Search

OBJECTIVES: Research suggests that individual and environmental resilience protective factors may be associated with adolescent substance use; however, the associations between a broad range of such factors and use of various types of substances have not been examined. The study aimed to determine the association between a comprehensive range of adolescent individual and environmental resilience protective factors and measures of tobacco, alcohol and illicit substance use. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. SETTING: 32 Australian secondary schools. PARTICIPANTS: Grade 7-10 students (aged 11-17 years). MEASURES: Data regarding 14 student individual and environmental resilience protective factors and seven substance use measures (tobacco, alcohol, marijuana, other illicit drug use) were obtained via an online self-report survey. Adjusted multivariate logistic regression analyses examined the association between all student resilience protective factors and seven substance use measures. RESULTS: Inverse univariate associations were found for 94 of 98 relationships examined (n=10 092). Multivariate analyses found: consistent inverse associations between 2 of 14 protective factors and all substance use measures ('goals and aspirations', 'prosocial peers'); inverse associations between 4 protective factors with multiple substance use measures ('home support' (5 of 7), 'school support' (3 of 7), 'self-awareness' (2 of 7), 'community meaningful participation' (2 of 7)); positive associations between 2 resilience protective factors with multiple measures of substance use ('community support' (3 of 7), 'peer caring relationships' (5 of 7)) and 6 protective factors not to be associated with any substance use measure. CONCLUSIONS: Despite individual relationships between the majority of resilience protective factors and substance use types, the protective benefit of such factors for adolescent substance use was limited to only a small number of such factors when considered collecti

OBJECTIVES: To investigate patients' experiences of the choice of general practitioner (GP) practice pilot. DESIGN: Mixed-method, cross-sectional study. SETTING: Patients in the UK National Health Service (NHS) register with a general practice responsible for their primary medical care and practices set geographic boundaries. In 2012/2013, 43 volunteer general practices in four English NHS primary care trusts (PCTs) piloted a scheme allowing patients living outside practice boundaries to register as an out of area patient or be seen as a day patient. PARTICIPANTS: Analysis of routine data for 1108 out of area registered patients and 250 day patients; postal survey of out of area registered (315/886, 36%) and day (64/188, 34%) patients over 18 years of age, with a UK mailing address; comparison with General Practice Patient Survey (GPPS); semistructured interviews with 24 pilot patients. RESULTS: Pilot patients were younger and more likely to be working than non-pilot patients at the same practices and reported generally more or at least as positive experiences than patients registered at the same practices, practices in the same PCT and nationally, despite belonging to subgroups of the population who typically report poorer than average experiences. Out of area patients who joined a pilot practice did so: after moving house and not wanting to change practice (26.2%); for convenience (32.6%); as newcomers to an area who selected a practice although they lived outside its boundary (23.6%); because of dissatisfaction with their previous practice (13.9%). Day patients attended primarily on grounds of convenience (68.8%); 51.6% of the day patient visits were for acute infections, most commonly upper respiratory infections (20.4%). Sixty-six per cent of day patients received a prescription during their visit. CONCLUSIONS: Though the 12-month pilot was too brief to identify all costs and benefits, the scheme provided a positive experience for participating patients and pra

OBJECTIVES: To develop and validate a national set of best practice statements for use in post-stroke aphasia rehabilitation. DESIGN: Literature review and statement validation using the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method (RAM). PARTICIPANTS: A national Community of Practice of over 250 speech pathologists, researchers, consumers and policymakers developed a framework consisting of eight areas of care in aphasia rehabilitation. This framework provided the structure for the development of a care pathway containing aphasia rehabilitation best practice statements. Nine speech pathologists with expertise in aphasia rehabilitation participated in two rounds of RAND/UCLA appropriateness ratings of the statements. Panellists consisted of researchers, service managers, clinicians and policymakers. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Statements that achieved a high level of agreement and an overall median score of 7-9 on a nine-point scale were rated as 'appropriate'. RESULTS: 74 best practice statements were extracted from the literature and rated across eight areas of care (eg, receiving the right referrals, providing intervention). At the end of Round 1, 71 of the 74 statements were rated as appropriate, no statements were rated as inappropriate, and three statements were rated as uncertain. All 74 statements were then rated again in the face-to-face second round. 16 statements were added through splitting existing items or adding new statements. Seven statements were deleted leaving 83 statements. Agreement was reached for 82 of the final 83 statements. CONCLUSIONS: This national set of 82 best practice statements across eight care areas for the rehabilitation of people with aphasia is the first to be validated by an expert panel. These statements form a crucial component of the Australian Aphasia Rehabilitation Pathway (AARP) (http://www.aphasiapathway.com.au) and provide the basis for more consistent implementation of evidence-based practice in stroke rehabilitation.

INTRODUCTION: Tobacco, alcohol and illicit drug use contribute significantly to global rates of morbidity and mortality. Despite evidence suggesting interventions designed to increase adolescent resilience may represent a means of reducing adolescent substance use, and schools providing a key opportunity to implement such interventions, existing systematic reviews assessing the effectiveness of school-based interventions targeting adolescent substance use have not examined this potential. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The aim of the systematic review is to determine whether universal interventions focused on enhancing the resilience of adolescents are effective in reducing adolescent substance use. Eligible studies will: include participants 5-18 years of age; report tobacco use, alcohol consumption or illicit drug use as outcomes; and implement a school-based intervention designed to promote internal (eg, self-esteem) and external (eg, school connectedness) resilience factors. Eligible study designs include randomised controlled trials, cluster randomised controlled trials, staggered enrolment trials, stepped wedged trials, quasi-randomised trials, quasi-experimental trials, time series/interrupted time-series trials, preference trials, regression discontinuity trials and natural experiment studies with a parallel control group. A search strategy including criteria for participants, study design, outcome, setting and intervention will be implemented in various electronic databases and information sources. Two reviewers will independently screen studies to assess eligibility, as well as extract data from, and assess risk of bias of included studies. A third reviewer will resolve any discrepancies. Attempts will be made to quantify trial effects by meta-analysis. Binary outcomes will be pooled and effect size reported using ORs. For continuous data, effect size of trials will be reported using a mean difference where trial outcomes report the same outcome using a consistent