Search

Purpose We aimed to test the effects of providing municipal support and training to primary health care providers compared to both training alone and to care as usual on the proportion of adult patients having their alcohol consumption measured. Methods We undertook a quasi-experimental study reporting on a 5-month implementation period in 58 primary health care centres from municipal areas within Bogotá (Colombia), Mexico City (Mexico), and Lima (Peru). Within the municipal areas, units were randomized to four arms: (1) care as usual (control); (2) training alone; (3) training and municipal support, designed specifically for the study, using a less intensive clinical and training package; and (4) training and municipal support, designed specifically for the study, using a more intense clinical and training package. The primary outcome was the cumulative proportion of consulting adult patients out of the population registered within the centre whose alcohol consumption was measured (coverage). Results The combination of municipal support and training did not result in higher coverage than training alone (incidence rate ratio (IRR) = 1.0, 95% CI = 0.6 to 0.8). Training alone resulted in higher coverage than no training (IRR = 9.8, 95% CI = 4.1 to 24.7). Coverage did not differ by intensity of the clinical and training package (coefficient = 0.8, 95% CI 0.4 to 1.5). Conclusions Training of providers is key to increasing coverage of alcohol measurement amongst primary health care patients. Although municipal support provided no added value, it is too early to conclude this finding, since full implementation was shortened due to COVID-19 restrictions. Trial Registration Clinical Trials.gov ID: NCT03524599; Registered 15 May 2018; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03524599

Background Screening for unhealthy alcohol use in routine consultations can aid primary health care (PHC) providers in detecting patients with hazardous or harmful consumption and providing them with appropriate care. As part of larger trial testing strategies to improve implementation of alcohol screening in PHC, this study investigated the motivational (role security, therapeutic commitment, self-efficacy) and organizational context (leadership, work culture, resources, monitoring, community engagement) factors that were associated with the proportion of adult patients screened with AUDIT-C by PHC providers in Colombia, Mexico and Peru. Additionally, the study investigated whether the effect of the factors interacted with implementation strategies and the country. Methods Pen-and-paper questionnaires were completed by 386 providers at the start of their study participation (79% female, Mage = 39.5, 37.6% doctors, 15.0% nurses, 9.6% psychologists, 37.8% other professional roles). They were allocated to one of four intervention arms: control group; short training only; short training in presence of municipal support; and standard (long) training in presence of municipal support. Providers documented their screening practice during the five-month implementation period. Data were collected between April 2019 and March 2020. Results Negative binomial regression analysis found an inverse relationship of role security with the proportion of screened patients. Self-efficacy was associated with an increase in the proportion of screened patients only amongst Mexican providers. Support from leadership (formal leader in organization) was the only significant organizational context factor, but only in non-control arms. Conclusion Higher self-efficacy is a relevant factor in settings where screening practice is already ongoing. Leadership support can enhance effects of implementation strategies.

Background Identifying and addressing heavy drinking represents a major public health priority worldwide. Whilst the majority of alcohol screening and brief intervention (ASBI) research has been conducted in western, high-income countries, evidence is growing that ASBI can also impact positively on heavy drinkers in low- and middle-income country populations. This mixed methods study aims to assess the feasibility of conducting a fully randomised controlled trial of the effectiveness of ASBI in primary care in Kazakhstan and explore the feasibility and acceptability of implementing ASBI in this setting from patients’ and physicians’ perspectives. Methods Six primary health care units in the region of Pavlodar will be cluster randomised to either an intervention (WHO manualised 5 min alcohol brief intervention plus alcohol leaflet) or control group (simple feedback plus alcohol leaflet). Primary feasibility measures will be rates of participation at baseline and retention of eligible patients at the 3-month follow-up point. Patient/physician questionnaires and physician focus groups will assess additional dimensions of feasibility, as well as acceptability, according to the RE-AIM framework: Reach (rates of eligible patients screened/received advice); Effectiveness (change in AUDIT-C score); Adoption (rate/representativeness of participating physicians); Implementation (quality of ASBI/barriers and facilitators to delivery); and Maintenance (potential sustainability of intervention). Discussion This is the first trial of the feasibility and acceptability of ASBI in Kazakhstan. As the planning and assessment of implementation determinants is based on the RE-AIM framework, the project outcomes will be relevant for the future development, tailoring and implementation of ASBI in Kazakhstan. Trial registration DRKS, DRKS00015882, Registered 17 December 2018.

Aim\ud \ud To evaluate the impact of the introduction and withdrawal of financial incentives on alcohol screening and brief advice delivery in English primary care.\ud \ud \ud \ud Design\ud \ud Interrupted time–series using data from The Health Improvement Network (THIN) database. Data were split into three periods: (1) before the introduction of financial incentives (1 January 2006–31 March 2008); (2) during the implementation of financial incentives (1 April 2008–31 March 2015); and (3) after the withdrawal of financial incentives (1 April 2015–31 December 2016). Segmented regression models were fitted, with slope and step change coefficients at both intervention points.\ud \ud \ud \ud Setting\ud \ud England.\ud \ud \ud \ud Participants\ud \ud Newly registered patients (16+) in 500 primary care practices for 2006–16 (n = 4 278 723).\ud \ud \ud \ud Measurements\ud \ud The outcome measures were percentage of patients each month who: (1) were screened for alcohol use; (2) screened positive for higher‐risk drinking; and (3) were reported as having received brief advice on alcohol consumption.\ud \ud \ud \ud Findings\ud \ud There was no significant change in the percentage of newly registered patients who were screened for alcohol use when financial incentives were introduced. However, the percentage fell (P < 0.001) immediately when incentives were withdrawn, and fell by a further 2.96 [95% confidence interval (CI) = 2.21–3.70] patients per 1000 each month thereafter. After the introduction of incentives, there was an immediate increase of 9.05 (95% CI = 3.87–14.23) per 1000 patients screening positive for higher‐risk drinking, but no significant further change over time. Withdrawal of financial incentives was associated with an immediate fall in screen‐positive rates of 29.96 (95% CI = 19.56–40.35) per 1000 patients, followed by a rise each month thereafter of 2.14 (95% CI = 1.51–2.77) per 1000. Screen‐positive patients recorded as receiving alcohol brief advice increased by 20.15 (95% CI = 12.30–28.00) per 1000 following the introduction of financial incentives, and continued to increase by 0.39 (95% CI = 0.26–0.53) per 1000 monthly until withdrawal. At this point, delivery of brief advice fell by 18.33 (95% CI = 11.97–24.69) per 1000 patients and continued to fall by a further 0.70 (95% CI = 0.28–1.12) per 1000 per month.\ud \ud \ud \ud Conclusions\ud \ud Removing a financial incentive for alcohol prevention in English primary care was associated with an immediate and sustained reduction in the rate of screening for alcohol use and brief advice provision. This contrasts with no, or limited, increase in screening and brief advice delivery rates following the introduction of the scheme.

Background The aim of the study was to compare how alcohol was addressed in routine healthcare practice in Sweden in 2010 and 2017, following the 2011 implementation of national drinking guidelines. Methods Population-based cross-sectional surveys were conducted in 2010 and in 2017. Subjects were 3200 respondents in 2010 (response rate 54%) and 3000 respondents in 2017 (response rate 51%) in Sweden. Both the 2010 and 2017 surveys collected data on: socio-demographics; alcohol consumption; healthcare visits in the past 12 months and characteristics of alcohol conversations in healthcare (duration, contents, experience and effects). Results It was significantly more likely that respondents had a conversation about alcohol in healthcare in 2017 than in 2010 (OR = 1.49; 95% CI = 1.27–1.75; P Conclusions The results suggest that conversations about alcohol were more embedded in routine healthcare practice in Sweden in 2017 than in 2010. This development has occurred since the 2011 publication of the national guidelines. Alcohol conversations targeted also specific groups of drinkers as recommended by the guidelines. However, our study design does not allow for conclusions about the relationship between the guidelines and the changes in healthcare practice.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to characterize recent alcohol brief intervention (ABI) efficacy and effectiveness trials, summarize outcomes, and show how variability in outcomes and reporting compromises the evidence base.METHOD: A systematic review and narrative synthesis of articles from 10 databases were undertaken (January 2000-November 2017); study selection represented recent, readily available publications. The National Institute of Care Excellence (NICE) Public Health Guideline 24 (Alcohol use disorders: prevention) informed ABI definitions. The review was conducted using Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (CRD) guidance and pre-registered on PROSPERO (CRD42016047185). Seven a priori specified domains were used to classify outcomes: biomarkers, alcohol-related outcomes, economic factors/resource use, health measures, life impact, intervention factors, and psychological/behavioral factors.RESULTS: The search identified 405 trials from 401 eligible papers. In 405 trials, 2,641 separate outcomes were measured in approximately 1,560 different ways. The most common outcomes used were the number of drinks consumed in a week and frequency of heavy episodic drinking. Biomarkers were least frequently used. The most common primary outcome was weekly drinks. By trial type, the most frequent outcome in efficacy and effectiveness trials was frequency of heavy drinking.CONCLUSIONS: Consumption outcomes predominated; however, no single outcome was found in all trials. This comprehensive outcome map and methodological detail on ABI effectiveness and efficacy trials can aid decision making in future trials. There was a diversity of instruments, time points, and outcome descriptions in methods and results sections. Compliance with reporting guidance would support data synthesis and improve trial quality. This review establishes the need for a core outcome set (COS)/minimum data standard and supports the Outcome Reporting in Brief Interventions: Alcohol initiative (ORBITAL) to improve standards in the ABI field through a COS for effectiveness and efficacy randomized trials.

Introduction Implementation of evidence-based care for heavy drinking and depression remains low in global health systems. We tested the impact of providing community support, training, and clinical packages of varied intensity on depression screening and management for heavy drinking patients in Latin American primary healthcare. Materials and methods Quasi-experimental study involving 58 primary healthcare units in Colombia, Mexico and Peru randomized to receive: (1) usual care (control); (2) training using a brief clinical package; (3) community support plus training using a brief clinical package; (4) community support plus training using a standard clinical package. Outcomes were proportion of: (1) heavy drinking patients screened for depression; (2) screen-positive patients receiving appropriate support; (3) all consulting patients screened for depression, irrespective of drinking status. Results 550/615 identified heavy drinkers were screened for depression (89.4%). 147/230 patients screening positive for depression received appropriate support (64%). Amongst identified heavy drinkers, adjusting for country, sex, age and provider profession, provision of community support and training had no impact on depression activity rates. Intensity of clinical package also did not affect delivery rates, with comparable performance for brief and standard versions. However, amongst all consulting patients, training providers resulted in significantly higher rates of alcohol measurement and in turn higher depression screening rates; 2.7 times higher compared to those not trained. Conclusions Training using a brief clinical package increased depression screening rates in Latin American primary healthcare. It is not possible to determine the effectiveness of community support on depression activity rates due to the impact of COVID-19.

ObjectiveTo explore the reasons underlying high mortality rates among people with multiple and complex needs and potential preventive opportunities.DesignQualitative study using peer researchSettingNorth East of EnglandParticipantsThree focus group discussions were held involving: 1) people with lived experience of MCN (n=5); 2) frontline staff from health, social care, and voluntary organisations that support MCN groups (n=7); and 3) managers and commissioners of these organisations (n=9).ResultsFindings from this study provide valuable insights from people with lived experience and staff on the complexity underpinning high mortality rates for individuals experiencing multiple and complex needs. Mental ill-health and substance misuse (often co-occurring dual diagnosis) were highlighted as significant factors underlying premature mortality among multiple and complex needs groups. Potential triggers to identify people at-risk included critical life events (e.g. bereavement, relationship breakdown) and transitions (e.g. release from prison, completion of drug treatment). Early prevention, particularly supporting young people experiencing adverse childhood experiences was also highlighted as a priority.ConclusionHigh mortality in MCN groups may be reduced by addressing dual diagnosis, providing more support at critical life events, and investing in early prevention efforts. Future service delivery should take into consideration the intricate nature of multiple and complex needs and improve service access and navigation.ARTICLE SUMMARYStrengths and limitations of this studyThis study employed focus group discussions with individuals with multiple and complex needs and service providers to understand the complexity underpinning high morality rates for individuals experiencing multiple and complex needs.Peer researchers contributed to all stages of this study, including developing the aims, data collection, interpretation, and shaping recommendations.Using peer researchers enhanced our access to participants and improved interpretation of dataThe main limitation is that the study only recruited individuals in one region in the North East of England. Views from individuals with MCN and service providers in other areas of England might have led the results to being more generalisable.

Aims: The aims of this study were to evaluate and compare popular beliefs and attitudes regarding alcohol conversations in healthcare in Sweden and Norway; and to explore which factors were associated with different levels of support for alcohol-prevention work in the two countries. Methods: Population-based cross-sectional surveys were conducted in Sweden ( n = 3000) and Norway ( n = 1208). Logistic regression was used to identify the characteristics of participants who were supportive of routine alcohol screening and brief intervention delivery. Results: A higher proportion of Swedish respondents agreed to a large extent that healthcare professionals should routinely ask about alcohol consumption. In addition, a higher proportion of Swedish respondents compared to respondents from Norway agreed that healthcare providers should only ask about patient’s alcohol consumption if this was related to specific symptoms. There were similar correlates of being supportive of routine alcohol screening and brief intervention delivery in both countries. Support was lower in both countries amongst moderate and risky drinkers, and among single adults or those on parental leave, but higher amongst older individuals. Having had an alcohol conversation in healthcare increased the level of support for alcohol prevention in routine healthcare among risky drinkers. Conclusions: There is a high level of support for preventative alcohol conversations in routine healthcare in Norway and Sweden, although there was a lower proportion of respondents who were positive to alcohol prevention in routine healthcare in Norway compared to Sweden. Experiencing alcohol conversation may positively affect risky drinkers’ attitudes towards and support for alcohol prevention. Thus, more frequent alcohol conversations in routine healthcare may also result in increased level of support for alcohol prevention among risky drinkers.

Aims: To investigate changes in alcohol consumption during the first months of the COVID-19 pandemic in Europe as well as its associations with income and experiences of distress related to the pandemic. Design: Cross-sectional on-line survey conducted between 24 April and 22 July 2020. Setting: Twenty-one European countries. Participants: A total of 31 964 adults reporting past-year drinking. Measurements: Changes in alcohol consumption were measured by asking respondents about changes over the previous month in their drinking frequency, the quantity they consumed and incidence of heavy episodic drinking events. Individual indicators were combined into an aggregated consumption-change score and scaled to a possible range of −1 to +1. Using this score as the outcome, multi-level linear regressions tested changes in overall drinking, taking into account sampling weights and baseline alcohol consumption [Alcohol Use Disorder Identification Test (AUDIT-C)] and country of residence serving as random intercept. Similar models were conducted for each single consumption-change indicator. Findings: The aggregated consumption-change score indicated an average decrease in alcohol consumption of −0.14 [95% confidence interval (CI) = −0.18, −0.10]. Statistically significant decreases in consumption were found in all countries, except Ireland (−0.08, 95% CI = −0.17, 0.01) and the United Kingdom (+0.10, 95% CI = 0.03, 0.17). Decreases in drinking were mainly driven by a reduced frequency of heavy episodic drinking events (−0.17, 95% CI = −0.20, −0.14). Declines in consumption were less marked among those with low- or average incomes and those experiencing distress. Conclusions: On average, alcohol consumption appears to have declined during the first months of the COVID-19 pandemic in Europe. Both reduced availability of alcohol and increased distress may have affected consumption, although the former seems to have had a greater impact in terms of immediate effects.

Amy O’Donnell,1 Sanjai Rao,2 Ibrahim Turkoz,3 Srihari Gopal,3 Edward Kim1 1Janssen Scientific Affairs, LLC, Titusville, NJ, USA; 2Department of Psychiatry, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, CA, USA; 3Janssen Research and Development, LLC, Titusville, NJ, USACorrespondence: Ibrahim TurkozJanssen Research and Development, LLC, Titusville, NJ, USATel +1 609-730-7719Fax +1 609-730-3232Email iturkoz@its.jnj.comPurpose: Paliperidone palmitate once every 3 months (PP3M) is indicated in adults with schizophrenia adequately treated with once-monthly paliperidone palmitate (PP1M) for at least 4 months, in whom the last two consecutive doses are the same. The decision of when to transition to PP3M is based on the patient’s symptom status while receiving PP1M.Patients and Methods: In a double-blind relapse–prevention study (NCT01529515), patients who met Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) score stabilization criteria after 4 months of PP1M were eligible for transition to PP3M; those who continued to meet stabilization criteria after 12 weeks following an open-label PP3M dose were randomized to receive PP3M or placebo. We compared (post hoc) PANSS, Clinical Global Impression–Severity (CGI-S), and Personal and Social Performance (PSP) scores during the pre-randomization, open-label phase in patients in randomized versus non-randomized groups using analysis of variance or chi-square tests.Results: Of 506 patients enrolled, 305 were randomized. After 4 months’ PP1M treatment, PANSS and CGI-S scores were significantly lower and PSP scores significantly higher in randomized patients versus non-randomized patients (least squares means [95% CI]: 57.1 [55.7, 58.6] vs 62.2 [60.0, 64.3], 2.9 [2.8, 3.1] vs 3.3 [3.1, 3.4], and 67.0 [65.7, 68.3] vs 64.5 [62.6, 66.4], respectively); changes from baseline between groups differed significantly (all P ≤ 0.009).Conclusion: Confirming adequate stabilization with PP1M prior to transitioning to PP3M is critical in maximizing treatment response; clinicians should consider transitioning patients to PP3M only if patients respond well to PP1M for at least 4 months and their last two consecutive doses are the same.Keywords: treatment outcome, administration and dosage, neuropsychiatric symptoms, psychosocial functioning, stabilization, long-acting injectable antipsychotic

This paper outlines the protocol for a quasiexperimental study1 to test the implementation of primary healthcare (PHC)-based measurement, advice and treatment for heavy drinking and comorbid depression at the municipal level in three Latin American countries, Colombia, Mexico and Peru (Scale-up of Prevention and Management of Alcohol Use Disorders and Comorbid Depression in Latin America (SCALA) study). Heavy drinking is a cause of considerable disability, morbidity and mortality.2 Heavy drinking is a causal factor for some communicable diseases (including TB and HIV/AIDS), for many non-communicable diseases (NCDs, including cancers, cardiovascular diseases and gastrointestinal diseases) and for many mental and behavioural disorders, including depression, dementias and suicide.3 4 In PHC settings, two-fifths of people with heavy drinking have depression, with risks of incident depression higher for heavier as opposed to lighter drinkers.5 In addition to its role in the aetiology of depression, heavy drinking is associated with worsening the depression course, including suicide risk, impaired social functioning and impaired …

Background: The concept of providing individuals with a ‘voice’ via stakeholder involvement has been advocated within English health care policy for several decades. Stakeholder involvement encourages people affected by an issue to contribute to planning and decision making regarding treatment and care, inclusive of providers and recipients of care. This paper explores stakeholder involvement within the commissioning of public health alcohol services and illustrates whether stakeholders perceived that meaningful involvement had taken place. Methods: We conducted a qualitative case study, inclusive of in-depth interviews with 10 Alcohol commissioners, 11 alcohol service providers and 6 general practitioners plus three facilitated focus groups with 31 alcohol service users. All interviews and focus groups were audio-recorded and data were transcribed verbatim. Thematic analysis drawing on Arnstein’s theory was used to discuss key issues related to participants involvement which are illuminated using direct quotes. Results: Overall findings suggest that most participants were aware of and could name various methods of stakeholder involvement, methods varied from formal strategically imposed mechanisms to innovative opportunities. We found that strategic mechanisms of involvement focused on collating data to help construct a national picture regarding service delivery. Using Arnstein’s ladder to illustrate the extent of stakeholder involvement, the majority of the participants perceived involvement to occur at the level of informing or consultation implying a level of tokenism. In addition, the impact of stakeholder involvement is not systematically monitored making it hard to identify the impact that involvement methods have had. Conclusion: This paper has shown a lack of consistency regarding the opportunities within the commissioning process for stakeholder involvement to influence service design and delivery. It is essential within public health that a deeper understanding is generated of who stakeholders are within this complex and fluid environment and to develop a clearer understanding of the different roles that stakeholders can play within the entire commissioning process in order to maximise its utility. Future commissioning guidance also needs to reflect more dimensionality than ladders of involvement currently afford.

Background Despite evidence supporting the effectiveness of alcohol screening and brief advice to reduce heavy drinking, implementation in primary healthcare remains limited. The challenges that clinicians experience when delivering such interventions are well-known, but we have little understanding of the patient perspective. We used Normalization Process Theory (NPT) informed interviews to explore patients’ views on alcohol screening and brief advice in routine primary healthcare. Methods Semi-structured qualitative interviews with 22 primary care patients who had been screened for heavy drinking and/or received brief alcohol advice were analysed thematically, informed by Normalisation Process Theory constructs (coherence, cognitive participation, collective action, reflexive monitoring). Results We found mixed understanding of the adverse health consequences of heavy drinking, particularly longer-term risks. There was some awareness of current alcohol guidelines but these were viewed flexibly, depending on the individual drinker and drinking context. Most described alcohol screening as routine, with clinicians viewed as trustworthy and objective. Patients enacted a range of self-regulatory techniques to limit their drinking but perceived such strategies as learned through experience rather than based on clinical advice. However, most saw alcohol advice as a valuable component of preventative healthcare, especially those experiencing co-occurring health conditions. Conclusions Despite strong acceptance of the screening role played by primary care clinicians, patients have less confidence in the effectiveness of alcohol advice. Primary care-based alcohol brief advice needs to reflect how individuals actually drink, and harness strategies that patients already commonly employ, such as self-regulation, to boost its relevance.

IntroductionExcessive drinking and depression are frequently comorbid and make a substantial contribution to the global non-communicable disease burden. A range of effective interventions and treatments exist for either excessive drinking or depression alone, including a positive emerging evidence base for the use of digital interventions. Computerised and/or smartphone delivered advice could provide flexible, coordinated support for patients with comorbid excessive drinking and depression. However, to date, no systematic review of the evidence has been conducted focused on the effectiveness of digital interventions for this specific comorbid population. This systematic review will identify and evaluate the effectiveness of digital interventions for reducing comorbid excessive drinking and depression in community-dwelling populations.Methods and analysisWe will search MEDLINE, The Cochrane Library, CENTRAL, CINAHL, PsycINFO, ERIC and SCI from inception to end of July 2019 for randomised controlled trials that evaluate any personalised digital intervention for comorbid excessive drinking and depression and published in any language. Primary outcomes will be changes in quantity of alcohol consumed and depressive symptoms. Screening, data extraction and risk of bias assessment will be undertaken independently by two reviewers, with disagreements resolved through discussion. Meta-analytic methods will be used to synthesise the data collected relating to the primary outcomes of interest.Ethics and disseminationAs a systematic review, ethical approval is not needed. Findings will be published in peer-reviewed journals and presented at conferences.Trial registration numberCRD42019130134.

IntroductionAmphetamine-type stimulants (ATS) including amphetamine, methylenedioxymethamphetamine/‘ecstasy’, methamphetamine, synthetic cathinones and ‘Ritalin’ are the second most commonly used illicit drugs globally. Yet, there is little evidence on which factors are associated with the development of different patterns of ATS use over the life course. This study aims to examine which individual, social and environmental factors shape different pathways and trajectories of ATS consumption. The study will be conducted in five European countries: Germany, the Netherlands, Poland, Czech Republic and the UK.Methods and analysisWe will use a sequential mixed-methods study design to investigate the multiple factors (familial, social and occupational situation, critical life events, general risk behaviour, mental and physical health, satisfaction with life) that shape individual ATS use pathways. A systematic literature review will be performed to provide an overview of the current academic literature on the topic. In module 1, qualitative semistructured interviews (n=ATS users and non-users) will be conducted to explore individual experiences of, and perspectives on, dynamics of change in stimulant consumption patterns. In module 2, structured questionnaires (n=2000 ATS users and non-users) will be administered via tablet computers to validate and enhance the generalisability of the interview findings. Data integration will take place at two key points. First, during the study, where the findings from the first qualitative interviews will inform the design of the structured questionnaire. Second, at the end of the study, where mixed methods data will be brought together to generate an in-depth, contextualised understanding of the research topic.Ethics and disseminationThe study has been approved by the respective responsible ethics committee in each participating country. Data will be treated confidentially to ensure participants’ anonymity. Findings will be disseminated in peer-reviewed scientific journals, national and international conferences, and in briefings for policy and practice.

OBJECTIVE: Outcomes used in alcohol brief intervention trials vary considerably. Achieving consensus about key outcomes can enhance evidence synthesis and improve healthcare guidelines. This international, e-Delphi study sought to prioritize outcomes for alcohol brief intervention trials as part of a larger program of work develop an alcohol brief intervention core outcome set.METHOD: In total, 150 registrants from 19 countries, representing researchers, policymakers, and patients, participated in a two-round e-Delphi study. In Round 1, participants (n = 137) rated 86 outcomes, derived from a review of the literature and a patient and public involvement panel, by importance. In Round 2, participants (n = 114) received feedback on importance ratings for each outcome, and a reminder of their personal rating, before rating the outcomes for importance a second time. Seven additional outcomes suggested in Round 1 were added to the Round 2 questionnaire. We defined consensus a priori as 70% agreement across all stakeholder groups.RESULTS: Seven consumption outcomes met inclusion criteria: typical frequency, typical quantity, frequency of heavy drinking, alcohol-related problems, weekly drinks, at-risk drinking, and combined consumption measures. Others meeting the threshold were alcohol-related injury, quality of life, readiness to change, and intervention fidelity.CONCLUSIONS: This is the first international e-Delphi study to identify and prioritize outcomes for use in alcohol brief intervention trials. The use and reporting of outcomes in future alcohol brief intervention trials should improve evidence synthesis in systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Further work is required to refine these outcomes into a core outcome set that includes guidance for measurement of outcomes.

ObjectiveTo synthesise the published literature on practitioner, patient and carer views and experiences of shared medical appointments (SMAs) for the management of long-term conditions in primary care.DesignSystematic review of qualitative primary studies.MethodsA systematic search was conducted using MEDLINE (Ovid), PsycINFO (Ovid), CINAHL (EBSCOhost), Web of Science, Social Science Premium Collection (Proquest) and Scopus (SciVerse) from database starting dates to June 2019. Practitioner, patient and carer perspectives were coded separately. Deductive coding using a framework approach was followed by thematic analysis and narrative synthesis. Quality assessment was conducted using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme for qualitative studies.ResultsWe identified 18 unique studies that reported practitioner (n=11), patient (n=14) and/or carer perspectivs(n=3). Practitioners reported benefits of SMAs including scope for comprehensive patient-led care, peer support, less repetition and improved efficiency compared with 1:1 care. Barriers included administrative challenges and resistance from patients and colleagues, largely due to uncertainties and unclear expectations. Skilled facilitators, tailoring of SMAs to patient groups, leadership support and teamwork were reported to be important for successful delivery. Patients’ reported experiences were largely positive with the SMAs considered a supportive environment in which to share and learn about self-care, though the need for good facilitation was recognised. Reports of carer experience were limited but included improved communication between carer and patient.ConclusionThere is insufficient evidence to indicate whether views and experiences vary between staff, medical condition and/or patient characteristics. Participant experiences may be subject to reporting bias. Policies and guidance regarding best practice need to be developed with consideration given to resource requirements. Further research is needed to capture views about wider and co-occurring conditions, to hear from those without SMA experience and to understand which groups of patients and practitioners should be brought together in an SMA for best effect.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42019141893.

BackgroundNausea and vomiting in pregnancy (NVP) affects up to 85% of all women during pregnancy, but for the majority self-management suffices. For the remainder, symptoms are more severe and the most severe form of NVP – hyperemesis gravidarum (HG) – affects 0.3–1.0% of pregnant women. There is no widely accepted point at which NVP becomes HG.ObjectivesThis study aimed to determine the relative clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of treatments for NVP and HG.Data sourcesMEDLINE, EMBASE, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PsycINFO, Commonwealth Agricultural Bureaux (CAB) Abstracts, Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature, Allied and Complementary Medicine Database, British Nursing Index, Science Citation Index, Social Sciences Citation Index, Scopus, Conference Proceedings Index, NHS Economic Evaluation Database, Health Economic Evaluations Database, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects were searched from inception to September 2014. References from studies and literature reviews identified were also examined.Obstetric Medicinewas hand-searched, as were websites of relevant organisations. Costs came from NHS sources.Review methodsA systematic review of randomised and non-randomised controlled trials (RCTs) for effectiveness, and population-based case series for adverse events and fetal outcomes. Treatments: vitamins B6 and B12, ginger, acupressure/acupuncture, hypnotherapy, antiemetics, dopamine antagonists, 5-hydroxytryptamine receptor antagonists, intravenous (i.v.) fluids, corticosteroids, enteral and parenteral feeding or other novel treatment. Two reviewers extracted data and quality assessed studies. Results were narratively synthesised; planned meta-analysis was not possible due to heterogeneity and incomplete reporting. A simple economic evaluation considered the implied values of treatments.ResultsSeventy-three studies (75 reports) met the inclusion criteria. For RCTs, 33 and 11 studies had a low and high risk of bias respectively. For the remainder (n = 20) it was unclear. The non-randomised studies (n = 9) were low quality. There were 33 separate comparators. The most common were acupressure versus placebo (n = 12); steroid versus usual treatment (n = 7); ginger versus placebo (n = 6); ginger versus vitamin B6 (n = 6); and vitamin B6 versus placebo (n = 4). There was evidence that ginger, antihistamines, metoclopramide (mild disease) and vitamin B6 (mild to severe disease) are better than placebo. Diclectin®[Duchesnay Inc.; doxylamine succinate (10 mg) plus pyridoxine hydrochloride (10 mg) slow release tablet] is more effective than placebo and ondansetron is more effective at reducing nausea than pyridoxine plus doxylamine. Diclectin before symptoms of NVP begin for women at high risk of severe NVP recurrence reduces risk of moderate/severe NVP compared with taking Diclectin once symptoms begin. Promethazine is as, and ondansetron is more, effective than metoclopramide for severe NVP/HG. I.v. fluids help correct dehydration and improve symptoms. Dextrose saline may be more effective at reducing nausea than normal saline. Transdermal clonidine patches may be effective for severe HG. Enteral feeding is effective but extreme method treatment for very severe symptoms. Day case management for moderate/severe symptoms is feasible, acceptable and as effective as inpatient care. For all other interventions and comparisons, evidence is unclear. The economic analysis was limited by lack of effectiveness data, but comparison of costs between treatments highlights the implications of different choices.LimitationsThe main limitations were the quantity and quality of the data available.ConclusionThere was evidence of some improvement in symptoms for some treatments, but these data may not be transferable across disease severities. Methodologically sound and larger trials of the main therapies considered within the UK NHS are needed.Study registrationThis study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42013006642.FundingThe National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Background Recent decades have seen rapid growth in the implementation of Electronic Medical Records (EMRs) in healthcare settings in both developed regions as well as low and middle income countries. Yet despite substantial investment, the implementation of EMRs in some primary care systems has lagged behind other settings, with piecemeal adoption of EMR functionality by primary care physicians (PCPs) themselves. We aimed to review and synthesise international literature on the attitudes of PCPs to EMR adoption using the Clinical Adoption (CA) Framework. Methods MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and EMBASE were searched from 1st January 1996 to 1st August 2017 for studies investigating PCP attitudes towards EMR adoption. Papers were screened by two independent reviewers, and eligible studies selected for further assessment. Findings were categorised against the CA Framework and the quality of studies assessed against one of three appropriate tools. Results Out of 2263 potential articles, 33 were included, based in North and South America, Europe, Middle East and Hong Kong. Concerns about the accessibility, reliability and EMR utility exerted an adverse influence on PCPs’ attitudes to adoption. However many were positive about their potential to improve clinical productivity, patient safety and care quality. Younger, computer-literate PCPs, based in large/multi-group practices, were more likely to be positively inclined to EMR use than older physicians, less-skilled in technology use, based in solo practices. Adequate training, policies and procedures favourably impacted on PCPs’ views on EMR implementation. Financial factors were common system level influencers shaping EMR adoption, from start-up costs to the resources required by ongoing use. Conclusions By using the CA Framework to synthesise the evidence, we identified a linked series of factors influencing PCPs attitudes to EMR adoption. Findings underline the need to involve end-users in future implementation programmes from the outset, to avoid the development of an EMR which is neither feasible nor acceptable for use in practice. Trial registration PROSPERO CRD42016038790.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Despite ambiguous evidence for the effectiveness of alcohol screening with brief interventions (BI) in emergency departments (ED), ambition for their widespread implementation continues to grow. To clarify whether such an application of BI is justifiable, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis on studies testing the impact of BI on alcohol consumption. METHODS: We included peer-reviewed,randomized controlled studies investigating the effects of BI on alcohol consumption in injured and/or intoxicated patients, published January 2002 - September 2015. Changes from baseline in consumption quantity, intensity and number of heavy drinking episodes were assessed at 3, 6 and 12 month follow-up, resulting in 9 separate random-effects meta-analyses of standardized mean differences (SMD). Moderation effects of intervention mode, length, type of interventionist, intensity of control intervention and study quality were assessed using subgroup comparisons and meta-regression. RESULTS: We considered 33 publications (28 separate studies) including 14,456 patients. Six out of nine comparisons revealed small significant effects in favour of BI, with the highest SMD at 0.19 (95% CI: 0.08-0.31). No significant moderators could be identified, and statistical heterogeneity (I(2) ) was below 40%. CONCLUSIONS: In a large meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials in emergency care settings, there was evidence for very small effects of brief interventions on alcohol consumption reductions. More intensive interventions showed no benefit over shorter approaches. Non-face-to-face interventions appear comparably effective, but this finding remains tentative due to the low number of non-face-to-face studies. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved. Language: en

BACKGROUND: The evidence base to assess the efficacy and effectiveness of alcohol brief interventions (ABI) is weakened by variation in the outcomes measured and by inconsistent reporting. The 'Outcome Reporting in Brief Intervention Trials: Alcohol' (ORBITAL) project aims to develop a core outcome set (COS) and reporting guidance for its use in future trials of ABI in a range of settings.METHODS/DESIGN: An international Special Interest Group was convened through INEBRIA (International Network on Brief Interventions for Alcohol and Other Drugs) to inform the development of a COS for trials of ABI. ORBITAL will incorporate a systematic review to map outcomes used in efficacy and effectiveness trials of ABI and their measurement properties, using the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) criteria. This will support a multi-round Delphi study to prioritise outcomes. Delphi panellists will be drawn from a range of settings and stakeholder groups, and the Delphi study will also be used to determine if a single COS is relevant for all settings. A consensus meeting with key stakeholder representation will determine the final COS and associated guidance for its use in trials of ABI.DISCUSSION: ORBITAL will develop a COS for alcohol screening and brief intervention trials, with outcomes stratified into domains and guidance on outcome measurement instruments. The standardisation of ABI outcomes and their measurement will support the ongoing development of ABI studies and a systematic synthesis of emerging research findings. We will track the extent to which the COS delivers on this promise through an exploration of the use of the guidance in the decade following COS publication.

BACKGROUND: Excessive alcohol use contributes significantly to physical and psychological illness, injury and death, and a wide array of social harm in all age groups. A proven strategy for reducing excessive alcohol consumption levels is to offer a brief conversation-based intervention in primary care settings, but more recent technological innovations have enabled people to interact directly via computer, mobile device or smartphone with digital interventions designed to address problem alcohol consumption.OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of digital interventions for reducing hazardous and harmful alcohol consumption, alcohol-related problems, or both, in people living in the community, specifically: (i) Are digital interventions more effective and cost-effective than no intervention (or minimal input) controls? (ii) Are digital interventions at least equally effective as face-to-face brief alcohol interventions? (iii) What are the effective component behaviour change techniques (BCTs) of such interventions and their mechanisms of action? (iv) What theories or models have been used in the development and/or evaluation of the intervention? Secondary objectives were (i) to assess whether outcomes differ between trials where the digital intervention targets participants attending health, social care, education or other community-based settings and those where it is offered remotely via the internet or mobile phone platforms; (ii) to specify interventions according to their mode of delivery (e.g. functionality features) and assess the impact of mode of delivery on outcomes.SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, ERIC, HTA and Web of Knowledge databases; ClinicalTrials.com and WHO ICTRP trials registers and relevant websites to April 2017. We also checked the reference lists of included trials and relevant systematic reviews.SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated the effectiveness of digital interventions compared with no intervention or with face-to-face interventions for reducing hazardous or harmful alcohol consumption in people living in the community and reported a measure of alcohol consumption.DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by The Cochrane Collaboration.MAIN RESULTS: We included 57 studies which randomised a total of 34,390 participants. The main sources of bias were from attrition and participant blinding (36% and 21% of studies respectively, high risk of bias). Forty one studies (42 comparisons, 19,241 participants) provided data for the primary meta-analysis, which demonstrated that participants using a digital intervention drank approximately 23 g alcohol weekly (95% CI 15 to 30) (about 3 UK units) less than participants who received no or minimal interventions at end of follow up (moderate-quality evidence).Fifteen studies (16 comparisons, 10,862 participants) demonstrated that participants who engaged with digital interventions had less than one drinking day per month fewer than no intervention controls (moderate-quality evidence), 15 studies (3587 participants) showed about one binge drinking session less per month in the intervention group compared to no intervention controls (moderate-quality evidence), and in 15 studies (9791 participants) intervention participants drank one unit per occasion less than no intervention control participants (moderate-quality evidence).Only five small studies (390 participants) compared digital and face-to-face interventions. There was no difference in alcohol consumption at end of follow up (MD 0.52 g/week, 95% CI -24.59 to 25.63; low-quality evidence). Thus, digital alcohol interventions produced broadly similar outcomes in these studies. No studies reported whether any adverse effects resulted from the interventions.A median of nine BCTs were used in experimental arms (range = 1 to 22). 'B' is an estimate of effect (MD in quantity of drinking, expressed in g/week) per unit increase in the BCT, and is a way to report whether individual BCTs are linked to the effect of the intervention. The BCTs of goal setting (B -43.94, 95% CI -78.59 to -9.30), problem solving (B -48.03, 95% CI -77.79 to -18.27), information about antecedents (B -74.20, 95% CI -117.72 to -30.68), behaviour substitution (B -123.71, 95% CI -184.63 to -62.80) and credible source (B -39.89, 95% CI -72.66 to -7.11) were significantly associated with reduced alcohol consumption in unadjusted models. In a multivariable model that included BCTs with B > 23 in the unadjusted model, the BCTs of behaviour substitution (B -95.12, 95% CI -162.90 to -27.34), problem solving (B -45.92, 95% CI -90.97 to -0.87), and credible source (B -32.09, 95% CI -60.64 to -3.55) were associated with reduced alcohol consumption.The most frequently mentioned theories or models in the included studies were Motivational Interviewing Theory (7/20), Transtheoretical Model (6/20) and Social Norms Theory (6/20). Over half of the interventions (n = 21, 51%) made no mention of theory. Only two studies used theory to select participants or tailor the intervention. There was no evidence of an association between reporting theory use and intervention effectiveness.AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is moderate-quality evidence that digital interventions may lower alcohol consumption, with an average reduction of up to three (UK) standard drinks per week compared to control participants. Substantial heterogeneity and risk of performance and publication bias may mean the reduction was lower. Low-quality evidence from fewer studies suggested there may be little or no difference in impact on alcohol consumption between digital and face-to-face interventions.The BCTs of behaviour substitution, problem solving and credible source were associated with the effectiveness of digital interventions to reduce alcohol consumption and warrant further investigation in an experimental context.Reporting of theory use was very limited and often unclear when present. Over half of the interventions made no reference to any theories. Limited reporting of theory use was unrelated to heterogeneity in intervention effectiveness.

Purpose of Review The aim of this study is to summarise the current literature on both the impact and the implementation of primary health care-based screening and advice programmes to reduce heavy drinking, as an evidence-based component of managing alcohol use disorder in primary health care. Recent Findings Systematic reviews of reviews find conclusive evidence for the impact of primary health care delivered screening and brief advice programmes in reducing heavy drinking. The content, length of advice and which profession delivers the advice seems less important than the actual encounter between provider and patient. Despite the global burden of disease due to heavy drinking and the evidence that this can be reduced by screening and brief advice programmes delivered in primary health care, such programmes remain poorly implemented. Were such programmes widely implemented, there would be substantial health and productivity gains. Systematic reviews and international studies indicate that improved implementation requires tailoring of training and programme content to match the needs of providers, training and ongoing support and embedding of programmes within local community support, championed by local leaders. Summary The next stage of implementation and scale-up of evidence-based screening and brief advice programmes should take place embedded within supportive local community action, with appropriate research to demonstrate impact.

Despite substantial evidence for their effectiveness, the adoption of alcohol screening and brief interventions (ASBI) in routine primary care remains inconsistent. Financial incentive schemes were introduced in England between 2008 and 2015 to encourage their delivery. We used Normalisation Process Theory-informed interviews to understand the barriers and facilitators experienced by 14 general practitioners (GPs) as they implemented ASBI during this period. We found multiple factors shaped provision. GPs were broadly cognisant and supportive of preventative alcohol interventions (coherence) but this did not necessarily translate into personal investment in their delivery (cognitive participation). This lack of investment shaped how GPs operationalised such “work” in day-to-day practice (collective action), with ASBI mostly delegated to nurses, and GPs reverting to “business as usual” in their management and treatment of problem drinking (reflexive monitoring). We conclude there has been limited progress towards the goal of an effectively embedded preventative alcohol care pathway in English primary care. Future policy should consider screening strategies that prioritise patients with conditions with a recognised link with excessive alcohol consumption, and which promote more efficient identification of the most problematic drinkers. Improved GP training to build skills and awareness of evidence-based ASBI tools could also help embed best practice over time.

Aims: The aim of the study was to assess the cumulative evidence on the effectiveness of brief alcohol interventions in primary healthcare in order to highlight key knowledge gaps for further research. Methods: An overview of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of the effectiveness of brief alcohol intervention in primary healthcare published between 2002 and 2012. Findings: Twenty-four systematic reviews met the eligibility criteria (covering a total of 56 randomized controlled trials reported across 80 papers). Across the included studies, it was consistently reported that brief intervention was effective for addressing hazardous and harmful drinking in primary healthcare, particularly in middle-aged, male drinkers. Evidence gaps included: brief intervention effective- ness in key groups (women, older and younger drinkers, minority ethnic groups, dependent/co-morbid drinkers and those living in tran- sitional and developing countries); and the optimum brief intervention length and frequency to maintain longer-term effectiveness. Conclusion: This overview highlights the large volume of primarily positive evidence supporting brief alcohol intervention effects as well as some unanswered questions with regards to the effectiveness of brief alcohol intervention across different cultural settings and in specific population groups, and in respect of the optimum content of brief interventions that might benefit from further research.

Background: While primary health care (PHC)-based prevention and management of heavy drinking is clinically effective and cost-effective, it remains poorly implemented in routine practice. Systematic reviews and multi-country studies have demonstrated the ability of training and support programmes to increase PHC-based screening and brief advice activity to reduce heavy drinking. However, gains have been only modest and short term at best. WHO studies have concluded that a more effective uptake could be achieved by embedding PHC activity within broader community and municipal support.Protocol: A quasi-experimental study will compare PHC-based prevention and management of heavy drinking in three intervention cities from Colombia, Mexico and Peru with three comparator cities from the same countries. In the implementation cities, primary health care units (PHCUs) will receive training embedded within ongoing supportive municipal action over an 18-month implementation period. In the comparator cities, practice as usual will continue at both municipal and PHCU levels. The primary outcome will be the proportion of consulting adult patients intervened with (screened and advice given to screen positives). The study is powered to detect a doubling of the outcome measure from an estimated 2.5/1,000 patients at baseline. Formal evaluation points will be at baseline, mid-point and end-point of the 18-month implementation period. We will present the ratio (plus 95% confidence interval) of the proportion of patients receiving intervention in the implementation cities with the proportions in the comparator cities. Full process evaluation will be undertaken, coupled with an analysis of potential contextual, financial and political-economy influencing factors.Discussion: This multi-country study will test the extent to which embedding PHC-based prevention and management of alcohol use disorder with supportive municipal action leads to improved scale-up of more patients with heavy drinking receiving appropriate advice and treatment.Study status: The four-year study will start on 1stDecember 2017.

Importance Nausea and vomiting affects approximately 85% of pregnant women. The most severe form, hyperemesis gravidarum, affects up to 3% of women and can have significant adverse physical and psychological sequelae.Objective To summarize current evidence on effective treatments for nausea and vomiting in pregnancy and hyperemesis gravidarum.Evidence Review Databases were searched to June 8, 2016. Relevant websites and bibliographies were also searched. Titles and abstracts were assessed independently by 2 reviewers. Results were narratively synthesized; planned meta-analysis was not possible because of heterogeneity and incomplete reporting of findings.Findings Seventy-eight studies (n = 8930 participants) were included: 67 randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and 11 nonrandomized studies. Evidence from 35 RCTs at low risk of bias indicated that ginger, vitamin B6, antihistamines, metoclopramide (for mild symptoms), pyridoxine-doxylamine, and ondansetron (for moderate symptoms) were associated with improved symptoms compared with placebo. One RCT (n = 86) reported greater improvements in moderate symptoms following psychotherapy (change in Rhodes score [range, 0 {no symptoms} to 40 {worst possible symptoms}], 18.76 [SD, 5.48] to 7.06 [SD, 5.79] for intervention vs 19.18 [SD, 5.63] to 12.81 [SD, 6.88] for comparator [P

Background\ud Concurrent alcohol and medication use can result in significant problems especially in mid to later life. Alcohol is often used instead of medication for a number of health-related conditions. This novel qualitative study explored concurrent alcohol and medication use, as well as the use of alcohol for medicinal purposes, in a sample of individuals in mid to later life.\ud \ud Methods\ud Twenty-four interviews (12 men/12 women, ages 51–90 years) and three focus groups (n = 27, 6 men/21 women, ages 50–95 years) from three branches of Age UK and two services for alcohol problems in North East England.\ud \ud Results\ud Older people in this study often combined alcohol and medication, frequently without discussing this with their family doctor. However, being prescribed medication could act as a motivating factor to stop or reduce alcohol consumption. Participants also used alcohol to self-medicate, to numb pain, aid sleep or cope with stress and anxiety. Some participants used alcohol to deal with depression although alcohol was also reported as a cause of depression. Women in this study reported using alcohol to cope with mental health problems while men were more likely to describe reducing their alcohol consumption as a consequence of being prescribed medication.\ud \ud Conclusions\ud As older people often combine alcohol and medication, health professionals such as family doctors, community nurses, and pharmacists should consider older patients’ alcohol consumption prior to prescribing or dispensing medication and should monitor subsequent drinking. In particular, older people should be informed of the dangers of concurrent alcohol and medication use.

PurposeThis paper aims to report findings from a North East (of England) study co‐financed by the European Social Fund and the Learning and Skills Council to explore the issues around the provision of vocational training for women in Northumberland, focusing on the construction, engineering and manufacturing sectors. The aim of the research was to investigate the extent to which current vocational training provision is adequately meeting the needs of both women learners and employers in Northumberland.Design/methodology/approachThe research consisted of a survey of learning providers in Northumberland and the immediate surrounding areas; interviews with local and regional policy makers, practitioners and service providers; interviews with local employers based in the construction, engineering and manufacturing sectors; and finally, focus groups and interviews with a range of women across the county.FindingsFirst, the research implies that the social and cultural context of Northumberland and the wider North East region is an important factor in explaining the position of women in non‐traditional occupations in Northumberland. The research also implies that at present careers in the construction, engineering and manufacturing industries are not being promoted effectively to young people, particularly within schools. Finally, at all levels there is a clear need for the various agencies responsible for promoting non‐traditional occupations to women to work together more effectively.Originality/valueThis paper is of value to employers, policy makers and service providers seeking to encourage more young women into non‐traditional occupations, particularly within Northumberland and the North East region.

Background. This study examines interrelationships among age, hormones, and cognition for middle-aged and elderly men, and tests whether hormones predict lower cognitive functioning and mediate the age–cognition relationship. Methods. We analyzed Time 2 data from the Massachusetts Male Aging Study, a population-based cohort study. Selection criteria included complete information on cognition and hormones (n ¼ 981). Cognitive measures included working memory (Backward Digit Span test), speed/attention (Digit Symbol Substitution test), and spatial ability (Figural Relations test). Hormones included free testosterone, total testosterone, dehydroepiandrosterone (DHEA), dehydroepiandrosterone sulfate (DHEAS), androstanediol glucuronide (3 a-A-diol-gluc), luteinizing hormone (LH), follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH), sex hormone-binding globulin (alternatively known as a ‘‘binding protein’’) (SHBG), prolactin (PRL), estrone (E1), and cortisol (CRT). Age was measured in years. Adjusted analyses added educational attainment, health conditions and behaviors, body mass index, and depression. Results. Older age was associated with lower cognitive functioning. In unadjusted models, logged free and total testosterone, DHEA, and DHEAS related to higher functioning in at least one cognitive domain; logged FSH, SHBG, and LH related to lower functioning in at least one cognitive domain; and logged E1, CRT, and PRL were not significant. In adjusted models, logged hormones did not relate to cognitive function except for logged E1 and CRT, which had negative effects. Logged hormones did not mediate the age–cognition relationship. Conclusions. The direct effects of hormones on cognition are not significant when salient factors are considered. Further, hormones do not mediate the age–cognition relationship; it is necessary to look to other explanatory pathways.

Background Amphetamine-type stimulants, including amphetamine, methamphetamine, MDMA, and some novel psychoactive substances, are increasingly popular drugs in the UK and globally. Yet there is limited evidence on what shapes use of amphetamine-type stimulants across the life course. We aimed to systematically review and synthesise recent qualitative literature examining users' perspectives on which factors influence different trajectories of amphetamine-type-stimulant consumption. Methods We searched MEDLINE, PsycINFO, EMBASE, and ProQuest Social Sciences Premium Collection, between Jan 1, 2000, and Oct 31, 2016, for qualitative research exploring the views of amphetamine-type-stimulant users aged 13 years and older on factors shaping their drug use careers. Only peer-reviewed articles, readily available in the public domain, were retrieved for further review. Two reviewers independently screened potential papers and extracted key data. Thematic synthesis focused on identifying individual, social, and environmental factors relating to initiation, continuation, escalation, and desistance of amphetamine-type-stimulant use. The Critical Appraisal Skills Programme checklist was used to assess methodological quality. Findings We identified 1694 records, of which 42 papers met our inclusion criteria. 31 studies were rated as being of moderate methodological quality, nine high quality, and two low quality. The literature was internationally diverse, covering North and South America, Europe, Australasia, and southeast Asia. Participants were aged 14–58 years and from varied socioeconomic and demographic groups. Reasons for initiation included: to help manage the transition from opioids; to boost performance at work, college, in sexual relationships, or the home; to promote a sense of social belonging; and to help manage stress. Similar reasons motivated continued use of amphetamine-type stimulants, combined with the challenge of managing withdrawal effects in long-term users. Increased tolerance, experiencing a critical life event, or both contributed to an escalation in use. Reasons for desistance focused on: increased awareness of the negative health impacts of long-term use, particularly during pregnancy; disconnecting from social networks or relationships; and financial instability. Interpretation To our knowledge, this is the first review of qualitative international literature on amphetamine-type-stimulant use trajectories. The findings underline both the heterogeneous nature of these users, and the diverse social, economic, and individual factors that shape different patterns of use. This information will support the development of more tailored, evidence-based treatment and prevention services in the future. Funding This report is independent research commissioned and funded by the Department of Health's Policy Research Programme (Grant ATTUNE: Understanding the pathways for stimulant use; ref ST-0416-10001).

Background: Robust evidence supports the effectiveness of screening and brief alcohol interventions in primary healthcare. However, lack of understanding about their “active ingredients” and concerns over the extent to which current approaches remain faithful to their original theoretical roots has led some to demand a cautious approach to future roll-out pending further research. Against this background, this paper provides a timely overview of the development of the brief alcohol intervention evidence base to assess the extent to which it has achieved the four key levels of intervention research: efficacy, effectiveness, implementation, and demonstration. Methods: Narrative overview based on (1) the results of a review of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of the effectiveness of brief alcohol intervention in primary healthcare and (2) synthesis of the findings of key additional primary studies on the improvement and evaluation of brief alcohol intervention implementation in routine primary healthcare. Results: The brief intervention field seems to constitute an almost perfect example of the evaluation of a complex intervention. Early evaluations of screening and brief intervention approaches included more tightly controlled efficacy trials and have been followed by more pragmatic trials of effectiveness in routine clinical practice. Most recently, attention has shifted to dissemination, implementation, and wider-scale roll-out. However, delivery in routine primary health remains inconsistent, with an identified knowledge gap around how to successfully embed brief alcohol intervention approaches in mainstream care, and as yet unanswered questions concerning what specific intervention component prompt the positive changes in alcohol consumption. Conclusion: Both the efficacy and effectiveness of brief alcohol interventions have been comprehensively demonstrated, and intervention effects seem replicable and stable over time, and across different study contexts. Thus, while unanswered questions remain, given the positive evidence amassed to date, research efforts should maintain a continued focus on promoting sustained implementation of screening and brief alcohol intervention approaches in primary care to ensure that those who might benefit from screening and brief alcohol interventions actually receive such support.

BACKGROUND: While the efficacy and effectiveness of brief interventions for alcohol (ABI) have been demonstrated in primary care, there is weaker evidence in other settings and reviews do not consider differences in content. We conducted a systematic review to measure the effect of ABIs on alcohol consumption and how it differs by the setting, practitioner group and content of intervention. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO; CINAHL, Social Science Citation Index, Cochrane Library and Global Health up to January 2015 for randomised controlled trials that measured effectiveness of ABIs on alcohol consumption. We grouped outcomes into measures of quantity and frequency indices. We used multilevel meta-analysis to estimate pooled effect sizes and tested for the effect of moderators through a multiparameter Wald test. Stratified analysis of a subset of quantity and frequency outcomes was conducted as a sensitivity check. RESULTS: 52 trials were included contributing data on 29 891 individuals. ABIs reduced the quantity of alcohol consumed by 0.15 SDs. While neither the setting nor content appeared to significantly moderate intervention effectiveness, the provider did in some analyses. Interventions delivered by nurses had the most effect in reducing quantity (d=-0.23, 95% CI (-0.33 to -0.13)) but not frequency of alcohol consumption. All content groups had statistically significant mean effects, brief advice was the most effective in reducing quantity consumed (d=-0.20, 95% CI (-0.30 to -0.09)). Effects were maintained in the stratified sensitivity analysis at the first and last assessment time. CONCLUSIONS: ABIs play a small but significant role in reducing alcohol consumption. Findings show the positive role of nurses in delivering interventions. The lack of evidence on the impact of content of intervention reinforces advice that services should select the ABI tool that best suits their needs.

Disparities in the availability and quality of medical care within the United States have been extensively documented over the last several decades and are the subject of an Institute of Medicine report (2003). There is an interest in health care variations between different national systems, motivated in part by a desire to learn from the experience of others in order to inform U.S. health policy (Blendon et al. 2003, 2004; Schoen et al. 2004). Comparisons of the United States with other national health care systems, such as the United Kingdom or Canada, often lead to suggestions that too much is done in the United States (with its largely private insurance-based system) while too little is done elsewhere (in predominantly government-directed taxation based systems). Evidence-based medicine (EBM) has emerged as an international health care paradigm (Evidence-Based Medicine Working Group 1992) which promotes the use of tools, like clinical guidelines, to hopefully influence provider decision making, improve the quality of care and reduce both national and eventually international variations. While there are doubtless geographic variations in health care depending on where the patient lives and the system in which care is received, a strict focus on system-level variation may miss important information about other sources of disparities. For example, much less attention has focused on the independent influence of patient attributes (e.g., gender, age, race/ethnicity and socioeconomic status) and provider characteristics (e.g., medical specialty, gender, age/clinical experience or type of employment), over and above geographic location. The influential Institute of Medicine Report (2003) identified “bias, stereotyping and clinical uncertainty on the part of health care providers” as contributing to disparities and calls for research on the prevalence and influence of these processes. The variable behavior of providers encountering different types of patients is increasingly viewed as an under-researched but important contributor to health care variations (Cooper, Hill, and Powe 2002; Paterson and Judge 2002; Van Ryn 2002; Van Ryn and Fu 2003). These bodies of research point to the question: Do health care disparities result primarily from geography (place or system), or from differences at the level of the doctor–patient encounter (i.e., patient attributes and provider characteristics)? If exactly the same medical problem is managed differently when presented by different people in different geographic locations or in different systems of care, then health care variations are likely to eventually result. Therefore, the elimination of within- and even between-country health care variations should be sought as much through changes in provider behavior as through system-level changes in the organization and financing of health care. Profound implications could follow from this orientation to research. Rather than treating system-level variation as being in competition with variation from the doctor–patient encounter, these approaches may be viewed as complementing one another. In this paper, we simultaneously measure the effects of different health care systems, patient attributes, and physician characteristics on disparities in clinical decision making. Specifically, this paper examines the way in which primary care providers in two countries—the United States (with its largely private insurance-based health care system) and the United Kingdom (with its National Health Service [NHS] government-supported, taxation based system)—diagnose and manage two common medical problems (coronary heart disease and depression) when identically presented by “patients” of differing age, gender, race and socioeconomic status. Primary care providers (internists and family practitioners in the United States and general practitioners [GPs] in the United Kingdom) are viewed as “gatekeepers” to the rest of their health systems and more specialized levels of care. Thus, what occurs at the level of the medical encounter (the doctor–patient relationship) may contribute to observed health care variations both within and between countries.

IntroductionEfficacy and safety of aripiprazole administered at doses lower than those previously studied systematically were investigated in patients with acute exacerbation of schizophrenia.MethodsIn this double-blind, multicenter study, 367 patients requiring inpatient hospitalization for acute relapse of schizophrenia were randomized to one of three fixed doses of aripiprazole (2, 5, or 10 mg/day) or placebo for 6 weeks. Efficacy and safety parameters were assessed weekly. Primary outcome measure was mean change from baseline in Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS)Total score at endpoint.ResultsAripiprazole 10 mg/day produced statistically significantly greater improvements from baseline compared with placebo for PANSS Total at endpoint (−11.3 vs −5.3; P=.03) and at weeks 2–5. Aripiprazole 5 mg/day did not produce significantly greater improvement in PANSS Total compared with placebo at endpoint, although significant differences were seen at weeks 3–5. No statistically significant improvements compared with placebo were achieved with aripiprazole 2 mg/day at any time points. All aripiprazole doses were well tolerated. Aripiprazole was not associated with significant extrapyramidal symptoms.ConclusionWhile aripiprazole 5 mg/day warrants further study, the 10 mg/day dose provides effective and well-tolerated therapy for management of acute psychosis in patients with schizophrenia.

Numerous studies examine inequalities in health by gender, age, class and race, but few address the actions of primary care doctors. This factorial experiment examined how four patient characteristics impact on primary care doctors' decisions regarding coronary heart disease (CHD). Primary care doctors viewed a video-vignette of a scripted consultation where the patient presented with standardised symptoms of CHD. Videotapes were identical apart from varying patients' gender, age (55 versus 75), class and race, thereby removing any confounding factors from the social context of the consultation or other aspects of patients' symptomatology or behaviour. A probability sample of 256 primary care doctors in the UK and US viewed these video-vignettes in a randomised experimental design. Gender of patient significantly influenced doctors' diagnostic and management activities. However, there was no influence of social class or race, and no evidence of ageism in doctors' behaviour. Women were asked fewer questions, received fewer examinations and had fewer diagnostic tests ordered for CHD. 'Gendered ageism' was suggested, since midlife women were asked fewest questions and prescribed least medication appropriate for CHD. Primary care doctors' behaviour differed significantly by patients' gender, suggesting doctors' actions may contribute to gender inequalities in health.

The paper entitled, “How do doctors in different countries manage the same patient? Results of a factorial experiment,” contained an omission in the author list. The corrected author list should include Karen Lutfey, Ph.D. as the last author as she made significant contribution to the content of this paper. The corrected list is reprinted below in its entirety: John McKinlay, Ph.D., New England Research Institutes, 9 Galen Street, Watertown, MA 02472. Carol Link, Ph.D., New England Research Institutes, 9 Galen Street, Watertown, MA 02472. Lisa Marceau, M.P.H., New England Research Institutes, 9 Galen Street, Watertown, MA 02472. Amy O'Donnell, M.P.H., New England Research Institutes, 9 Galen Street, Watertown, MA 02472. Sara Arber, Ph.D., University of Surrey, Guildford, U.K. Ann Adams, Ph.D., University of Warwick, Coventry, U.K. Karen Lutfey, Ph.D., New England Research Institutes, 9 Galen Street, Watertown, MA 02472.

Introduction Heavy drinking and depression frequently co-occur and make a substantial contribution to the global non-communicable disease burden. Positive evidence exists for the use of digital interventions with these conditions alone, but there has been limited assessment of combined approaches. Objective A systematic review of the effectiveness of combined digital interventions for comorbid heavy drinking and major depression in community-dwelling populations. Methods and analysis Electronic databases were searched to October 2021 for randomised controlled trials that evaluated any personalised digital intervention for comorbid heavy drinking and depression. Primary outcomes were changes in quantity of alcohol consumed and depressive symptoms. Two reviewers independently assessed study eligibility, extracted data, and undertook risk of bias assessment. Due to the limited number and heterogeneity of studies identified, meta-analysis was not possible, therefore data were synthesised narratively. Results Of 898 articles identified, 24 papers were reviewed in full, five of which met the inclusion criteria (N=1503 participants). Three utilised web-based intervention delivery; two computer programmes delivered in a clinic setting. All involved multi-component interventions; treatment length varied from one to ten sessions. Four studies found no evidence for the superiority of combined digital interventions for comorbid heavy drinking and depression over therapist-delivered approaches, single condition interventions (including online), or assessment-only controls. Positive impacts of integrated online therapy compared to generalist online health advice were reported in a fifth study, but not maintained beyond the 1-month follow-up. Limitations Few eligible, heterogeneous studies prevented meta-analysis. Conclusion Limited evidence exists of the effectiveness of combined digital interventions for comorbid heavy drinking and depression in community dwelling populations.