Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) was announced as a pandemic by the World Health Organization (WHO) on March 11, 2020 (1). COVID-19 quickly became a global concern given the rapid transmission of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) (the infectious agent), lack of a vaccine or evidence-based treatments, person-to-person airborne spread of SARS-CoV-2, and high mortality of COVID-19 in specific populations, especially marginalized groups and/or those with preexisting conditions (2). Lack of capacity to anticipate, cope with, resist, and recover from COVID-19-related health consequences are related to individual vulnerability (3). To manage the current situation successfully, vulnerable groups should be recognized and helped with special considerations by relevant health systems (4).

According to the World Drug Report 2020, among ~269 million people with past-year drug use, over 35 million people experienced substance use disorders (SUDs) (5). People with SUDs (PWSUDs) may be particularly vulnerable to COVID-19 and its complications for multiple reasons (6). PWSUDs are at a higher risk of psychiatric problems such as mixed affective states (7); vice versa, polysubstance use and alcohol use disorder are common among patients with bipolar disorders (8). Moreover, PWSUDs experience underlying diseases that constitute risk factors for COVID-19 infection or can be exacerbated by it; for instance, long-term use of substances may cause cardiovascular problems (9) and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (10). Such comorbidities may exacerbate superimposed COVID-19 symptoms and lead to higher mortality rates (11). Poor immune system functioning is also prevalent in PWSUDs because of chronic alcohol and drug use and blood-borne or sexually transmitted illnesses (12), poor nutritional status (13), and socioeconomic factors (14). Among PWSUDs, people who inject drugs (PWIDs) are at exceptionally high risk of COVID-19, as well as overdoses, unsafe injections, and risky sex (15).

Psychological conditions (e.g., phobia, anxiety, and panic attacks) during natural disasters and pandemics, which may be precipitated, perpetuated, or exacerbated through social isolation and quarantine, may lead at-risk people to start and/or relapse into drug taking (11, 16). Psychiatric comorbidity has a negative impact on recovery from COVID-19 and may increase the risk of non-fatal and fatal overdoses and suicides (16). In the general population, COVID-19 and related concerns such as potential mortality may act as internal stressors (17) and promote cognitive impairments (18) in domains such as decision making (19), problem solving (20), and attention (21) and thus may increase the incidence and prevalence of psychiatric disorders including PWSUDs (22).

Stigma may undermine social cohesion, contributing to situations in which the virus is more, not less, likely to spread. Such spread may result in more severe health problems and difficulties controlling a disease outbreak (23). There is an elevated likelihood for PWSUDs to be homeless and live in crowded shelters and neighborhoods (24). Synergistically, poor economic status linked to limited access to health care (25) may exacerbate risks for PWSUDs and PWIDs (15). Drug supply chains may be disrupted, and changes in licit and illicit markets may be accompanied by reductions in quality and safety (5, 26).

Furthermore, patients' accessibility to treatment services could be restricted due to lockdown policies (27). Patients receiving opioid agonist treatment (OAT) may not be able to access daily doses of medications (11); spatial distancing may make home detoxification difficult; and closing of non-essential services and utilizing staff and other resources to manage acute COVID-19 cases could result in sudden and uncoordinated closures of services for PWSUDs (26). Individuals who use multiple substances may be particularly impacted (28). Adaptive capacities of systems to epidemic situations that need coordinated responses may relate directly to vulnerabilities of the same systems (29). Accessibility to and equal distribution of wealth (financial and other resources, reliable and correct information and communication channels, appropriate and proportionate working technologies) compounded by reductions in social and relationship capital may impact social resilience to coping with pandemics (30).

To understand better complexities that are challenging addiction treatment and harm reduction services globally, the International Society of Addiction Medicine (ISAM) has been conducting a global longitudinal survey aiming to evaluate rapidly and over time how different countries are maintaining and/or reorganizing their substance use treatment and harm reduction services during the COVID-19 pandemic. This paper will report how different countries have adapted their health system response to emerging needs in the first month after the WHO's official announcement of the pandemic.

Description of the methodology used for this survey has been published as a study protocol (31). Potential respondents were contacted on April 4, 2020 asking about the COVID-19 pandemic impact on PWSUDs in their own countries. Data collection was concluded on May 8, 2020.

The emergence of COVID-19 in early 2020 raised considerable challenges for substance use treatment and harm reduction programs worldwide, as reflected in this global survey. The need for effective spatial distancing and isolation to protect patients, the treatment workforce, and people in contact with patients and health workers have placed increased demands on treatment services provision, with potential imbalances in impact on particularly vulnerable patient populations (28). Here, in this global survey, we have explored different challenges and health responses in 77 countries. Our findings showed that respondents from 56% of participating countries reported business contingency plans had been arranged to help ensure that services would continue to operate during the pandemic, which is compatible with responses to another question indicating that 41% of respondents believed there had not been sufficient availability and accessibility of treatment and harm reduction services during the onset of the pandemic in their countries at the time of survey completion.

As a preventative measure to reduce COVID-19 spread, all international and national published guidelines advised limited but effective ways regarding how to initiate treatment, support stabilization, and maintenance and continue to provide harm reduction measures to treatment-seeking and other populations with substance use problems (4, 34). These recommendations often included extending flexibility in OAT services with reduced supervision of doses and increased home delivery (35). Another step taken to adjust to the present situation included expanding telemedicine and teletherapy services (5, 28, 34).

The COVID-19 pandemic is synergistically interacting with a substance use epidemic globally, creating a syndemic [defined as a synergistic epidemic, the aggregation of two or more concurrent or sequential epidemics, which exacerbate the prognosis and burden of disease (36)]. During the COVID-19 pandemic, marginalized people, including PWSUDs, are at greater risk of increased morbidity and mortality (37). These syndemic disadvantaged populations may be more likely to experience disparate, possibly substandard, service provision in systems prioritizing resource needs around a pandemic response (Inverse Response Law and Inverse Care Law) (38). Such inequities may present at macrolevels around effective and appropriate policymaking at national, organizational, and local levels (38) and at microlevels around areas of access to resources, social services, public health benefits of medical treatments, pharmacies, healthcare facilities, and provision of medical equipment (39).

Proactive business continuity plans for PWSUDs are important for all governments as part of COVID-19 remobilization plans and possible future responses to similar pandemics to support and avert delays and inequities in responses. Overall, PWSUDs are at risk for a negative impact of COVID-19 (6); it is also essential to mention that gender differences play a substantial role in the vulnerabilities of PWSUDs (40). Our findings showed that 88% of respondents reported continuity of other necessary medical and psychiatric care compared to <60% who reported the existence of business continuity/contingency plans and enough availability and accessibility of treatment and harm reduction services for PWSUDs. These findings suggest that policymakers and health authorities in each country could have possibly made more appropriate decisions in order to protect at-risk and marginalized PWSUDs including those who may be homeless, have HIV/AIDS, hepatitis, or multiple and complex morbidities. Such decisions may involve considering how to subtly provide scheduled and new appointments and prescription medications in the circumstances of lockdowns.

This study has multiple limitations that have been described in detail in the study protocol of the survey (31). The responses obtained were intentionally based around personal opinions of addiction medicine experts to help understand the “state of things in real life” rather than objective epidemiological data, which would have been considerably delayed. Therefore, ethical approval has not been taken from each of the countries that participated in the survey. The limited number of respondents makes this information non-representative and possibly biased. In other words, the survey results might be subject to bias and not demonstrate a true reflection of addiction services in their countries. Hence, the findings (opinions) have a high chance of subjective biasing. Sampling bias is another limitation, and indeed due to sampling methodology, the participants were not necessarily oriented to all domains of the questionnaire.

Given the urgency of the COVID-19 pandemic, the paper aims to alert and inform colleagues around the world and facilitate collaboration. Due to the time limitations, the questionnaire was circulated only in English. Therefore, some experts may have withdrawn from the survey for lingual reasons, and others may have answered questions less precisely.

Based on our findings in this global survey, we conclude that the addiction medicine systems in all countries, regardless of income level, have been affected to some degree by the COVID-19 pandemic. Depending on the different domains and the ability of countries to adapt to existing conditions, these effects may differ across jurisdictions. Income level may relate importantly to responses and impact vulnerable groups like PWSUDs. Although this survey's findings should be interpreted with caution, the translation of our study results as recommendations for addiction medicine services, and policymakers would hopefully support a more resilient system of care that improves responses to future COVID-19 waves and other pandemics.

Continuity of services, especially in crises, needs certain evidence-based and locally tailored protocols and guidelines. In our study, addiction medicine professionals reported that most of their countries did not provide early guidelines or protocols to tailor their services to the pandemic. It is important to consider that respondents in only one-third of low-income countries reported the availability of such guidelines compared to respondents in half of the high-income countries. Another survey (41) conducted in four high-income regions (New South Wales, Ireland, Scotland, New York State, and British Columbia) found that special guidelines in response to the new situation and assurance of continuity of the services were available very soon after the start of lockdown, which is consistent with our findings that high-income countries had a more timely response in this domain. In the absence of guidelines and protocols, clinicians and service providers may not effectively balance various competing ethical and professional issues when they are making clinical and operational decisions when many things may be happening that could potentially be conflicting in nature (e.g., maintaining stability but reducing therapeutic contacts). Guidelines also allow stakeholders to improvise and identify innovative ways through evidence-based solutions to decrease the dual burden of substance use and COVID-19 infection (42). International organizations such as the WHO and United Nations Office of Drug Control (UNODC) and other related groups such as the International Society of Addiction Medicine (ISAM), International Society of Substance Use Professionals (ISSUP), and World Federation Against Drugs (WFAD) should provide adequate support to raise policymakers' knowledge in the area of addiction medicine on how to establish business continuity committees during initial stages of pandemics in order to make advanced care planning decisions through effective leadership.

Additionally, our results showed that respondents reported the shortage of opioid medication for maintenance treatment from about 40% of participating countries. Lack of opioid medications in patients undergoing maintenance treatment is a risk factor for a lapse, relapse, and/or overdoses. This situation may become more severe when transport and other supply chains are disrupted, compounded with the reduced provision by pharmacies and other dispensing outlets either due to spatial distancing, and reduced hours of service and/or closing during the pandemic.

According to this finding, we recommend that governments and local authorities be cognizant that an effective response system is based on a well-informed and supportive environment. Available and communicated international and national clinical guidelines are pivotal in future responses to similar pandemics when supporting PWSUDs.

The World Drug Report 2020 stated that “If Governments respond the same way to the current economic slump, interventions such as prevention of drug use and related risk behaviors and drug treatment services could be hard hit” (43). Substance use accounts for ~11% of the global health burden (44). Treatment is a critical strategy for reducing the burden of the disease. A study of World Mental Health Surveys (45) found that only 7.1% of PWSUDs had received at least minimally adequate treatment in the past year (10.3, 4.3, and 1.0%, respectively, in high-, upper-middle, and low/lower-middle-income countries) (46). Poor access to treatment, awareness/perceived treatment need, and compliance (on the part of both provider and client) have been reported to be the main barriers to substance use treatment (46).

Our results also show that harm reduction services seem to be among the most affected during the initial stages of the COVID-19 pandemic. Eighty-one percent of participating countries reported limitations in usage of any mobile and other outreach services due to lockdown policies for homeless PWSUDs, with respondents from 57% of participating countries reporting limitations in their harm reduction overdose services during the initial period of the pandemic. This was compounded with reported problems with the distribution of take-home naloxone as reported by respondents from 57% of participating countries. Finally, respondents from 54.8% of participating countries reported that there had been shortages at needle and syringe programs and/or of condom distribution. International organizations with regional and local government structures should create contingencies around adequate supplies of medications such as methadone and Buprenorphine. Harm reduction services, especially outreach services, are among the most effective strategies for preventing HIV, hepatitis C virus (HCV), and hepatitis B virus (HCV) transmission among the most at-risk populations (47).

Pregnant women and immigrants/refugees with SUDs are particularly among vulnerable groups. According to our survey responses, pregnant women were perceived as relatively less impacted during the initial period of the pandemic. This is reassuring, as discontinuity of treatment services could place not only a pregnant woman at high risk but also the developing fetus. However, refugee and immigrant populations were reported as having had their services impacted more than other groups due to the pandemic. Only 12.9% of respondents replied that service for refugees and/or immigrants population continued as usual, and 57.3% replied that this service continued but with severe limitations (48).

These findings highlight the fact that harm reduction initiatives should be seen as an integral part of an evidence-based treatment program and not as an adjunct to failed treatment and/or solely as a public health response to reduce blood-borne diseases. Service providers should be considering identifying person-centered, continuous care provision in all therapeutic options available (harm reduction initiatives included), especially during pandemic situations.

Lastly, our findings suggest that, in general, in multiple domains of countries' reactions to the pandemic (e.g., availability of and access to treatment and harm reduction, screening and early interventions, flexibility in service provision and services for special and high-risk populations), the COVID-19 pandemic has had a more negative impact that is linked to the income level of countries. Vulnerable groups such as immigrants and refugees with SUDs should have access to all possible therapeutic options available as described in the UN charter in the Human Rights Convention (“International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families”). Appropriate evidence-based services must be designed and implemented by health authorities for such vulnerable groups. Availability of all relevant resources is essential in the delivery of quality services.

Due to the methodological limitations of the study, the findings of this survey might not demonstrate the exact situation of the countries. AB is a staff member of UNODC. The authors alone are responsible for the views expressed in this article, and they do not necessarily represent the decisions or policies of the UNODC or other organizations.

The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors upon request.

The studies involving human participants were reviewed and approved by The University of Social Welfare and Rehabilitation Sciences ethics committee, Tehran, Iran (Code: IR.USWR.REC.1399.061). The patients/participants provided their written informed consent to participate in this study.

SRR, AF, HE, CD, and AMB conceived and designed the study. SRR, AF, PR, MV, HE, CD, and AMB conducted the survey and collected the data. ME and PR analyzed the data and ran the statistical analyses. SRR, AF, HE, CD, MY, and AMB supervised the analysis and gave conceptual advice. SRR, AF, PR, MV, HE, CD, and AMB contributed to drafting the manuscript. CK, SA, AB, and MP edited the manuscript. All authors discussed the results and implications and commented on the final manuscript.

Adrian Octavian Abagiu¹, Franck David Noel Abouna², Mohamed Hassan Ahmed³, Basma Al-ansari⁴, Feda Mahmmoud Abu Al-khair⁵, Mandhar Humaid Almaqbali⁶, Atul Ambekar⁷, Hossein Mohaddes Ardabili⁸, Sidharth Arya⁹, Victor Olufolahan Lasebikan¹⁰, Murad Ali Ayasreh¹¹, Debasish Basu¹², Zoubir Benmebarek¹³, Roshan Bhad⁷, Mario Blaise¹⁴, Nicolas Bonnet¹⁵, Jennifer Brasch¹⁶, Barbara Broers¹⁷, Jenna L. Butner¹⁸, Moses Camilleri¹⁹, Giovanna Campello ²⁰, Giuseppe Carra²¹, Ivan Celic²², Fatemeh Chalabianloo²³, Abhishek Chaturvedi²⁴, José de Jesús Eduardo Noyola Cherpitel²⁵, Kelly J. Clark²⁶, Melissa Anne Cyders²⁷, Ernesto de Bernardis²⁸, John Edward Derry²⁹, Naveen Kumar Dhagudu³⁰, Pavla Dolezalova³¹, Geert Dom³², Adrian John Dunlop³³, Mahmoud Mamdouh Elhabiby³⁴, Hussien Elkholy³⁵, Nsidibe Francis Essien³⁶, Ghandi Ilias Farah³⁷, Marica Ferri³⁸, Georgios D Floros³⁹, Catherine Friedman⁴⁰, Clara Hidalgo Fuderanan⁴¹, Gilberto Gerra¹⁷, Abhishek Ghosh¹², Maka Gogia⁴², Ilias A. Grammatikopoulos⁴³, Paolo Grandinetti⁴⁴, Amira Guirguis⁴⁵, David Gutnisky⁴⁶, Paul Steven Haber⁴⁷, Peyman Hassani-Abharian⁴⁸, Zahra Hooshyari⁴⁹, Islam Ibrahim Mokhtar Ibrahim³⁴, Hada Fong-ha Ieong⁵⁰, Regina Nova Indradewi⁵¹, Shelly Iskandar⁵², Shobhit Jain⁵³, Sandi James⁵⁴, Seyyed Mohammad hossein Javadi⁵⁵, Keun Ho Joe⁵⁶, Darius Jokubonis⁵⁷, Acka Tushevska Jovanova⁵⁸, Rama Mohamed Kamal⁵⁹, Alexander Ivanov Kantchelov⁶⁰, Preethy Kathiresan⁷, Gary Katzman⁶¹, Paul Kawale⁶², Audrey Margaret Kern⁶³, Felix Henrique Paim Kessler⁶⁴, Sung-Gon Sue Kim⁶⁵, Ann Marie Kimball⁶⁶, Zeljko Kljucevic⁶⁷, Kristiana Siste⁶⁸, Roneet Lev⁶⁹, Hae Kook Lee⁷⁰, Aiste Lengvenyte⁷¹, Shaul Lev-ran^{72, 73}, Geni Seseja Mabelya⁷⁴, Mohamed Ali El Mahi⁷⁵, J. Maphisa Maphisa⁷⁶, Icro Maremmani⁷⁷, Laura Masferrer⁷⁸, Orlagh McCambridge⁷⁹, Garrett Gregory McGovern⁸⁰, Aung Kyi Min⁸¹, Amir Moghanibashi-Mansourieh⁵⁶, Jazman Mora-Rios⁸², Indika Udaya Kumara Mudalige⁸³, Diptadhi Mukherjee⁸⁴, Pejic Munira Munira⁸⁵, Bronwyn Myers⁸⁶, Jayakrishnan Menon T N⁸⁷, Venkata Lakshmi Narasimha⁸⁸, Nkemakolam Ndionuka⁸⁹, Ali-Akbar Nejatisafa⁹⁰, Kamran Niaz²⁰, Asad Tamizuddin Nizami⁹¹, Jan H. Nuijens⁹², Laura Orsolini⁹³, Vantheara Oum⁹⁴, Adegboyega Adekunle Oyemade⁹⁵, Irena Rojnia Palavra⁹⁶, Sagun Ballav Pant⁹⁷, Joselyn Paredes⁹⁸, Eric Peyron⁹⁹, Randall Alberto Quirós¹⁰⁰, Rouhollah Qurishi¹⁰¹, Noor ul Zaman Rafiq¹⁰², Ranjini Raghavendra Rao¹⁰³, Woraphat Ratta-apha¹⁰⁴, Karren-Lee Raymond¹⁰⁵, Jens Reimer¹⁰⁶, Eduardo Renaldo¹⁰⁷, Tara Rezapour¹⁰⁸, James Roy Robertson¹⁰⁹, Carlos Roncero¹¹⁰, Fazle Roub¹¹¹, Elizabeth Jane Rubenstein¹¹², Claudia Ines Rupp¹¹³, Elizabeth Saenz²⁰, Mohammad Salehi¹¹⁴, Lampros Samartzis¹¹⁵, Laura Beatriz Sarubbo¹¹⁶, Nusa Segrec¹¹⁷, Bigya Shah¹¹⁸, Hongxian Shen¹¹⁹, Tomohiro Shirasaka¹²⁰, Steve Shoptaw¹²¹, Fransiskus Muronga Sintango¹²², Veronica Andrea Sosa¹²³, Emilis Subata¹²⁴, Norberto Sztycberg¹²⁵, Fatemeh Taghizadeh¹²⁶, Joseph Brian Tay Wee Teck¹²⁷, Christian Tjagvad¹²⁸, Marta Torrens¹²⁹, Judith Meme Twala¹³⁰, Ramyadarshni Vadivel¹³¹, Joseph Robert Volpicelli¹³², Jelmer Weijs¹³³, Steven Michael Wintoniw¹³⁴, Apisak Wittayanookulluk¹³⁵, Marcin Wojnar¹³⁶, Sadia Yasir⁹¹, Yimenu Yitayih¹³⁷, Min Zhao¹³⁸ and Arash Khojasteh Zonoozi¹³⁹

¹ Prof. Dr. Matei Bals- Arena OMT Department, National Institute for Infectious Diseases, Bucharest, Romania

² Faculty of Medicine and Biomedical Sciences, University of Yaoundé 1, Yaoundé, Cameroon

³ Alamal psychiatric hospital, Dubai, United Arab Emirates

⁴ Sydney Medical School, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia

⁵ Al Ahliyya Amman University, Amman, Jordan

⁶ Ministry of Health, Muscat, Oman

⁷ Department of Psychiatry and National Drug Dependence Treatment Center (NDDTC), All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS), New Delhi, India

⁸ Faculty of Medicine, Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences Research Center, Ibn-e-Sina Hospital, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, Mashhad, Iran

⁹ State Drug Dependence Treatment Center, Institute of Mental Health, Pt BDS University of Health Sciences, Rohtak, India

¹⁰ Department of Psychiatry, College of Medicine, University of Ibadan, Ibadan, Nigeria

¹¹ Addiction medicine clinic, Amman, Jordan

¹² Department of Psychiatry, Drug De-addiction & Treatment Center, Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education & Research, Chandigarh, India

¹³ Addiction medicine clinic, Mila, Algeria

¹⁴ Center medical Marmottan, Paris, France

¹⁵ Réseau de Prévention des Addictions (RESPADD), Paris, France

¹⁶ Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Neurosciences, Michael DeGroote School of Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada

¹⁷ Geneva University Hospitals, Geneva, Switzerland

¹⁸ CUNY School of Medicine, New York, NY, United States

¹⁹ Aġenzija Sedqa, Santa Venera, Malta

²⁰ United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC), Vienna, Austria

²¹ Department of Medicine and Surgery, University Milan-Bicocca, Milan, Italy

²² University Psychiatric Hospital Vrapce, Zagreb, Croatia

²³ Department of Addiction Medicine, Haukeland University Hospital, Bergen, Norway

²⁴ Department of Biochemistry, Melaka Manipal Medical College, Manipal Academy of Higher Education, Manipal, India

²⁵ Addiction medicine clinic, Mexico City, Mexico

²⁶ Addiction Crisis Solutions, Louisville, KY, United States

²⁷ Department of Psychology, Indiana University Purdue University - Indianapolis, Indianapolis, IN, United States

²⁸ SerT Lentini, ASP Siracusa, Syracuse, Italy

²⁹ Serenity Vista Addiction Treatment Center, Jaramillo, Panama

³⁰ Department of Psychiatry, ESIC Medical College, Hyderabad, India

³¹ National Institute of Mental Health, Klecany, Czechia

³² Collaborative Antwerp Psychiatric Research Institute (CAPRI), Antwerp University (UA), Antwerp, Belgium

³³ Drug & Alcohol Clinical Services, Hunter New England Local Health District, New Lambton, NSW, Australia

³⁴ Ain Shams University, Cairo, Egypt

³⁵ Department of Neurology and Psychiatry, Faculty of Medicine, Ain Shams University, Cairo, Egypt

³⁶ Center for Research and Information on Substance Abuse, Jos, Nigeria

³⁷ Addiction Medicine Clinic, Damascus, Syria

³⁸ European Monitoring Center for Drugs and Drug Addiction (EMCDDA), Lisbon, Portugal

³⁹ 2nd Department of Psychiatry, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki, Greece

⁴⁰ Brown University and Lifespan Health System, Providence, RI, United States

⁴¹ Fuderanan Mental Health Clinic, Manila, Philippines

⁴² Georgian Harm Reduction Network, Tbilisi, Georgia

⁴³ Organization Against Drugs, Primary Care Health Center, Veria, Greece

⁴⁴ Addictions Services (Ser.D.), Department of Territorial Assistance, ASL Teramo, Teramo, Italy

⁴⁵ Swansea University Medical School, Institute of Life Sciences 2, Sketty, United Kingdom

⁴⁶ Hospital Borda, Universidad de Buenos Aires, Buenos Aires, Argentina

⁴⁷ University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia

⁴⁸ Institutes for Cognitive Science Studies (IRICSS), Brain and Cognition Clinic, Tehran, Iran

⁴⁹ Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran

⁵⁰ Department of Anesthesiology, Yale University, New Haven, CT, United States

⁵¹ Drugs Rehabilitation Center, National Narcotics Board of Indonesia, East Jakarta, Indonesia

⁵² Department of Psychiatry, Universitas Padjadjaran, Bandung, Indonesia

⁵³ Department of Psychiatry, Heritage Institute of Medical Sciences (HIMS), Varanasi, India

⁵⁴ Univeristi Malaysia Sabah, Sabah, Malaysia

⁵⁵ Department of Social Work, University of Social Welfare & Rehabilitation Sciences, Tehran, Iran

⁵⁶ National Center for Mental Health of Korea, Seoul, South Korea

⁵⁷ Republican Center for Addictive Disorders, Vilnius, Lithuania

⁵⁸ Addiction medicine clinic, Skopje, North Macedonia

⁵⁹ Naufar Institute, Doha, Qatar

⁶⁰ The Kantchelov Clinic, Sofia, Bulgaria

⁶¹ Mount Sinai Medical Center, New York, NY, United States

⁶² African Institute for Development Policy, Lilongwe, Malawi

⁶³ Sobriety Centers of New Hampshire, Antrim, NH, United States

⁶⁴ Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre, Brazil

⁶⁵ Department of Neuropsychiatry, Pusan National University Yangsan Hospital, YangsanSouth Korea

⁶⁶ Chatham House, Washington, United States

⁶⁷ Institute for Public Health of Split-Dalmatia County, Split, Croatia

⁶⁸ Faculty of Medicine, Universitas Indonesia-Ciptomangunkusumo Hospital, Jakarta, Indonesia

⁶⁹ Scripps Mercy Hospital, San Diego, CA, United States

⁷⁰ Department of Psychiatry, The Catholic University of Korea, Seoul, South Korea

⁷¹ Faculty of Medicine, Institute of Clinical Medicine, Psychiatric Clinic, Vilnius University, Vilnius, Lithuania

⁷² Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel

⁷³ Israel Center on Addiction, Netanya, Israel

⁷⁴ Community Health Work, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania

⁷⁵ Hayat Center for Treatment and Psycho-social Rehabilitation, Khartoum, Sudan

⁷⁶ University of Botswana, Gaborone, Botswana

⁷⁷ V.P. Dole, Dual Disorder Unit, Santa Chiara University Hospital, University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy

⁷⁸ CAS Girona, Department of Psychology, University of Girona, Girona, Spain

⁷⁹ Community addiction team, Southern Health and Social Care Trust, Craigavon, United Kingdom

⁸⁰ Priority Medical Clinic, Dublin, Ireland

⁸¹ Save the Children International, Yangon, Myanmar

⁸² Dirección de Investigaciones Epidemiológicas y Sociales, Instituto Nacional de Psiquiatría Ramón de la Fuente Muñiz, Mexico City, México

⁸³ Department of Psychiatry, Faculty of Medicine, Sir John Kotelawala Defense University, Colombo, Sri Lanka

⁸⁴ Center for Addiction Medicine, NIMHANS, Bangalore, India

⁸⁵ Kleopatra Kodric, Irena Nisic, Ljubljana, Slovenia

⁸⁶ Alcohol Tobacco and Other Drug Research Unit, South African Medical Research Council, Cape Town, South Africa

⁸⁷ NIMHANS, Bangalore, India

⁸⁸ Department of Psychiatry, Center for Addiction Medicine, National Institute of Mental Health and Neurosciences, Bengaluru, India

⁸⁹ Federal Neuropsychiatric Hospital, Calabar, Nigeria

⁹⁰ Department of Psychiatry, Psychosomatic Research Center, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran

⁹¹ Institute of Psychiatry, WHO Collaborating Center for Mental Health, Rawalpindi, Pakistan

⁹² Brijder Addiction Care, Zaandam, Netherlands

⁹³ Department of Clinical Neurosciences/DIMSC, Unit of Clinical Psychiatry, School of Medicine, Polytechnic University of Marche, Ancona, Italy

⁹⁴ Koh Kong Provincial Hospital, Phoumin, Cambodia

⁹⁵ Kaiser Permanente, Oakland, CA, United States

⁹⁶ Psychiatric hospital Sveti Ivan, Zagreb, Croatia

⁹⁷ Department of Psychiatry and mental health, Institute of Medicine, Tribhuvan University, Kirtipur, Nepal

⁹⁸ Universidad de El Salvador, San Salvador, El Salvador

⁹⁹ AddiPsy, Lyon, France

¹⁰⁰ Addiction medicine clinic, San José, Costa Rica

¹⁰¹ Novadic-Kentron Addiction Care Network, Vught, Netherlands

¹⁰² Phoenix Foundation for Research and Development, Lahore, Pakistan

¹⁰³ Barwon Health, Geelong, VIC, Australia

¹⁰⁴ Faculty of Medicine Siriraj Hospital, Mahidol University, Salaya, Thailand

¹⁰⁵ University of the Sunshine Coast (USC), Queensland, QLD, Australia

¹⁰⁶ Center for Interdisciplinary Addiction Research, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany

¹⁰⁷ Drugs Rehabilitation Center, National Narcotics Board of Indonesia, East Jakarta, Indonesia

¹⁰⁸ Department of Cognitive Psychology, Institute for Cognitive Science Studies, Tehran, Iran

¹⁰⁹ Usher Institute, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom

¹¹⁰ Psychiatry Service, University of Salamanca Health Care Complex, School of Medicine, University of Salamanca, Salamanca, Spain

¹¹¹ PGIMER, Chandigarh, India

¹¹² Street Health Center, Kingston, ON, Canada

¹¹³ Department of Psychiatry, Psychotherapy, and Psychosomatics, Medical University Innsbruck, Innsbruck, Austria

¹¹⁴ Department of Neurosciences and Addiction Studies, School of Advanced Technologies in Medicine, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran

¹¹⁵ Medical School, University of Cyprus, Cyprus

¹¹⁶ Clínica Psiquiátrica de la Facultad de Medicina, Uruguay

¹¹⁷ Center for Treatment of Drug addiction, University Psychiatric Clinic, Ljubljana, Slovenia

¹¹⁸ Department of Psychiatry, Patan Academy of Health Sciences, School of Medicine, Lagankhel, Nepal

¹¹⁹ Department of Psychiatry, Second Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, Changsha, China

¹²⁰ Department of Psychiatry, Teine Keijinkai Medical Center, Sapporo, Hokkaido, Japan

¹²¹ Department of Family Medicine, David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, Los Angeles, CA, United States

¹²² Health Professions Councils of Namibia, Windhoek, Namibia

¹²³ Addiction medicine clinic, Montevideo, Uruguay

¹²⁴ Republican Center for Addictive Disorders, Vilnius, Lithuania

¹²⁵ Asociasion Programa Andres Argentina, Santa Fe, Argentina

¹²⁶ Mazandaran University of Medical Sciences, Mazandaran, Iran

¹²⁷ MRC/CSO SPHSU, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, United Kingdom

¹²⁸ Gladsaxe Substance Use Disorder Treatment Center, Gladsaxe, Denmark

¹²⁹ Institut de Neuropsiquiatria i Addiccions, IMIM-Hospital del Mar, Medical Research Barcelona, Spain

¹³⁰ NACADA, Nairobi, Kenya

¹³¹ Waikato District Health Board (WDHB) Hamilton, Hamilton, New Zealand

¹³² Institute of Addiction Medicine, Plymouth Meeting, PA, United States

¹³³ Jellinek, Amsterdam, Netherlands

¹³⁴ Addictions Foundation of Manitoba, Manitoba, Canada

¹³⁵ Thanyarak Chiangmai hospital, Khilek, Thailand

¹³⁶ Medical University of Warsaw, Warsaw, Poland

¹³⁷ Jimma University, Jimma, Ethiopia

¹³⁸ Shanghai Mental Health Center, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China

¹³⁹ Student Research Committee, Faculty of Medicine, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, Mashhad, Iran

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.