This scenario is professionally challenging because it requires balancing the immediate need for information with the ethical and legal obligations to protect client confidentiality and ensure informed consent. The assessor must navigate the complexities of data collection for evaluation purposes while respecting the rights and privacy of individuals involved in substance use prevention programs. Careful judgment is required to avoid compromising the integrity of the assessment or violating established protocols. The best professional approach involves obtaining explicit, informed consent from all participants before collecting any data, including observations or interviews related to their involvement in the substance use prevention program. This approach ensures that individuals understand the purpose of the evaluation, how their information will be used, and their right to refuse participation or withdraw at any time. This aligns with ethical principles of autonomy and respect for persons, and is a fundamental requirement for any research or evaluation involving human subjects, particularly in sensitive areas like substance use. Adherence to data protection regulations, which mandate consent for data collection and processing, is paramount. Failing to obtain informed consent before observing or interviewing participants constitutes a significant ethical and regulatory breach. It violates the principle of autonomy, as individuals are not given the opportunity to agree to their involvement in the evaluation. This can lead to a loss of trust, potential legal repercussions, and invalidation of the evaluation data. Another incorrect approach involves proceeding with data collection based on the assumption that participation in the prevention program implicitly grants permission for evaluation. This assumption disregards the explicit requirement for consent and overlooks the sensitive nature of substance use and prevention efforts. It undermines the voluntary nature of participation and can lead to individuals feeling exploited or surveilled, thereby jeopardizing the effectiveness of the prevention program itself. Finally, collecting data without clearly explaining its purpose and how it will be used, even if consent is obtained, is also professionally unacceptable. Transparency is a cornerstone of ethical evaluation. Without a clear understanding of the evaluation’s objectives and the implications for their data, participants cannot provide truly informed consent. This lack of clarity can lead to misunderstandings, anxiety, and a reluctance to participate honestly, compromising the validity and utility of the assessment. Professionals should employ a decision-making framework that prioritizes ethical considerations and regulatory compliance. This involves: 1) Identifying the ethical principles and legal requirements relevant to the situation (e.g., informed consent, confidentiality, data protection). 2) Assessing the potential risks and benefits of different data collection methods. 3) Developing a clear and transparent communication plan for participants. 4) Obtaining explicit, informed consent before any data collection commences. 5) Ensuring data is collected, stored, and used in accordance with established protocols and regulations.

This scenario presents a professional challenge because it requires an individual to navigate the specific requirements and intended purpose of a competency assessment designed for a particular region and context. Misunderstanding or misapplying the eligibility criteria can lead to wasted resources, a false sense of preparedness, and ultimately, a failure to meet the actual standards for effective substance use prevention work in Sub-Saharan Africa. Careful judgment is required to ensure that the assessment is pursued for its intended purpose and by those who genuinely meet the prerequisites. The correct approach involves a thorough understanding of the Applied Sub-Saharan Africa Substance Use Prevention Competency Assessment’s stated purpose and eligibility criteria as outlined by the relevant governing bodies or certifying organizations. This means recognizing that the assessment is designed to evaluate practical skills, knowledge, and ethical considerations specific to the unique challenges and cultural contexts of substance use prevention within Sub-Saharan Africa. Eligibility is typically based on factors such as relevant professional experience, foundational education in public health or related fields, and a demonstrated commitment to working in substance use prevention. Pursuing the assessment under these conditions ensures that the individual is appropriately prepared and that the assessment serves its intended function of validating competence for practice in the specified region. An incorrect approach would be to assume the assessment is a generic credentialing tool applicable to any substance use prevention role globally without considering its regional specificity. This failure to acknowledge the context-specific nature of the assessment means the individual may not possess the nuanced understanding or practical experience relevant to Sub-Saharan Africa, rendering the assessment’s outcome potentially misleading. Ethically, this approach undermines the integrity of the assessment process by seeking validation for a context in which one is not adequately prepared. Another incorrect approach involves attempting to bypass or misrepresent eligibility requirements. This could manifest as claiming prior experience that does not meet the assessment’s standards or attempting to enroll without the necessary foundational qualifications. Such actions are not only a violation of the assessment’s governing regulations but also demonstrate a lack of professional integrity. The purpose of eligibility criteria is to ensure that candidates have a baseline of knowledge and experience, and circumventing these requirements undermines the credibility of the assessment and the competency it aims to certify. A further incorrect approach would be to view the assessment solely as a means to enhance a resume without genuine interest in the specific competencies it measures or the context it addresses. This instrumentalist view disregards the ethical imperative to be genuinely competent in the field one purports to practice in. It prioritizes personal gain over the public good and the effective delivery of substance use prevention services, which is the ultimate aim of such assessments. Professionals should adopt a decision-making framework that begins with clearly identifying the specific assessment and its stated objectives. This involves consulting official documentation, guidelines, and any prerequisite information provided by the assessment body. Next, individuals should honestly evaluate their own qualifications, experience, and understanding against these stated requirements. If there are gaps, the professional decision is to address those gaps through further education or experience before pursuing the assessment. If the individual meets the criteria and understands the assessment’s purpose, then proceeding is appropriate. If the assessment’s focus is too narrow or does not align with one’s career goals, the professional decision is to seek alternative or complementary professional development opportunities.

Scenario Analysis: This scenario is professionally challenging because it requires balancing the immediate need for data to inform prevention efforts with the ethical imperative to protect vulnerable populations and ensure data privacy. Misinterpreting or misapplying epidemiological data can lead to ineffective or even harmful interventions, while a failure to collect and analyze data can perpetuate cycles of substance use and its associated harms. Careful judgment is required to select the most appropriate and ethically sound method for gathering and utilizing information. Correct Approach Analysis: The best approach involves utilizing existing, anonymized national surveillance data and supplementing it with targeted, ethically approved qualitative research. This method is correct because it leverages established, robust epidemiological systems designed for population-level monitoring, which are often mandated by public health legislation in Sub-Saharan African countries for tracking disease trends, including substance use. Anonymization ensures compliance with data protection principles and respects individual privacy. The addition of qualitative research, conducted with informed consent and ethical review board approval, allows for a deeper understanding of the nuances of substance use within specific communities, addressing the limitations of purely quantitative data without compromising ethical standards or overburdening limited resources. This aligns with the principles of evidence-based public health practice and responsible data stewardship. Incorrect Approaches Analysis: One incorrect approach is to solely rely on anecdotal evidence from community leaders. This is professionally unacceptable because anecdotal evidence is subjective, prone to bias, and lacks the systematic rigor required for epidemiological analysis. It does not provide a representative picture of the prevalence or patterns of substance use, potentially leading to misallocation of resources and ineffective prevention strategies. Furthermore, it bypasses established surveillance mechanisms and ethical protocols for data collection. Another incorrect approach is to initiate a large-scale, uncoordinated survey across multiple communities without prior ethical approval or established data collection protocols. This is ethically problematic as it risks exposing individuals to potential harm or stigma without adequate safeguards, and it may violate data privacy regulations. From an epidemiological standpoint, uncoordinated data collection can lead to significant methodological flaws, rendering the findings unreliable and unsuitable for informing public health policy. A third incorrect approach is to focus exclusively on data from healthcare facilities, ignoring community-based trends. While healthcare facilities provide valuable data on individuals seeking treatment, they do not capture the full spectrum of substance use within the population, particularly among those who do not access healthcare services. This selective data collection can lead to an incomplete and potentially skewed understanding of the epidemiology of substance use, hindering the development of comprehensive prevention programs. Professional Reasoning: Professionals should adopt a tiered approach to data collection and analysis. First, they should exhaust all available, reliable, and ethically sourced existing data, such as national surveillance reports. Second, when gaps exist, they should design targeted, ethically reviewed research methods that are proportionate to the information needed and the resources available. This involves consulting with local ethics committees, community stakeholders, and public health authorities to ensure that data collection is both scientifically sound and ethically responsible, prioritizing the well-being and privacy of the population.

The control framework reveals a critical juncture in public health management concerning substance use prevention in Sub-Saharan Africa. This scenario is professionally challenging because it requires balancing limited resources with the urgent need for effective, evidence-based interventions, while navigating complex political and social landscapes that can influence policy implementation and financing. Careful judgment is required to ensure that chosen strategies are not only impactful but also sustainable and equitable. The approach that represents best professional practice involves advocating for a multi-sectoral financing strategy that integrates substance use prevention into broader health and development budgets, leveraging partnerships with non-governmental organizations and international bodies for supplementary funding and technical expertise. This approach is correct because it acknowledges the systemic nature of substance use and its prevention, requiring diverse funding streams and collaborative efforts. It aligns with principles of health systems strengthening and sustainable development, ensuring that prevention efforts are not solely reliant on a single, potentially volatile funding source. Ethically, it promotes resource optimization and broad stakeholder engagement, which are crucial for long-term success and community buy-in. An incorrect approach involves solely relying on ad-hoc donor funding for specific, short-term projects. This is professionally unacceptable because it creates an unsustainable model, leading to program discontinuity when funding dries up. It also risks donor-driven agendas that may not align with local priorities or long-term public health goals, potentially leading to fragmented and ineffective interventions. Another incorrect approach is to prioritize the procurement of expensive, technologically advanced prevention tools without a robust plan for their integration into existing health infrastructure and workforce training. This is professionally unacceptable as it misallocates scarce resources, potentially diverting funds from essential primary prevention activities and community-based programs that are often more cost-effective and culturally appropriate. It fails to consider the practical realities of implementation in resource-constrained settings. A further incorrect approach is to focus exclusively on punitive measures and law enforcement as the primary strategy for substance use prevention, neglecting evidence-based public health interventions. This is professionally unacceptable because it is not a prevention strategy but rather a response to substance use. It fails to address the root causes of substance use, such as poverty, mental health issues, and lack of opportunity, and can lead to stigmatization and marginalization of affected individuals, hindering their access to support and treatment. The professional reasoning process for similar situations should involve a thorough assessment of the local context, including existing health infrastructure, socio-economic determinants of substance use, and the political will for reform. Professionals should then identify evidence-based prevention strategies that are adaptable to the local context and explore diverse and sustainable financing mechanisms. This includes advocating for policy changes that integrate substance use prevention into national health strategies and budgets, building strong partnerships with all relevant stakeholders, and continuously evaluating program effectiveness to ensure optimal resource allocation and impact.

The control framework reveals a complex scenario involving public health interventions for substance use prevention in a Sub-Saharan African context. This situation is professionally challenging due to the need to balance effective public health strategies with the specific socio-cultural, economic, and regulatory realities of the region. Careful judgment is required to ensure interventions are not only evidence-based but also culturally sensitive, ethically sound, and sustainable within local resource constraints. The most appropriate approach involves a multi-sectoral collaboration that prioritizes community engagement and capacity building. This strategy is correct because it aligns with principles of public health ethics and effective prevention science, emphasizing local ownership and sustainability. By involving diverse stakeholders, including community leaders, healthcare providers, educators, and local government, this approach ensures that interventions are tailored to the specific needs and contexts of the target population. Furthermore, it fosters trust and buy-in, which are crucial for the long-term success of any public health initiative. This aligns with the spirit of international health guidelines that advocate for community-based participatory approaches. An approach that focuses solely on the dissemination of information through mass media campaigns, without considering local reception or accessibility, is professionally unacceptable. This fails to acknowledge the diverse literacy levels, access to media, and cultural interpretations within the community. It overlooks the ethical imperative to ensure that health information is understandable and relevant to all segments of the population, potentially leading to ineffective or even counterproductive outcomes. Another professionally unacceptable approach would be to implement a top-down, externally designed program that does not involve local stakeholders in its planning or execution. This disregards the importance of local knowledge and expertise, leading to interventions that may be ill-suited to the local context, culturally inappropriate, or unsustainable once external support is withdrawn. Ethically, it violates the principle of respect for autonomy and self-determination of the community. Finally, an approach that prioritizes punitive measures over prevention and support services is also professionally unacceptable. While legal frameworks may exist, a public health focus on substance use prevention necessitates a compassionate and evidence-based strategy that addresses the root causes of substance use and provides pathways to recovery and support. Over-reliance on punishment can stigmatize individuals, drive substance use underground, and hinder access to necessary health and social services, ultimately undermining public health goals. Professionals should employ a decision-making framework that begins with a thorough needs assessment, considering the socio-cultural, economic, and epidemiological context. This should be followed by stakeholder mapping and engagement to ensure collaborative development of interventions. Evidence-based practices should be adapted to the local context, with a strong emphasis on community participation, capacity building, and the establishment of sustainable monitoring and evaluation mechanisms. Ethical considerations, including equity, cultural sensitivity, and the rights of individuals, must be integrated throughout the process.

The control framework reveals the critical importance of understanding the assessment blueprint, scoring mechanisms, and retake policies for the Applied Sub-Saharan Africa Substance Use Prevention Competency Assessment. This scenario is professionally challenging because it requires an assessor to balance the need for consistent and fair evaluation with the practical realities of candidate performance and the integrity of the assessment process. Misinterpreting or misapplying these policies can lead to unfair outcomes for candidates, undermine the credibility of the assessment, and potentially compromise the quality of substance use prevention professionals entering the field. Careful judgment is required to ensure that all candidates are assessed according to established standards and that the retake policy is applied equitably and transparently. The best professional approach involves a thorough understanding of the assessment blueprint to identify the core competencies being evaluated and the relative weighting of each section. This understanding should then be applied to the scoring rubric, ensuring that marks are allocated accurately and consistently according to the defined criteria. Crucially, the assessor must be fully conversant with the retake policy, including the conditions under which a retake is permitted, any associated administrative procedures, and the implications for the candidate’s progression. This approach ensures that the assessment process is fair, transparent, and aligned with the stated objectives of the competency assessment. It upholds the integrity of the evaluation by adhering strictly to the established framework, providing candidates with a clear understanding of expectations and the consequences of their performance. An incorrect approach would be to focus solely on the overall pass mark without considering the specific weighting of different sections outlined in the blueprint. This failure to acknowledge the blueprint’s emphasis on certain competencies could lead to an inaccurate assessment of a candidate’s overall preparedness, potentially allowing someone to pass who is deficient in a critical area, or conversely, failing someone who demonstrates strength in weighted sections but minor weaknesses elsewhere. Another professionally unacceptable approach is to apply the retake policy inconsistently, for example, allowing retakes for some candidates under circumstances not explicitly permitted by the policy, or denying them to others who meet the criteria. This introduces bias and undermines the fairness and standardization of the assessment process. Furthermore, an approach that prioritizes speed of scoring over accuracy, leading to misapplication of the scoring rubric, is also fundamentally flawed. This disregards the ethical obligation to provide a precise and fair evaluation of a candidate’s acquired competencies. Professionals should adopt a decision-making framework that begins with a comprehensive review of all assessment documentation, including the blueprint, scoring guides, and retake policies. Before commencing any assessment, they should confirm their understanding of these components. During the assessment process, they must apply the scoring rubric meticulously and consistently. If any ambiguity arises regarding the interpretation of the blueprint, scoring, or retake policy, the professional should consult the relevant assessment authority or guidelines for clarification rather than making an assumption. Post-assessment, they should be prepared to explain the scoring and the application of the retake policy to candidates, ensuring transparency and reinforcing the professional standards of the assessment.

This scenario is professionally challenging because it requires balancing the need for comprehensive preparation with the practical constraints of time and available resources, all while adhering to the ethical imperative of competence in substance use prevention. Professionals must make informed decisions about how to best equip themselves to meet the demands of the Applied Sub-Saharan Africa Substance Use Prevention Competency Assessment. Careful judgment is required to select preparation methods that are both effective and efficient, ensuring that the acquired knowledge and skills are relevant and applicable to the specific context of Sub-Saharan Africa. The best approach involves a structured, multi-faceted preparation strategy that prioritizes understanding the core competencies outlined in the assessment framework, supplemented by context-specific resources and a realistic timeline. This includes dedicating sufficient time to review foundational knowledge in substance use prevention, engaging with materials that address the unique socio-cultural, economic, and epidemiological factors influencing substance use in Sub-Saharan Africa, and practicing application through case studies or simulated scenarios. This method is correct because it directly aligns with the ethical obligation of competence, ensuring the candidate is not only knowledgeable but also prepared to apply that knowledge effectively in the target region. It respects the assessment’s purpose by focusing on developing a deep understanding of the subject matter and its practical implications, rather than superficial memorization. An approach that relies solely on reviewing general substance use prevention literature without specific attention to the Sub-Saharan African context is professionally unacceptable. This fails to meet the competency requirements of the assessment, which explicitly targets this region. It risks applying interventions or understanding issues that are not relevant or may even be counterproductive in the local setting, violating the ethical principle of doing no harm and the professional duty to be contextually aware. Another unacceptable approach is to cram a vast amount of information in the final days before the assessment. This method is unlikely to lead to deep understanding or long-term retention of knowledge. It prioritizes speed over comprehension, potentially resulting in superficial learning and an inability to critically analyze or apply information during the assessment. This undermines the assessment’s goal of evaluating genuine competency and risks professional failure due to inadequate preparation. Furthermore, an approach that focuses exclusively on memorizing assessment-style questions without understanding the underlying principles is also professionally unsound. While practice questions can be helpful, relying solely on them can lead to a false sense of preparedness. It does not foster the critical thinking and problem-solving skills necessary for real-world application, which is the ultimate aim of competency assessment. This approach can result in a candidate who can answer specific questions but lacks the foundational knowledge to adapt to novel situations or address complex prevention challenges. Professionals should adopt a decision-making process that begins with a thorough review of the assessment’s stated competencies and learning objectives. They should then identify reliable and relevant preparation resources, prioritizing those that offer both general substance use prevention knowledge and specific insights into the Sub-Saharan African context. A realistic study timeline should be developed, allocating sufficient time for each topic and incorporating regular review and practice. This process emphasizes a proactive, informed, and contextually relevant approach to preparation, ensuring ethical and competent practice.

The control framework reveals a complex scenario involving risk communication and stakeholder alignment in substance use prevention within a Sub-Saharan African context. This situation is professionally challenging due to the diverse cultural backgrounds, varying levels of literacy, potential mistrust of external interventions, and the sensitive nature of substance use. Effective risk communication requires not only accurate information but also culturally appropriate messaging that resonates with different community segments and avoids stigmatization. Stakeholder alignment is crucial to ensure buy-in, resource mobilization, and sustainable program implementation. Careful judgment is required to navigate these complexities and foster trust. The best approach involves developing a comprehensive risk communication strategy that prioritizes community engagement and co-creation of messages. This strategy should identify key stakeholders, including community leaders, healthcare providers, educators, local government officials, and individuals with lived experience. It necessitates understanding their perspectives, concerns, and preferred communication channels. The messages themselves should be tailored to different audiences, using accessible language and culturally relevant formats (e.g., storytelling, drama, visual aids) to convey the risks associated with substance use and the benefits of prevention efforts. Regular feedback mechanisms should be established to adapt the communication as needed. This approach aligns with ethical principles of respect for autonomy and beneficence, ensuring that information is disseminated in a way that empowers individuals and communities to make informed decisions, and it is consistent with best practices in public health communication that emphasize participatory approaches for greater effectiveness and sustainability. An incorrect approach would be to disseminate standardized, top-down informational materials without prior community consultation. This fails to acknowledge the diverse needs and understanding levels within the community, potentially leading to messages that are ignored, misunderstood, or even perceived as irrelevant or patronizing. Ethically, this approach neglects the principle of respect for persons by not involving them in the communication process that directly affects them. Another incorrect approach would be to focus solely on punitive measures and stigmatizing language when discussing substance use. This strategy would likely alienate individuals and communities, fostering fear and secrecy rather than open dialogue and help-seeking behavior. It directly contradicts the goal of prevention by creating barriers to intervention and support, and it is ethically unsound as it promotes harm through stigmatization. A further incorrect approach would be to engage only with a select few influential stakeholders without ensuring broader community representation. While engaging influential figures is important, excluding other key groups, such as marginalized populations or those directly affected by substance use, can lead to a lack of buy-in and create divisions within the community. This can undermine the overall effectiveness and equity of the prevention efforts. The professional decision-making process for similar situations should begin with a thorough needs assessment and stakeholder mapping. This should be followed by a participatory design phase where communication strategies and messages are co-developed with community representatives. Implementation should be iterative, with continuous monitoring and evaluation to allow for adjustments based on feedback and observed impact. Building trust through transparency and consistent engagement is paramount throughout the entire process.

This scenario is professionally challenging because it requires balancing the immediate need for intervention with the ethical and practical imperative of evidence-based decision-making in substance use prevention. Program planners must navigate limited resources, potential political pressures, and the diverse needs of the target population while ensuring that interventions are effective and ethically sound. Careful judgment is required to avoid implementing programs based on anecdotal evidence or popular opinion rather than robust data. The best professional approach involves systematically collecting and analyzing data to identify specific substance use patterns, risk factors, and protective factors within the target community. This data then informs the selection of evidence-based interventions that are tailored to the identified needs and context. This approach is correct because it aligns with the principles of data-driven program planning, which emphasizes the use of empirical evidence to guide resource allocation and intervention design. Ethically, it ensures that interventions are not only potentially effective but also respectful of the community’s needs and avoid wasting resources on unproven methods. This systematic process maximizes the likelihood of positive outcomes and responsible stewardship of public health resources. An approach that relies solely on the perceived urgency of a particular substance or the vocal demands of a vocal minority, without a comprehensive data assessment, is professionally unacceptable. This fails to address the root causes or the full spectrum of substance use issues within the community and risks misallocating resources to interventions that may not be effective or appropriate. It also bypasses the ethical obligation to use evidence to inform public health actions. Another professionally unacceptable approach is to adopt a program that has been successful in a different geographical or cultural context without rigorous adaptation and local data validation. While past successes can offer insights, direct replication without considering local epidemiology, cultural nuances, and community readiness can lead to program failure and wasted resources. This approach neglects the critical step of ensuring relevance and effectiveness within the specific Sub-Saharan African context. Finally, an approach that prioritizes the implementation of novel or trendy interventions without sufficient evidence of their efficacy in similar settings is also professionally unsound. While innovation is valuable, public health interventions, especially those dealing with sensitive issues like substance use, must be grounded in evidence to ensure they are safe, effective, and ethical. This approach risks exposing the community to unproven interventions that may be ineffective or even harmful. Professionals should employ a decision-making framework that begins with a thorough needs assessment using reliable data. This should be followed by a review of evidence-based practices relevant to the identified needs. Program selection and design should then involve community consultation and a clear plan for ongoing monitoring and evaluation to ensure effectiveness and allow for adaptive management.

Scenario Analysis: This scenario presents a professional challenge due to the sensitive nature of substance use, the potential for stigma, and the need to balance client confidentiality with the imperative to ensure safety and well-being. The healthcare professional must navigate these complexities while adhering to the ethical principles and regulatory frameworks governing substance use prevention and treatment in Sub-Saharan Africa. Careful judgment is required to avoid causing harm, breaching trust, or violating legal obligations. Correct Approach Analysis: The best professional practice involves a multi-faceted approach that prioritizes immediate safety while respecting the client’s autonomy and dignity. This includes a direct, empathetic conversation with the client about the observed behaviors and concerns, exploring their understanding of the risks, and offering immediate support and resources. This approach aligns with ethical principles of beneficence (acting in the client’s best interest) and non-maleficence (avoiding harm), as well as the principle of respect for persons, which includes respecting their autonomy and right to self-determination. It also lays the groundwork for a collaborative approach to prevention and intervention, which is more likely to be effective in the long term. This approach is supported by general ethical guidelines for healthcare professionals which emphasize open communication, non-judgmental support, and the provision of evidence-based interventions. Incorrect Approaches Analysis: One incorrect approach involves immediately reporting the observed behaviors to the client’s family or community leaders without first engaging the client directly. This violates the principle of confidentiality, which is a cornerstone of professional practice, and can erode trust, potentially leading the client to withdraw from seeking help. It also bypasses the opportunity to understand the client’s perspective and to collaboratively develop a plan, which is crucial for effective prevention and intervention. This approach risks alienating the client and may not address the underlying issues. Another incorrect approach is to dismiss the observed behaviors as a minor issue and take no immediate action, assuming the client will manage on their own. This fails to uphold the duty of care and the principle of beneficence. Ignoring potential risks associated with substance use can lead to more severe consequences for the individual and their community. It also misses a critical opportunity for early intervention, which is often the most effective stage for prevention. A third incorrect approach is to immediately recommend mandatory, punitive measures without exploring the client’s situation or offering support. This can be stigmatizing and counterproductive, potentially driving the client further into isolation or secrecy. It fails to recognize that substance use is often a complex issue with underlying social, psychological, or economic factors that require a supportive and understanding response, rather than solely punitive action. Professional Reasoning: Professionals should employ a decision-making framework that begins with assessing the immediate risk to the client and others. This should be followed by a direct, non-judgmental conversation with the client to understand their perspective and offer support. Confidentiality should be maintained to the greatest extent possible, with breaches only occurring when there is a clear and imminent risk of serious harm, and even then, with careful consideration of the least intrusive measures. Collaboration with the client and, where appropriate and with consent, with their support network, is essential for developing effective and sustainable prevention strategies. Professionals should also be aware of and utilize available community resources and referral pathways for substance use prevention and support.