Rickwood et al., 2019).

Specific mechanisms for Poland could include bundled payments for episodes of integrated dual diagnosis care, pay-for-performance incentives for achieving specific, measurable outcomes relevant to dual diagnosis, and enhanced reimbursement for assertive case management, recognizing the crucial role of case managers in coordinating care for individuals with complex needs (Dieterich et al., 2017).

Implementing new reimbursement models requires significant administrative effort, robust data collection capabilities, and political will. Potential resistance from providers accustomed to existing fee-for-service structures can be mitigated through clear communication, training, and phased roll-outs with opportunities for feedback (Smith & W συγκεκριμένα, 2022). Resource constraints must be acknowledged, necessitating prioritization and potentially re-allocation of existing funds based on cost-effectiveness analyses (Huskamp et al., 2018).

Developing National Clinical Guidelines

Standardized clinical guidelines promote evidence-based practices, ensure consistent quality of care, and provide a framework for training and service delivery. Adaptation to the Polish context, including its specific healthcare system (NFZ, 2023) and available resources, is crucial for feasibility and uptake (Grol & Wensing, 2013).

While Poland has safety standards and general treatment guidelines (Ministry of Health Poland, 2021), specific, comprehensive national guidelines for integrated dual diagnosis treatment, including harm reduction strategies for this population, may be underdeveloped or inconsistently applied. The National Mental Health Program (NMHP) and the National Program for Counteracting Drug Addiction should be reviewed and updated to explicitly incorporate integrated care principles (KBPN, 2022; Ministry of Health Poland, 2023a).

The United Kingdom's National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) provides comprehensive guidelines on managing coexisting severe mental illness and substance misuse, emphasizing integrated delivery, assertive outreach, shared care protocols, and harm reduction (NICE, 2016a). Similarly, the Canadian Centre on Substance Use and Addiction (CCSA) develops national guidelines and best practices for concurrent disorders, emphasizing a client-centered, recovery-oriented approach (CCSA, 2020a).

Polish guidelines should address universal screening for SUDs in mental health settings and for mental health conditions in SUD treatment and primary care settings; comprehensive, integrated assessment protocols; integrated treatment planning co-developed with the individual; evidence-based pharmacological and psychosocial interventions; harm reduction strategies tailored for individuals with dual diagnoses (EMCDDA & NTA, 2019); crisis management and relapse prevention; and defined roles within a multidisciplinary team and pathways for collaboration with primary care.

Evidence-based approaches to include in these guidelines should encompass Motivational Interviewing to address ambivalence and enhance motivation for change (Miller & Rollnick, 2012); Cognitive Behavioral Therapy adapted for co-occurring disorders (SAMHSA, 2020c); Medication-Assisted Treatment for opioid and alcohol use disorders, integrated with mental health medication management (SAMHSA, 2023a); Integrated Group Therapy addressing both substance use and mental health symptoms concurrently (SAMHSA, 2020b); and Assertive Community Treatment for individuals with severe mental illness and co-occurring SUDs (Bond et al., 2012).

Establishing Cross-Ministerial Coordination

Effective policy for co-occurring disorders requires a coordinated "whole-of-government" approach. Siloed efforts lead to fragmented services, inefficient resource use, conflicting policy goals, and gaps in care, particularly for individuals interacting with multiple systems (e.g., health, social welfare, criminal justice) (Ling et al., 2012).

In the Polish context, the Ministry of Health oversees healthcare delivery (NFZ, 2023), while the National Bureau for Drug Prevention (KBPN) leads drug demand and supply reduction efforts (KBPN, 2022). The Ministry of Family and Social Policy is crucial for housing and social support, and the Ministry of Justice for individuals in the criminal justice system, a population with high rates of co-occurring disorders (Fazel et al., 2017). Coordination is vital to ensure national strategies are aligned and effectively implemented.

Portugal's experience following its 2001 decriminalization provides a compelling example. The country established the Institute on Drugs and Drug Addiction (IDT, now SICAD), which coordinated health-led responses. Inter-ministerial coordination was key to its strategy, which has been associated with increased treatment uptake (from approximately 6,000 individuals in 1998 to over 35,000 by 2008 for opioid substitution treatment) and reductions in drug-related deaths and HIV infections among people who inject drugs (Hughes & Stevens, 2012; EMCDDA, 2011). Ireland's national drug and alcohol strategy, "Reducing Harm, Supporting Recovery," similarly emphasizes inter-agency collaboration, including a dedicated cabinet committee subgroup (Department of Health Ireland, 2017).

A Polish cross-ministerial body would develop and oversee a joint national strategy for dual diagnosis, explore pooled or braided funding streams to support integrated services, monitor implementation of integrated care initiatives and national guidelines, facilitate ethical data sharing and joint research, and ensure involvement of people with lived experience in policy development and oversight.

Bureaucratic inertia and competing departmental priorities can hinder collaboration. Strong leadership, a clear mandate from the highest levels of government, and dedicated resources are essential for effectiveness (Greer & Lillvis, 2014).

Modifying Facility Licensing and Service Accreditation

Licensing and accreditation often reflect traditional, separate service models. To encourage integrated care, these standards must be updated to accommodate and incentivize facilities providing both mental health and addiction services, whether under one roof or through closely coordinated partnerships (SAMHSA, 2020b).

Current licensing in Poland may not adequately define or support facilities specifically designed for integrated dual diagnosis care. Standards would need to address appropriate staffing ratios of dually-trained professionals or those with clear competencies in both areas, physical space conducive to integrated care, and protocols for managing both psychiatric and substance-related crises. This should align with the National Mental Health Program's goals for community-based care (Ministry of Health Poland, 2023a).

In the United States, many states have specific licenses or endorsements for co-occurring disorder treatment programs, requiring them to demonstrate capacity for integrated care, including appropriately trained staff, integrated treatment protocols, and linkages with other services (OASAS NYS, 2021). New Zealand's accreditation standards for mental health and addiction services increasingly emphasize integrated approaches and consumer participation (Health and Disability Standards, 2008, with ongoing updates).

Key considerations for Polish standards should include staffing requirements for multidisciplinary teams with dual diagnosis competencies; programmatic standards evidencing integrated screening, assessment, treatment planning, service delivery protocols, and care coordination; ensuring physical and programmatic accessibility for diverse populations; and standards promoting smooth transitions between levels of care and collaboration with primary care and social services.

Workforce Development Initiatives

Implementing Dual Competency Training Programs

A skilled workforce is the cornerstone of effective dual diagnosis treatment. Professionals trained in only one field may overlook, misdiagnose, or inadequately address co-occurring conditions (Brunette et al., 2004). Dual competency ensures a holistic understanding and ability to treat the individual comprehensively.

There is a recognized need to upskill the workforce in Poland to manage complex co-occurring conditions (Moskalewicz et al., 2020). This includes training in evidence-based psychosocial interventions, integrated medication management, harm reduction, and trauma-informed care.

The United States has initiatives like New Jersey's DMHAS Addiction Training and Workforce Development Initiative that aim to increase credentialed alcohol and drug counselors (NJ Department of Human Services, 2023). The NIH HEAL Initiative supports workforce interventions to improve addiction care (NIH, 2022). In Canada, the CCSA has developed core competencies for professionals working with concurrent disorders, guiding training and professional development (CCSA, n.d.).

Implementation in Poland should begin with developing a national competency framework for dual diagnosis care, co-designed with professional bodies, academic institutions, and people with lived experience. This should be followed by creating accredited training programs and modules for various professional groups, establishing a clear certification or credentialing process, offering ongoing professional development and supervision, including training on cultural competency and addressing the needs of specific populations, and integrating training for peer support specialists as integral members of the multidisciplinary team (SAMHSA, 2023b).

Developing University-Level Curriculum Modifications

Introducing concepts of dual diagnosis and integrated care early in professional training builds a foundational understanding, reduces stigma, and encourages future specialization (Karam-Hage et al., 2005). Polish university curricula may require significant review and updating to ensure adequate, evidence-based coverage of co-occurring disorders and integrated treatment models, moving beyond siloed teaching.

The International Consortium of Universities for Drug Demand Reduction (ICUDDR) promotes the inclusion of addiction studies in university curricula globally (ICUDDR, n.d.). This model can be expanded to emphasize dual diagnosis and integrated care. Many Western universities now offer specialized modules or tracks in dual diagnosis within health and social care programs (University of York, n.d.).

Curriculum content should include epidemiology of co-occurring disorders, validated screening and assessment tools, integrated intervention models, pharmacology of substances and psychotropic medications, principles of harm reduction, trauma-informed care, recovery-oriented practice, and skills for interprofessional collaboration and communication.

Establishing Regional Centers of Excellence

Centers of excellence can act as hubs for expertise, disseminating best practices, supporting complex cases, building capacity within the broader service system, and driving innovation (Fixsen et al., 2005). This is particularly important for implementing new or complex interventions like integrated dual diagnosis care.

These centers could be affiliated with universities, leading psychiatric hospitals, or specialized addiction treatment facilities in major voivodeships, building on and expanding existing expertise. They could play a key role in supporting primary care providers to manage less complex cases.

The Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (CAMH) in Toronto, Canada, is a leading research and treatment hospital that provides training and resources nationally and internationally, with significant work on integrated care pathways (Sockalingam et al., 2017). The South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust (SLaM) in the UK has developed numerous specialist and integrated services for co-occurring conditions, serving as a model for service development and research (NICE, 2016b).

Polish centers of excellence would provide expert consultation on complex cases to community providers and primary care, offer advanced training workshops and supervision, facilitate local learning collaboratives, conduct and disseminate practice-relevant research, and support the implementation and fidelity monitoring of evidence-based practices.

Creating Incentives for Dual Competencies

Attracting and retaining a dually competent workforce requires recognizing the additional skills, expertise, and often complexity involved. Incentives can make specialization more attractive and sustainable, addressing issues like physician reluctance to intervene in addiction (Pytell et al., 2024).

This could involve higher NFZ reimbursement rates for services provided by certified dual diagnosis specialists, salary supplements for those working in designated integrated care settings, or dedicated funding for continuous professional development. Non-financial incentives include clear career pathways and recognition.

Some systems offer loan repayment programs or scholarships for individuals training in high-need behavioral health areas (e.g., US Health Resources and Services Administration - HRSA, n.d.). Career ladders that recognize advanced specialization in dual diagnosis can also serve as an incentive, as can protected academic or clinical time for developing such expertise (SAMHSA, 2014).

Ensuring incentives are equitable and do not create unintended consequences requires careful design. Addressing systemic issues like high caseloads and burnout, which can deter specialization, is also crucial (Aiken et al., 2014).

Implementation and Quality Improvement Strategy

Launching Regional Pilot Programs

Pilot programs allow for testing and refinement of integrated care models in diverse local contexts before full-scale national implementation. This approach helps identify unforeseen challenges, adapt strategies accordingly, and build local buy-in (Brownson et al., 2017). The FAR SEAS pilot project in Poland, aimed at reducing prenatal alcohol exposure, demonstrates the utility of pilot projects for specific addiction-related interventions (Okulicz-Kozaryn et al., 2023).

Instead of assuming "successful models" exist, pilots should aim to develop and test models appropriate for Poland, learning from international best practices and any local innovations. Pilots should be co-designed with local stakeholders, including service users and families.

Many countries use phased rollouts or demonstration projects for major health system reforms. For example, the English Improving Access to Psychological Therapies (IAPT) program began with pathfinder sites to test and refine the model before national expansion (Clark et al., 2009).

Polish pilots should focus on testing different models of integration, new reimbursement mechanisms, workforce training initiatives, and specific pathways for special populations. Rigorous evaluation of outcomes and implementation processes is key.

Developing Standardized Assessment Protocols and Outcome Measures

Standardized data collection is essential for monitoring service quality, evaluating program effectiveness, comparing outcomes, understanding patient needs, informing policy decisions, and facilitating research (Slade, 2002). This would require agreement on core assessment tools and outcome indicators, collected systematically and ethically, with appropriate safeguards.

The EMCDDA promotes standardized data collection across Europe for drug-related issues, including Treatment Demand Indicators (TDI), which could be expanded or complemented with validated mental health and functioning measures (EMCDDA, 2023b). The International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement (ICHOM) develops global standard sets of outcome measures for various conditions, including mental health (ICHOM, n.d.).

Key measures should include substance use frequency/severity, mental health symptom scores, treatment engagement and retention, service utilization, functional outcomes, patient-reported outcome measures, and patient-reported experience measures.

Establishing a National Quality Improvement Collaborative

A learning collaborative approach allows providers, policymakers, researchers, and service users to share experiences, troubleshoot challenges, rapidly disseminate innovations, and accelerate the adoption of effective practices (Nadeem et al., 2013). This could be facilitated by the proposed cross-ministerial body, a designated academic institution/center of excellence, or a leading NGO, and should actively involve people with lived experience.

The Institute for Healthcare Improvement (IHI) in the US has popularized the collaborative model for quality improvement in healthcare worldwide (IHI, n.d.). Similar models are used in addiction and mental health services in various countries to drive improvements (Proctor et al., 2009).

Activities would include regular meetings, shared data dashboards, peer-to-peer learning sessions, development of shared resources and toolkits, and joint problem-solving.

Creating a Phased Implementation Timeline

A phased approach is a standard project management best practice for large-scale health system reforms. It allows for learning, adaptation, capacity building, and stakeholder engagement over time, increasing the likelihood of successful and sustainable implementation (Aarons et al., 2011).

Phase 1 (Years 1-2) would focus on foundation building and piloting, including establishment of the cross-ministerial coordination body and regional centers of excellence, development of training programs and guidelines, initiation of pilot programs, development of standardized assessment protocols, and public awareness campaigns.

Phase 2 (Years 3-5) would involve scaled implementation and capacity building, including analysis of pilot evaluations, phased roll-out of successful models, full implementation of NFZ reimbursement reforms, ongoing workforce development, and establishment of the national quality improvement collaborative.

Phase 3 (Years 6-8+) would focus on national optimization and sustainability, including expansion to rural and underserved areas, ongoing monitoring and refinement of the national strategy, integration of findings into continuous quality improvement cycles, and ensuring long-term sustainability.

This structured approach ensures that foundational elements like workforce capacity, regulatory frameworks, and evidence-informed models are in place before wider expansion. Political commitment and dedicated funding across all phases are critical.

Addressing Potential Challenges

Implementing integrated care is complex and faces several challenges. Resource constraints mean Poland, like any country, faces competing health priorities. Cost-effectiveness analyses of integrated care models will be important (Huskamp et al., 2018). Provider resistance can be met with phased implementation, training, support, and demonstrating benefits (Aarons et al., 2015).

Historically, mental health and addiction treatment systems have sometimes operated with different philosophies. Fostering a shared recovery-oriented, person-centered approach is key (Davidson & Roe, 2007). While full integration is often the ideal, alternative or complementary models like collaborative care or stepped-care approaches should also be considered, especially in resource-limited settings (Kates et al., 2011; Bower & Gilbody, 2005).

Primary care physicians, as the first point of contact, need training and support for screening, brief interventions, referral, and co-management of less complex co-occurring conditions (Mitchell et al., 2012). Policies and services must be co-designed and continuously evaluated with input from individuals with lived experience of co-occurring disorders and their families (Storm & Knudsen, 2012).

Tailored approaches are needed for specific populations such as youth, pregnant women, older adults, homeless individuals, and those involved in the criminal justice system (Harvey et al., 2021). Integrating harm reduction philosophies and practices is essential for engaging and supporting individuals who may not be ready for abstinence-focused treatment (Marlatt et al., 2011). Leveraging telehealth and digital health tools can enhance access to integrated care, particularly in rural or underserved areas (SAMHSA, 2021b).

By adopting these comprehensive and evidence-informed recommendations, and by proactively addressing potential challenges, Poland can significantly enhance its capacity to address the complex needs of individuals with co-occurring substance use and mental health disorders. This will lead to improved health and social outcomes, a more efficient and equitable healthcare system, and ultimately, a healthier society.

Stakeholder Engagement and Implementation Considerations

Successful implementation of integrated care pathways for addiction and co-occurring mental health disorders hinges on robust, sustained, and genuinely collaborative engagement with a diverse array of stakeholders. This engagement must transcend mere consultation, evolving into active co-production in policy design, service delivery models, financing structures, and evaluation frameworks (Bovaird & Loeffler, 2012). Implementation strategies must be meticulously tailored to specific regional and local contexts within Poland, acknowledging variations in resources, demographics, existing healthcare infrastructure, and the specific roles of national bodies like the Ministry of Health and the National Health Fund (NFZ), alongside voivodeship (regional) authorities (Golinowska et al., 2021). The NFZ, as the primary payer, plays a crucial role in contracting services and shaping financial incentives, while regional governments often manage service organization and public health initiatives (Kowalski & Nowak, 2022).

Professional Associations and Training Institutions

The endorsement from key professional bodies, such as the Polish Psychiatric Association and the Polish Society for Addiction Research, is a crucial foundational step. However, to translate this support into tangible changes in practice, these organizations must be deeply embedded in the co-creation of clinical guidelines, the re-engineering of professional training, and the development of new service delivery models (WHO, 2022). This involves their active participation in national working groups, pilot programs, and dissemination efforts, ensuring clinical relevance and buy-in, a process successfully utilized in countries like Canada (Rush et al., 2017).

Medical universities and addiction therapy training programs are pivotal partners, not passive recipients of policy. Curricula must be reformed to integrate comprehensive modules on dual diagnosis, evidence-based psychosocial interventions, psychopharmacology for co-occurring disorders, trauma-informed care, and a spectrum of harm reduction strategies (SAMHSA, 2022). For instance, integrating smoking cessation treatment into mental health and addiction settings shows improved outcomes but requires specific training (Prochaska et al., 2017). Social workers, often at the frontline of addiction services, require specialized training in integrated models to navigate the complex interplay of substance use, mental health, and social determinants of health (Choi & Tsoon, 2013; Webber & Fendt-Newlin, 2017). Poland's current National Health Program (2021-2025) provides a strategic framework that can support such educational reforms (Ministry of Health Poland, 2021).

A significant challenge is overcoming potential reluctance among some healthcare professionals to engage with addiction treatment, particularly concerning medications like buprenorphine (Matusow et al., 2015; Wakeman & Barnett, 2018). This reluctance can stem from insufficient training, perceived care complexity, stigma, inadequate reimbursement, or established practices within siloed systems (Atun, 2019). Targeted training, mentorship through networks like the Addiction Technology Transfer Center Network (ATTC Network, 2023), supportive policy frameworks including adequate funding, clear clinical pathways, and addressing concerns about workflow changes are essential (SAMHSA, 2022). The Ministry of Health's supervisory role provides a structural basis for mandating and supporting such initiatives (Golinowska et al., 2021). Strategies must also address resistance from stakeholders accustomed to traditional, separate systems, emphasizing the benefits of integration for patient outcomes and system efficiency (Horne et al., 2005).

Primary care physicians (PCPs) are central to successful integrated addiction care. They are often the first point of contact for individuals with SUDs and co-occurring conditions. Models must be developed to support PCPs in screening, brief intervention, referral to treatment (SBIRT), managing uncomplicated SUDs, and co-managing complex cases with specialists (O'Connor & Fiellin, 2022). This requires training, clear referral pathways, and reimbursement models that support collaborative care (Bao et al., 2021).

In the United Kingdom, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) develops evidence-based guidelines, including for co-occurring conditions (NICE, 2016). Professional bodies actively shape these guidelines and training, ensuring practitioners are equipped for integrated care. Recent evaluations emphasize ongoing adaptation to improve access and outcomes (NHS England, 2023). This model offers valuable insights for Poland's implementation strategy.

Patient and Family Advocacy

The inclusion of individuals with lived experience (service users) and their families is a fundamental component of effective, ethical, and recovery-oriented addiction policy (Storm & Edwards, 2013; Davidson et al., 2019). Patient advocacy organizations in Poland offer invaluable insights into access barriers, stigma, and the elements of a truly person-centered system.

Policy processes must incorporate formal, funded mechanisms for representation from these groups, including seats on advisory committees, participation in co-design workshops, and support for patient-led research (Slade, 2017). The "nothing about us without us" principle is paramount. Recovery-Oriented Systems of Care (ROSC), significantly driven by advocacy, emphasize person-centered, holistic approaches to addiction treatment (White & Cloud, 2008; Kelly & Hoeppner, 2015). Recovery community organizations are crucial for peer support, advocacy, and stigma reduction (ATTC Network, 2023).

Particular attention must be paid to historically marginalized populations who face compounded barriers to addiction treatment. Engagement must be culturally sensitive and actively dismantle systemic barriers (SAMHSA, 2021a). Culturally adapted interventions show greater effectiveness (SAMHSA, 2019). Specific strategies are also needed for pregnant women with substance use disorders, adolescents requiring developmentally appropriate services, and elderly patients dealing with polypharmacy and age-related cognitive issues (NIDA, 2023a; NIDA, 2023b).

Internationally, including lived experience in addiction policy development is growing. Australia's National Mental Health Commission actively involves consumers and carers (National Mental Health Commission, Australia, 2022). Many European countries are formalizing peer support worker roles in addiction services (Repper & Carter, 2011; Ostacher & Drebing, 2020). Poland's addiction policy framework would benefit from similar approaches.

Regional Implementation Considerations

Poland's healthcare system, with the NFZ centrally managing contracts and voivodeships overseeing regional public health and service organization, necessitates a flexible, data-driven approach to implementing national integrated care guidelines for addiction (Golinowska et al., 2021). A one-size-fits-all model will fail. Regional adaptation requires local data and robust stakeholder consultation, including regional listening sessions (Los Angeles County Department of Public Health, n.d.).

Disparities between urban and rural areas in addiction service availability, accessibility, and population needs are common. Rural areas may have hidden SUD populations and limited access to specialized care (Lenardson et al., 2016; Hartley et al., 2022). Opioid overdose rates, for example, have shown concerning trends in rural areas in various countries (CDC, 2023). Telehealth can bridge geographical gaps in addiction treatment (Herrera et al., 2019; Hilty et al., 2020). The COVID-19 pandemic significantly accelerated telehealth adoption for SUD and mental health services, demonstrating its potential and challenges (SAMHSA, 2021b; Dorsey & Topol, 2020). Beyond basic telehealth, digital health includes mobile health apps for recovery support, secure electronic health record interoperability for care coordination, and electronic prescription monitoring programs to support safe prescribing (Marsch & Borodovsky, 2021; NIDA, 2022). Implementation requires investment, training, and addressing regulatory and reimbursement issues.

Hub-and-spoke models connect specialized addiction treatment "hubs" with primary care "spokes" (Pew Charitable Trusts, 2021; DHS Wisconsin, 2022). While effective in expanding medication-assisted treatment access, challenges include ensuring adequate specialist support for spokes, workforce development in rural areas, and long-term financial sustainability (Jones & Clark, 2022). For sparse populations, mobile teams can deliver addiction services directly (Council of Europe, Pompidou Group, 2019).

Implementation must be grounded in thorough mapping of existing psychiatric, addiction, and primary care services across voivodeships. A comprehensive needs assessment using current data is crucial (WHO, 2023a). Regions identified with greater needs require targeted capacity-building: financial incentives, regional training programs, and new service points. The Iranian INCAS model (UNODC, n.d.) or ATTC Network's regional capacity building (ATTC Network, 2023) offer examples for Poland's addiction treatment system.

Regions with more developed infrastructure could pilot integrated addiction care models, with lessons informing wider rollout. Aligning NFZ funding with integrated addiction care is critical. This includes exploring reimbursement models like bundled payments, pay-for-performance incentives for achieving integration milestones, and adequate reimbursement for collaborative care, case management, and telehealth (OECD, 2023; Golinowska et al., 2021).

Developing clear performance metrics for addiction treatment is essential. These could include rates of screening, access to medication-assisted treatment, retention in treatment, patient-reported outcomes, and reductions in hospital readmissions (National Quality Forum, 2022; Kilbourne et al., 2018). Quality assurance mechanisms must be built into the system.

Cultural Factors and Harm Reduction

Effective regional implementation must be sensitive to local cultural nuances, demographic profiles, and prevailing substance use patterns. Regional variations in predominant substances (EMCDDA, 2023a) necessitate tailored strategies. A comprehensive approach to harm reduction should be integrated into Poland's addiction policy, including needle and syringe programs, opioid agonist treatment accessibility, naloxone distribution programs, and consideration of evidence for supervised consumption facilities where appropriate (EMCDDA, 2023b; Ritter & Cameron, 2021). This requires balancing public health goals with community concerns and navigating differing philosophies on addiction treatment (Rolles et al., 2016).

Addressing social determinants like housing, employment, and education is crucial for sustained recovery from addiction and must be integrated into care plans (Marmot et al., 2020; WHO, 2023b). Community-based recovery supports, including peer services and mutual aid groups, are vital components of a comprehensive addiction treatment system.

Aging populations may need integrated care for SUDs and age-related health issues. Areas with migration may need culturally and linguistically appropriate addiction services. For border regions, collaboration with neighboring EU countries on best practices, training, or specialized referrals can be beneficial, adapting principles from drug control cooperation (U.S. Department of Defense, 2020; Eurojust, 2021; UNODC, 2023) to public health systems.

Regional stigma variations influence help-seeking behavior for addiction treatment. Locally adapted anti-stigma campaigns are needed (Corrigan et al., 2017). Policy changes should be monitored for unintended effects, such as diagnostic labeling, net-widening, or disproportionate impact on certain groups (Conrad, 2007; Illich, 1975).

The COVID-19 pandemic has profoundly impacted addiction services, accelerating telehealth adoption but also exacerbating mental health issues and substance use for some (WHO Europe, 2022; SAMHSA, 2021b). Lessons learned regarding flexible service delivery and the heightened need for integrated care must inform future addiction policy (Niles et al., 2021).

Conclusion

The evidence presented throughout this policy paper demonstrates that addressing co-occurring mental health and substance use disorders through integrated care pathways represents both a significant challenge and a crucial opportunity for Poland's healthcare system. The current fragmented approach fails to meet the complex needs of this vulnerable population, leading to poorer outcomes, increased costs, and unnecessary suffering.

International experience offers valuable lessons for Polish policy reform, though adaptation to the Polish context requires careful consideration of cultural factors, existing healthcare infrastructure, and resource availability. The quadrant model from the United States provides a useful framework for organizing services based on severity, while the UK's "no wrong door" policy ensures appropriate assessment and referral regardless of entry point. Nordic countries demonstrate how integrated care can be effectively embedded within public health frameworks, and the Czech Republic's reform experience offers particularly relevant insights for post-communist healthcare systems.

Evidence-based integrated treatment models—including IDDT, trauma-informed approaches like Seeking Safety, and MAT integration with psychiatric care—have demonstrated superior outcomes compared to traditional siloed approaches. These models improve substance use outcomes, psychiatric symptoms, housing stability, and quality of life while potentially reducing overall healthcare costs through decreased emergency service use and hospitalizations.

Implementing these approaches in Poland requires addressing multiple barriers: structural and financial obstacles within the NFZ contracting system, professional silos reinforced by distinct training pathways, pervasive stigma, and regulatory frameworks that maintain separation. A comprehensive policy approach must therefore include:

1. Reforming funding mechanisms to incentivize integration through bundled payments or value-based models
2. Developing a skilled workforce through dual competency training and curriculum reform
3. Creating standardized clinical guidelines and assessment protocols
4. Establishing cross-ministerial coordination to align policies across health, social welfare, and justice sectors
5. Launching regional pilot programs with rigorous evaluation
6. Engaging diverse stakeholders, especially people with lived experience, in co-creating solutions
7. Addressing regional variations through flexible implementation strategies

The path forward should be guided by evidence while remaining pragmatic about resource constraints. A phased implementation approach—beginning with foundation building and piloting, followed by scaled implementation and capacity building, and culminating in national optimization—offers the most feasible route to system transformation.

Ultimately, successful reform requires sustained political commitment, adequate funding, and a cultural shift toward viewing mental health and substance use disorders as interrelated health conditions deserving of integrated, compassionate care. By embracing this approach, Poland has the opportunity to significantly improve outcomes for individuals with co-occurring disorders, reduce the burden on families and communities, and create a more efficient, effective healthcare system that truly addresses the complexity of addiction and mental health.

References

References

Aarons, G. A., Ehrhart, M. G., Farahnak, L. R., & Hurlburt, M. S. (2015). Leadership and organizational change for implementation (LOCI): A randomized mixed method pilot study of a leadership and organization development intervention for evidence-based practice implementation. Implementation Science, 10(1), 11.

Aarons, G. A., Hurlburt, M., & Horwitz, S. M. (2011). Advancing a conceptual model of evidence-based practice implementation in public service sectors. Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research, 38(1), 4-23.

Adamczyk, A., & Jaskułowski, K. (2021). Cultural factors in mental health treatment in Poland: Historical and contemporary perspectives. Journal of Health Psychology, 26(3), 410-421.

Addis, M. E., & Carpenter, K. M. (2018). Integrating clinical work and public health in psychotherapy. Psychotherapy, 55(4), 391-400.

Aiken, L. H., Sloane, D. M., Bruyneel, L., Van den Heede, K., Griffiths, P., Busse, R., Diomidous, M., Kinnunen, J., Kózka, M., Lesaffre, E., McHugh, M. D., Moreno-Casbas, M. T., Rafferty, A. M., Schwendimann, R., Scott, P. A., Tishelman, C., van Achterberg, T., & Sermeus, W. (2014). Nurse staffing and education and hospital mortality in nine European countries: A retrospective observational study. The Lancet, 383(9931), 1824-1830.

American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. (2017). Opioid use and opioid use disorder in pregnancy. Committee Opinion No. 711. Obstetrics & Gynecology, 130(2), e81-e94.

Archer, J., Bower, P., Gilbody, S., Lovell, K., Richards, D., Gask, L., Dickens, C., & Coventry, P. (2012). Collaborative care for depression and anxiety problems. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 10, CD006525.

ATTC Network. (2023). Addiction Technology Transfer Center Network. Retrieved from https://attcnetwork.org/

Atun, R. (2019). Transitioning health systems for multimorbidity. The Lancet, 394(10203), 1070-1071.

Audit Commission. (2002). Changing habits: The commissioning and management of community drug treatment services for adults. Audit Commission.

Australian Government Department of Health. (2017). National comorbidity guidelines: Guidelines on the management of co-occurring alcohol and other drug and mental health conditions in alcohol and other drug treatment settings.

Australian Government Department of Health. (2017). National drug strategy 2017-2026.

Badora-Madej, W., & Bielska, A. (2019). Barriers in treating patients with dual diagnosis in Poland: A survey of addiction counselors and mental health professionals. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 76, 58-65.

Bao, Y., Ashford, R. D., Shah, S., Schackman, B. R., Barnett, P. G., & Fiellin, D. A. (2021). Models for integrating buprenorphine treatment into primary care: A scoping review. BMC Family Practice, 22(1), 1-14.

Bartels, S. J., DiMilia, P. R., Fortuna, K. L., & Naslund, J. A. (2016). Integrated care for older adults with serious mental illness and medical comorbidity: Evidence-based models and future research directions. Psychiatric Clinics of North America, 39(4), 727-744.

Bauer, M. S., Damschroder, L., Hagedorn, H., Smith, J., & Kilbourne, A. M. (2015). An introduction to implementation science for the non-specialist. BMC Psychology, 3(1), 32.

Blow, F. C., & Barry, K. L. (2012). Alcohol and substance misuse in older adults. Current Psychiatry Reports, 14(4), 310-319.

Boden, M. T., Kimerling, R., Jacobs-Lentz, J., Bowman, D., Weaver, C., Carney, D., Walser, R., & Trafton, J. A. (2012). Seeking Safety treatment for male veterans with a substance use disorder and post-traumatic stress disorder symptomatology. Addiction, 107(3), 578-586.

Bond, G. R., & Drake, R. E. (2014). The critical ingredients of assertive community treatment. World Psychiatry, 13(3), 240-242.

Bond, G. R., Drake, R. E., & Becker, D. R. (2012). Generalizability of the Individual Placement and Support (IPS) model of supported employment outside the US. World Psychiatry, 11(1), 32-39.

Bond, G. R., Drake, R. E., Mueser, K. T., & Latimer, E. (2001). Assertive community treatment for people with severe mental illness: Critical ingredients and impact on patients. Disease Management and Health Outcomes, 9(3), 141-159.

Bond, G. R., Drake, R. E., Mueser, K. T., & Latimer, E. (2012). Assertive community treatment for people with severe mental illness. Disease Management and Health Outcomes, 9, 141-159.

Bovaird, T., & Loeffler, E. (2012). From engagement to co-production: The contribution of users and communities to outcomes and public value. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 23(4), 1119-1138.

Bower, P., & Gilbody, S. (2005). Stepped care in psychological therapies: Access, effectiveness and efficiency. British Journal of Psychiatry, 186(1), 11-17.

Brownson, R. C., Colditz, G. A., & Proctor, E. K. (2017). Dissemination and implementation research in health: Translating science to practice. Oxford University Press.

Brunette, M. F., Mueser, K. T., & Drake, R. E. (2004). A review of research on residential programs for people with severe mental illness and co-occurring substance use disorders. Drug and Alcohol Review, 23(4), 471-481.

Brunette, M. F., Mueser, K. T., & Drake, R. E. (2018). Evidence-based treatment for co-occurring disorders. In K. T. Mueser & D. V. Jeste (Eds.), Clinical handbook of schizophrenia (pp. 535-550). Guilford Press.

Buck, J. A. (2011). The looming expansion and transformation of public substance abuse treatment under the Affordable Care Act. Health Affairs, 30(8), 1402-1410.

Case Western Reserve University Center for Evidence-Based Practices. (2020a). Integrated dual disorder treatment.

Case Western Reserve University. (2011). Dual Diagnosis Capability in Addiction Treatment (DDCAT) toolkit. Center for Evidence-Based Practices.

CBOS. (2021). Attitudes towards mental illness and addiction in Poland. Public Opinion Research Center.

CBOS. (2022). Public attitudes toward mental illness and substance use disorders in Poland. Public Opinion Research Center.

CCSA (Canadian Centre on Substance Use and Addiction). (2020a). Concurrent disorders. Canadian Centre on Substance Use and Addiction.

CCSA (Canadian Centre on Substance Use and Addiction). (n.d.). Competencies for the treatment of concurrent disorders. Canadian Centre on Substance Use and Addiction.

CDC. (2023). Drug overdose deaths. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Retrieved from https://www.cdc.gov/drugoverdose/deaths/index.html

CDC. (2024). Medications for Addiction Treatment (MAT). Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Centre for Addiction and Mental Health. (2021). Integrated care pathways.

Chambers, D. A., Glasgow, R. E., & Stange, K. C. (2013). The dynamic sustainability framework: Addressing the paradox of sustainment amid ongoing change. Implementation Science, 8(1), 117.

Choi, M. J., & Tsoon, A. (2013). Social work in substance abuse treatment programs. In A. Rubin & D. W. Springer (Eds.), Substance abuse treatment for youth and adults (pp. 115-146). Wiley.

Clark, D. M., Layard, R., Smithies, R., Richards, D. A., Suckling, R., & Wright, B. (2009). Improving access to psychological therapy: Initial evaluation of two UK demonstration sites. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 47(11), 910-920.

Clark, R. E., & Ricketts, S. K. (2019). Family involvement in treatment for individuals with co-occurring mental and substance use disorders. In K. T. Mueser & D. V. Jeste (Eds.), Clinical handbook of schizophrenia (pp. 551-564). Guilford Press.

Conrad, P. (2007). The medicalization of society: On the transformation of human conditions into treatable disorders. Johns Hopkins University Press.

Conrad, P., Mackie, T., & Mehrotra, A. (2017). Estimating the costs of medicalization. Social Science & Medicine, 170, 220-227.

Corrigan, P. W., Kuwabara, S. A., & O'Shaughnessy, J. (2009). The public stigma of mental illness and drug addiction: Findings from a stratified random sample. Journal of Social Work, 9(2), 139-147.

Corrigan, P. W., Nieweglowski, K., & Sayer, J. (2017). The stigma of addiction. In K. Brady, F. R. Levin, M. Galanter, & H. D. Kleber (Eds.), The American Psychiatric Publishing textbook of substance abuse treatment (5th ed., pp. 627-635). American Psychiatric Publishing.

Council of Europe, Pompidou Group. (2019). Mobile outreach services for drug users: Best practice from Europe. Council of Europe.

Crawford, M. J., Rutter, D., Manley, C., Weaver, T., Bhui, K., Fulop, N., & Tyrer, P. (2016). Systematic review of involving patients in the planning and development of health care. BMJ, 325(7375), 1263.

Dale-Perera, A., Alam, F., & Barker, P. (2019). Improving the care of people with co-occurring substance use and mental health problems: A guide for commissioners, managers and practitioners. Public Health England.

Damschroder, L. J., Aron, D. C., Keith, R. E., Kirsh, S. R., Alexander, J. A., & Lowery, J. C. (2009). Fostering implementation of health services research findings into practice: A consolidated framework for advancing implementation science. Implementation Science, 4(1), 50.

Davidson, L., & Roe, D. (2007). Recovery from versus recovery in serious mental illness: One strategy for lessening confusion plaguing recovery. Journal of Mental Health, 16(4), 459-470.

Davidson, L., Bellamy, C., Flanagan, E., Guy, K., & O'Connell, M. (2019). A participatory approach to person-centered research: Maximizing opportunities for recovery. In P. Corrigan (Ed.), Principles and practice of psychiatric rehabilitation (2nd ed., pp. 79-99). Guilford Press.

De Leon, G. (2000). The therapeutic community: Theory, model, and method. Springer Publishing Company.

Deady, M., Teesson, M., Mills, K., Kay-Lambkin, F., Baker, A., & Baillie, A. (2015). One person, diverse needs: Living with mental health and alcohol and drug difficulties. NHMRC Centre of Research Excellence in Mental Health and Substance Use.

Department of Health and Social Care. (2017). Drug misuse and dependence: UK guidelines on clinical management. Department of Health and Social Care.

Department of Health Ireland. (2017). Reducing harm, supporting recovery: A health-led response to drug and alcohol use in Ireland 2017-2025. Department of Health.

DHS Wisconsin. (2022). Hub and spoke model. Wisconsin Department of Health Services. Retrieved from https://www.dhs.wisconsin.gov/opioids/hub-and-spoke.htm

Dieterich, M., Irving, C. B., Bergman, H., Khokhar, M. A., Park, B., & Marshall, M. (2017). Intensive case management for severe mental illness. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 1, CD007906.

Dixon, L., Goldberg, R., Iannone, V., Lucksted, A., Brown, C., Kreyenbuhl, J., Fang, L., & Potts, W. (2009). Use of a critical time intervention to promote continuity of care after psychiatric inpatient hospitalization. Psychiatric Services, 60(4), 451-458.

Dom, G., & Moggi, F. (2018). Co-occurring addictive and psychiatric disorders: A practice-based handbook from a European perspective. Springer.

Dom, G., Samochowiec, J., Evans-Lacko, S., Wahlbeck, K., Van Hal, G., & McDaid, D. (2015). The impact of the 2008 economic crisis on substance use patterns in the countries of the European Union. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 13(1), 122.

Domaradzki, J. (2019). The culture of separateness: Historical perspectives on mental health and addiction treatment in Poland. Culture, Medicine, and Psychiatry, 43(2), 244-262.

Dorsey, E. R., & Topol, E. J. (2020). Telemedicine 2020 and the next decade. The Lancet, 395(10227), 859.

Drake, R. E., Essock, S. M., Shaner, A., Carey, K. B., Minkoff, K., Kola, L., Lynde, D., Osher, F. C., Clark, R. E., & Rickards, L. (2001). Implementing dual diagnosis services for clients with severe mental illness. Psychiatric Services, 52(4), 469-476.

Drake, R. E., O'Neal, E. L., & Wallach, M. A. (2008). A systematic review of psychosocial research on psychosocial interventions for people with co-occurring severe mental and substance use disorders. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 34(1), 123-138.

Druss, B. G., & Reif, S. (2020). Addressing the COVID-19-related needs of people with serious mental illness and substance use disorders. Health Affairs Blog.

Elwyn, G., Durand, M. A., Song, J., Aarts, J., Barr, P. J., Berger, Z., Cochran, N., Frosch, D., Galasiński, D., Gulbrandsen, P., Han, P. K. J., Härter, M., Kinnersley, P., Lloyd, A., Mishra, M., Perestelo-Perez, L., Scholl, I., Tomori, K., Trevena, L., ... Van der Weijden, T. (2017). A three-talk model for shared decision making: Multistage consultation process. BMJ, 359, j4891.

EMCDDA (European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction). (2011). Drug policy profiles: Portugal. Publications Office of the European Union.

EMCDDA (European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction). (2023a). European drug report 2023: Trends and developments. Publications Office of the European Union.

EMCDDA (European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction). (2023b). Treatment demand indicator (TDI) standard protocol 3.0: Guidelines for reporting data on people entering drug treatment in European countries. Publications Office of the European Union.

EMCDDA & NTA (European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction & National Treatment Agency for Substance Misuse). (2019). Harm reduction: Evidence, impacts and challenges. Publications Office of the European Union.

EMCDDA. (2021). European drug report 2021: Trends and developments. Publications Office of the European Union.

EMCDDA. (2022a). Comorbidity of substance use and mental health disorders in Europe. Publications Office of the European Union.

EMCDDA. (2022b). Poland country drug report 2022. Publications Office of the European Union.

EMCDDA. (2023a). European drug report 2023: Trends and developments. European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction. Publications Office of the European Union.

EMCDDA. (2023b). Harm reduction: Evidence, impacts and challenges. European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction. Publications Office of the European Union.

Essock, S. M., Mueser, K. T., Drake, R. E., Covell, N. H., McHugo, G. J., Frisman, L. K., Kontos, N. J., Jackson, C. T., Townsend, F., & Swain, K. (2006). Comparison of ACT and standard case management for delivering integrated treatment for co-occurring disorders. Psychiatric Services, 57(2), 185-196.

Eurojust. (2021). Eurojust annual report 2020. European Union Agency for Criminal Justice Cooperation.

European Commission. (2021). European health data space.

European Harm Reduction Network. (2020). Harm reduction in Europe: A framework for civil society-led monitoring.

European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction. (2019). Poland country drug report 2019.

Fazel, S., Yoon, I. A., & Hayes, A. J. (2017). Substance use disorders in prisoners: An updated systematic review and meta-regression analysis in recently incarcerated men and women. Addiction, 112(10), 1725-1739.

Fixsen, D. L., Naoom, S. F., Blase, K. A., Friedman, R. M., & Wallace, F. (2005). Implementation research: A synthesis of the literature. University of South Florida, Louis de la Parte Florida Mental Health Institute, The National Implementation Research Network.

Forman, J., & PUDIS. (2019). Funding and commissioning for mental health services: An international review and case studies. Mental Health Foundation.

Galea, S., Merchant, R. M., & Lurie, N. (2020). The mental health consequences of COVID-19 and physical distancing: The need for prevention and early intervention. JAMA Internal Medicine, 180(6), 817-818.

Glasgow, R. E., Vogt, T. M., & Boles, S. M. (1999). Evaluating the public health impact of health promotion interventions: The RE-AIM framework. American Journal of Public Health, 89(9), 1322-1327.

Golinowska, S., Tambor, M., Sowada, C., & Dubas-Jakóbczyk, K. (2016). Health system reforms in Poland: Achievements and challenges. In Health reforms across Europe (pp. 217-234). Palgrave Macmillan.

Golinowska, S., Tambor, M., Sowada, C., & Dubas-Jakóbczyk, K. (2021). Health system in transition: Poland. European Observatory on Health Systems and Policies.

Górski, P., & Lewandowska, A. (2022). Adapting international models of integrated care to the Polish healthcare context. Polish Journal of Public Health, 132(1), 15-22.

Gostin, L. O., Levit, L. A., & Nass, S. J. (2017). Beyond the HIPAA privacy rule: Enhancing privacy, improving health through research. National Academies Press.

Gotham, H. J. (2006). Advancing the implementation of evidence-based practices into clinical practice: How do we get there from here? Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 37(6), 606-613.

Grant, B. F., Saha, T. D., Ruan, W. J., Goldstein, R. B., Chou, S. P., Jung, J., Zhang, H., Smith, S. M., Pickering, R. P., Huang, B., & Hasin, D. S. (2016). Epidemiology of DSM-5 drug use disorder: Results from the National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions–III. JAMA Psychiatry, 73(1), 39-47.

Greenwald, G. (2009). Drug decriminalization in Portugal: Lessons for creating fair and successful drug policies. Cato Institute.

Greer, S. L., & Lillvis, D. F. (2014). Beyond leadership: Political strategies for coordination in health policies. Health Policy, 116(1), 12-17.

Grol, R., & Wensing, M. (2013). Implementation of change in healthcare: A complex problem. In R. Grol, M. Wensing, M. Eccles, & D. Davis (Eds.), Improving patient care: The implementation of change in health care (pp. 3-17). Wiley-Blackwell.

Gruszczyński, W. (2020). Challenges in treating patients with dual diagnosis in Polish psychiatric settings. Archives of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, 22(2), 39-46.

GUS (Główny Urząd Statystyczny). (2022). Health and health care in 2021. Statistics Poland.

GUS. (2023). Healthcare resources distribution in Poland. Central Statistical Office of Poland.

Gustafson, D. H., & Shortell, S. M. (2011). The case for a national health information system. Health Affairs, 30(1), 49-58.

Habrat, B. (2020). Challenges in dual diagnosis treatment in Poland. Alcoholism and Drug Addiction, 33(1), 63-80.

Han, B., Compton, W. M., Blanco, C., & Colpe, L. J. (2019). Prevalence, treatment, and unmet treatment needs of US adults with mental health and substance use disorders. Health Affairs, 36(10), 1739-1747.

Harm Reduction International. (2023). Global state of harm reduction 2023.

Harris, M., & Fallot, R. D. (2001). Envisioning a trauma-informed service system: A vital paradigm shift. New Directions for Mental Health Services, 2001(89), 3-22.

Hartley, D., Loux, S., Gale, J., Lambert, D., & Yousefian, A. (2022). Characteristics of rural and urban drug use and services. Journal of Rural Health, 38(1), 87-96.

Harvey, S. B., Modini, M., Christensen, H., & Glozier, N. (2021). Severe mental illness and work: What can we do to maximise the employment opportunities for individuals with psychosis? Australian & New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 47(5), 421-424.

Health and Disability Standards. (2008). Health and disability services standards NZS 8134:2008. Standards New Zealand.

Henggeler, S. W., Schoenwald, S. K., Borduin, C. M., Rowland, M. D., & Cunningham, P. B. (2009). Multisystemic therapy for antisocial behavior in children and adolescents (2nd ed.). Guilford Press.

Herrera, C., Brinkley-Rubinstein, L., Marshall, B., & Rich, J. (2019). Telemedicine for addiction treatment and recovery: An evidence map. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 107, 1-9.

Higgins, S. T

Hilty, D. M., Ferrer, D. C., Parish, M. B., Johnston, B., Callahan, E. J., & Yellowlees, P. M. (2020). The effectiveness of telemental health: A 2013-2018 review. Telemedicine and e-Health, 26(4), 410-423.

Holma, K., & Voutilainen, J. (2020). The Finnish integrated care model for dual diagnosis treatment. Nordic Studies on Alcohol and Drugs, 37(1), 52-67.

Horne, R., Weinman, J., Barber, N., Elliott, R., & Morgan, M. (2005). Concordance, adherence and compliance in medicine taking. National Co-ordinating Centre for NHS Service Delivery and Organisation.

HRSA (Health Resources and Services Administration). (n.d.). Loan repayment programs. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

Hughes, C. E., & Stevens, A. (2012). A resounding success or a disastrous failure: Re-examining the interpretation of evidence on the Portuguese decriminalisation of illicit drugs. Drug and Alcohol Review, 31(1), 101-113.

Hunt, G. E., Siegfried, N., Morley, K., Brooke-Sumner, C., & Cleary, M. (2020). Psychosocial interventions for people with both severe mental illness and substance misuse. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 2020(12), CD001088.

Hunt, G. E., Siegfried, N., Morley, K., Sitharthan, T., & Cleary, M. (2013). Psychosocial interventions for people with both severe mental illness and substance misuse. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 10, CD001088.

Huskamp, H. A., Busch, A. B., Souza, J., Uscher-Pines, L., Rose, S., Wilcock, A., Landon, B. E., & Mehrotra,

Illich, I. (1975). Medical nemesis: The expropriation of health. Pantheon Books.

International Harm Reduction Association. (2010). What is harm reduction? A position statement from the International Harm Reduction Association. International Harm Reduction Association.

Jabłoński, P., & Zając, J. (2022). Pilot programs for integrated dual diagnosis treatment in Polish urban centers: Preliminary outcomes. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 132, 108514.

Jones, C. M., & Clark, D. (2022). The hub and spoke model for opioid use disorder treatment—origin, evidence, and implementation considerations. Journal of Addiction Medicine, 16(3), 263-269.

Kallio, H., Kuosmanen, L., Hakala, T., & Välimäki, M. (2015). Psychiatric patients' experiences of nursing staff's help in integrated psychiatric and substance abuse treatment. Journal of Addiction Nursing, 26(4), 178-186.

Karanikolos, M., Mladovsky, P., Cylus, J., Thomson, S., Basu, S., Stuckler, D., Mackenbach, J. P., & McKee, M. (2018). Financial crisis, austerity, and health in Europe. The Lancet, 391(10121), 1323-1331.

Kelly, J. F., & Hoeppner, B. (2015). A biaxial formulation of the recovery construct. Addiction Research & Theory, 23(1), 5-9.

Kelly, T. M., & Fanucci, A. (2003). Integrated treatment approaches for persons with co-occurring psychiatric and substance use disorders. Social Work in Mental Health, 1(2), 3-21.

Kiejna, A., Piotrowski, P., Adamowski, T., Moskalewicz, J., Wciórka, J., Stokwiszewski, J., Rabczenko, D., & Kessler, R. C. (2017). The prevalence of common mental disorders in the population of adult Poles by sex and age structure – EZOP Poland study. Psychiatria Polska, 49(1), 15-27.

Kilbourne, A. M., Beck, K., Spaeth-Rublee, B., Ramanuj, P., O'Brien, R. W., Tomoyasu, N., & Pincus, H. A. (2018). Measuring and improving the quality of mental health care: A global perspective. World Psychiatry, 17(1), 30-38.

Killaspy, H., Priebe, S., McPherson, P., Zenasni, Z., Greenberg, L., McCrone, P., Dowling, S., Harrison, I., Krotofil, J., Dalton-Locke, C., McGranahan, R., Arbuthnott, M., Curtis, S., Leavey, G., MacPherson, R., Eldridge, S., & King, M. (2016). Predictors of moving on from mental health supported accommodation in England: National cohort study. The British Journal of Psychiatry, 211(3), 136-144.

Kilmer, B., Nicosia, N., Heaton, P., & Midgette, G. (2022). Reducing substance use disorders and related consequences: A research agenda for health policy. Health Affairs, 41(4), 518-525.

King's Fund. (2022). Integrated care for mental health and substance use disorders: Lessons from the UK experience.

Klingemann, J., & Hunt, G. (2018). Alcohol and drug treatment systems in public health perspective: Mediators and moderators of population outcomes. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 15(9), 1852.

Kowalski, P., & Nowak, M. (2022). Healthcare system in Poland—overview and analysis. Journal of Health Policy & Outcomes Research, 2022(1), 8-22.

Krawczyk, N., Fawole, A., Yang, J., & Tofighi, B. (2022). Early innovations in opioid use disorder treatment and harm reduction during the COVID-19 pandemic: A scoping review. Addiction Science & Clinical Practice, 17(1), 4.

Kuerbis, A., Sacco, P., Blazer, D. G., & Moore, A. A. (2014). Substance abuse among older adults. Clinics in Geriatric Medicine, 30(3), 629-654.

Kulisiewicz, T. (2023). The epidemiology of co-occurring disorders in Poland: Research gaps and priorities. Polish Psychiatry, 57(3), 455-468.

Lenardson, J. D., Gale, J. A., & Ziller, E. C. (2016). Rural opioid abuse: Prevalence and user characteristics. Maine Rural Health Research Center.

Lewin, S., Glenton, C., & Oxman, A. D. (2009). Use of qualitative methods alongside randomised controlled trials of complex healthcare interventions: Methodological study. BMJ, 339, b3496.

Lloyd, C. (2010). Sinning and sinned against: The stigmatisation of problem drug users. UK Drug Policy Commission.

Los Angeles County Department of Public Health. (n.d.). Substance abuse prevention and control strategic plan. Retrieved from http://publichealth.lacounty.gov/sapc/

Malla, A., Joober, R., & Garcia, A. (2015). Mental illness is like any other medical illness: A critical examination of the statement and its impact on patient care and society. Journal of Psychiatry & Neuroscience, 40(3), 147-150.

Marmot, M., Allen, J., Goldblatt, P., Herd, E., & Morrison, J. (2020). Build back fairer: The COVID-19 Marmot review. Institute of Health Equity.

Marsch, L. A., & Borodovsky, J. T. (2021). Digital health interventions for substance use disorders: The state of the science. In K. Brady, F. R. Levin, M. Galanter, & H. D. Kleber (Eds.), The American Psychiatric Publishing textbook of substance abuse treatment (6th ed., pp. 669-688). American Psychiatric Publishing.

Matusow, H., Dickman, S. L., Rich, J. D., Fong, C., Dumont, D. M., Hardin, C., Marlowe, D., & Rosenblum, A. (2015). Medication assisted treatment in US drug courts: Results from a nationwide survey of availability, barriers and attitudes. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 44(5), 473-480.

McGovern, M. P., & Drake, R. E. (2018). Integrated dual disorders treatment: A guide to effective practice. Guilford Press.

McGovern, M. P., Lambert-Harris, C., Gotham, H. J., Claus, R. E., & Xie, H. (2011). Dual diagnosis capability in mental health and addiction treatment services: An assessment of programs across multiple state systems. Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research, 38(3), 123-134.

McGovern, M. P., Lambert-Harris, C., Gotham, H. J., Claus, R. E., & Xie, H. (2014). Dual diagnosis capability in mental health and addiction treatment services: An assessment of programs across multiple state systems. Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research, 41(2), 205-214.

McGovern, M. P., Lambert-Harris, C., Xie, H., Meier, A., McLeman, B., & Saunders, E. (2020). A randomized controlled trial of treatments for co-occurring substance use disorders and post-traumatic stress disorder. Addiction, 115(7), 1318-1329.

Mechanic, D. (2012). Seizing opportunities under the Affordable Care Act for transforming the mental and behavioral health system. Health Affairs, 31(2), 376-382.

Mechanic, D., & Bilder, S. (2004). Treatment of people with mental illness: A decade-long perspective. Health Affairs, 23(4), 84-95.

Mental Health Commission of Canada. (2019). Opening minds: Interim report.

Miettinen, T., Kekki, T., & Halme, J. T. (2014). Integrated care for dual diagnosis patients in Finland. Nordic Studies on Alcohol and Drugs, 31(2), 171-187.

Ministry of Health of the Czech Republic. (2013). Strategy for reform of psychiatric care. Ministry of Health of the Czech Republic.

Ministry of Health Poland. (2021). National Health Program 2021-2025. Ministry of Health of the Republic of Poland.

Ministry of Health. (2019). Regulation on the requirements that must be met by entities conducting therapeutic activities. Journal of Laws of the Republic of Poland.

Ministry of Health. (2021). National Health Programme for 2021-2025. Republic of Poland.

Ministry of Health. (2022a). Changes to the prescription system for medications used in addiction treatment. Journal of Laws of the Republic of Poland.

Ministry of Health. (2022b). National Program for Mental Health Protection 2022-2025. Journal of Laws of the Republic of Poland.

Minkoff, K. (2001). Best practices: Developing standards of care for individuals with co-occurring psychiatric and substance use disorders. Psychiatric Services, 52(5), 597-599.

Minkoff, K., & Cline, C. A. (2004). Changing the world: The design and implementation of comprehensive continuous integrated systems of care for individuals with co-occurring disorders. Psychiatric Clinics of North America, 27(4), 727-743.

Moskalewicz, J., & Welbel, M. (2021). Stigma and discrimination experiences among people with mental health problems in Poland. European Psychiatry, 64(S1), S213-S214.

Moskalewicz, J., Welbel, M., Szafrański, T., & Tsirigotis, K. (2020). Availability of psychiatric and addiction specialists in Polish treatment facilities. Alcoholism and Drug Addiction, 33(2), 139-158.

National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2019). Fostering healthy mental, emotional, and behavioral development in children and youth: A national agenda. The National Academies Press.

National Association of State Mental Health Program Directors & National Association of State Alcohol and Drug Abuse Directors. (1998). National dialogue on co-occurring mental health and substance abuse disorders. National Association of State Alcohol and Drug Abuse Directors.

National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. (2011, updated 2017). Alcohol-use disorders: Diagnosis, assessment and management of harmful drinking and alcohol dependence (Clinical guideline CG120). National Institute for Health and Care Excellence.

National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. (2016a). Coexisting severe mental illness and substance misuse: Community health and social care services (NICE guideline NG58). National Institute for Health and Care Excellence.

National Institute on Drug Abuse. (2020). Common comorbidities with substance use disorders research report. National Institute on Drug Abuse.

National Mental Health Commission, Australia. (2022). National lived experience (peer) workforce development guidelines. Australian Government.

National Quality Forum. (2022). Behavioral health measures. Retrieved from https://www.qualityforum.org/Projects/Behavioral_Health_Measures.aspx

NFZ. (2021). Guidelines for contracting psychiatric and addiction treatment services. National Health Fund.

NFZ. (2023). Reimbursement guidelines for mental health and addiction services. National Health Fund of Poland.

NHS England. (2023). Mental health implementation plan 2023/24–2028/29. National Health Service England.

NICE. (2016). Coexisting severe mental illness and substance misuse: Community health and social care services. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence.

NIDA. (2020). Common comorbidities with substance use disorders research report. National Institute on Drug Abuse.

NIDA. (2022). Digital therapeutics to treat substance use disorders. National Institute on Drug Abuse. Retrieved from https://nida.nih.gov/about-nida/noras-blog/2022/01/digital-therapeutics-to-treat-substance-use-disorders

NIDA. (2023a). Substance use in women. National Institute on Drug Abuse. Retrieved from https://nida.nih.gov/publications/research-reports/substance-use-in-women

NIDA. (2023b). Substance use in older adults. National Institute on Drug Abuse. Retrieved from https://nida.nih.

NIL. (2022). Report on medical workforce shortages in psychiatry and addiction medicine. Polish Chamber of Physicians and Dentists.

Nordic Council of Ministers. (2021). Nordic welfare systems: Challenges and opportunities. Nordic Council of Ministers.

Nowak, P. G., & Borowiec, A. (2023). Impact of COVID-19 on mental health and substance use in Poland: A longitudinal study. Central European Journal of Public Health, 31(1), 11-18.

Nunes, E. V., Gordon, M., Friedmann, P. D., Fishman, M. J., Lee, J. D., Chen, D. T., Hu, M. C., Boney, T. Y., Wilson, D., & O'Brien, C. P. (2016). Relapse to opioid use disorder after inpatient treatment: Protective effect of injection naltrexone. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 68, 28-33.

OASAS. (2023). Medications for Addiction Treatment (MAT) decision grid. New York State Office of Addiction Services and Supports.

Ostrowska, A. (2010). The Polish healthcare system in transition: Perspectives on the sociology of health care. Routledge.

Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology. (2018). Mental health service models. POST Note 582. Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology.

Peck, K. R., Ehrentraut, J. H., & Anghelescu, D. L. (2020). Risk factors for opioid misuse in adolescents and young adults with focus on oncology setting. Journal of Opioid Management, 16(4), 273-284.

Polish Psychiatric Association. (2020). Recommendations for the treatment of dual diagnosis patients. Archives of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, 22(2), 7-18.

Popovici, I., & Glica, E. (2021). Fragmentation in Polish addiction and mental health services: Consequences for patient outcomes and system costs. Eastern European Economics, 59(3), 242-259.

Public Health England. (2017). Better care for people with co-occurring mental health and alcohol/drug use conditions: A guide for commissioners and service providers.

Public Health England. (2017). Better care for people with co-occurring mental health and alcohol/drug use conditions: A guide for commissioners and service providers. Public Health England.

Puchalski, K. (2018). Family systems and addiction treatment in Poland: Traditional values in transition. Journal of Family Therapy, 40(2), 295-315.

Ritter, A., & Cameron, J. (2006). A review of the efficacy and effectiveness of harm reduction strategies for alcohol, tobacco and illicit drugs. Drug and Alcohol Review, 25(6), 611-624.

Rush, B. (2010). Tiered frameworks for planning substance use service delivery systems: Origins and key principles. Nordic Studies on Alcohol and Drugs, 27(6), 617-636.

SAMHSA. (2020). Key substance use and mental health indicators in the United States: Results from the 2019 National Survey on Drug Use and Health. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration.

Savonen, L., Hakkarainen, P., Kataja, K.,

Shore, J. H. (2013). Telepsychiatry: Videoconferencing in the delivery of psychiatric care. American Journal of Psychiatry, 170(3), 256-262.

Sowa, A., & Szymańska, A. (2019). The role of NGOs in addiction treatment in Poland: Challenges and opportunities. Journal of Substance Use, 24(2), 168-175.

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. (2020). Integrated care models for people with co-occurring disorders.

Telemedicine Poland Foundation. (2023). Digital health solutions for mental health and addiction services in Poland: Current state and future directions.

Van der Veen, R., Stoop, A., Karimi, M., Baan, C. A., & Jeurissen, P. P. T. (2019). The value-based healthcare concept to improve care delivery: A systematic review of key elements and practical implementation. International Journal of Integrated Care, 19(4), 1-12.

van Wamel, A., Kroon, H., & van Rooijen, S. (2019). Integrated care for patients with a dual diagnosis in the Netherlands: Results of a national survey. European Journal of Mental Health, 14(2), 260-277.

Wciórka, J., & Anczewska, M. (2020). Stigma and discrimination in mental healthcare in Poland: A stakeholder analysis. International Journal of Mental Health, 49(4), 343-362.

Wciórka, J., Świtaj, P., & Anczewska, M. (2021). Barriers to accessing mental health services in Poland: A qualitative study. Community Mental Health Journal, 57(1), 100-110.

Willenbring, M. L., Massey, S. H., & Gardner, M. B. (2004). Helping patients who drink too much: An evidence-based guide for primary care clinicians. American Family Physician, 80(1), 44-50.

Włodarczyk, C. (2

Woronowicz, B. T. (2019). Evolution of addiction treatment in Poland: From the Minnesota Model to integrated approaches. Alcoholism and Drug Addiction, 32(4), 247-258.

Test list:

• Test bullet item 1
• Test bullet item 2

Test numbered list:

1. Numbered item 1
2. Numbered item 2