Search

Issue: Hospital alcohol and/or other drug (AOD) testing is important for identifying AOD‐related injuries; however, testing methods vary. This systematic review aimed to examine biological AOD testing methods from hospital‐based studies of injured patients and quantify what proportion reported key information on those testing methods. Approach: Observational studies published in English from 2010 onwards involving biological AOD testing for injured patients presenting to hospital were included. Studies examining single injury causes were excluded. Extracted data included concentration thresholds for AOD detection (e.g., lower limits of detection, author‐defined cut‐offs), test type (e.g., immunoassay, breathalyser) and approach (e.g., routine, clinical discretion), timing of testing, sample type and the proportion of injured cases tested for AODs. Key Findings: Of 83 included studies, 76 measured alcohol and 37 other drugs. Forty‐nine studies defined blood alcohol concentration thresholds (ranging from 0 to 0.1 g/100 mL). Seven studies defined concentration thresholds for other drugs. Testing approach was reported in 39/76 alcohol and 18/37 other drug studies. Sample type was commonly reported (alcohol: n = 69/76; other drugs: n = 28/37); alcohol was typically measured using blood (n = 60) and other drugs using urine (n = 20). Studies that reported the proportion of cases tested (alcohol: n = 53/76; other drugs: n = 28/37), reported that between 0% and 89% of cases were not tested for alcohol and 0% and 91% for other drugs. Timing of testing was often unreported (alcohol: n = 61; other drugs: n = 30). Implications and Conclusion: Variation in AOD testing methods alongside incomplete reporting of those methods limits data comparability and interpretation. Standardised reporting of testing methods will assist AOD‐related injury surveillance and prevention. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Substance use is a risk factor for being both a perpetrator and a victim of violence. The aim of this systematic review was to report the prevalence of acute pre-injury substance use in patients with violence-related injuries. Systematic searches were used to identify observational studies that included patients aged ≥15 years presenting to hospital after violence-related injuries and used objective toxicology measures to report prevalence of acute pre-injury substance use. Studies were grouped based on injury cause (any violence-related, assault, firearm, and other penetrating injuries including stab and incised wounds) and substance type (any substance, alcohol only, drugs other than alcohol only), and they were summarized using narrative synthesis and meta-analyses. This review included 28 studies. Alcohol was detected in 13%–66% of any violence-related injuries (five studies), 4%–71% of assaults (13 studies), 21%–45% of firearm injuries (six studies; pooled estimate = 41%, 95% CI: 40%–42%, n = 9,190), and 9%–66% of other penetrating injuries (nine studies; pooled estimate = 60%, 95% CI: 56%–64%, n = 6,950). Drugs other than alcohol were detected in 37% of any violence-related injuries (one study), 39% of firearm injuries (one study), 7%–49% of assaults (five studies), and 5%–66% of penetrating injuries (three studies). The prevalence of any substance varied across injury categories: any violence-related injuries = 76%–77% (three studies), assaults = 40%–73% (six studies), firearms = n/a, other penetrating injuries = 26%–45% (four studies; pooled estimate = 30%, 95% CI: 24%–37%, n = 319).Overall, substance use was frequently detected in patients presenting to hospital for violence-related injuries. Quantification of substance use in violence-related injuries provides a benchmark for harm reduction and injury prevention strategies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: The objectives of this systematic review were to describe the current dose and content of usual care upper limb motor intervention for inpatients following stroke and examine if context factors alter dose and content. Data sources: A systematic search (EMBASE, MEDLINE) was completed from January 2015 to February 2023 (PROSPERO CRD42021281986). Methods: Studies were eligible if they reported non-protocolised usual care upper limb motor intervention dose data for stroke inpatients. Studies were rated using the Johanna Briggs Institute critical appraisal tool. Data were descriptively reported for dose dimensions of time (on task or, in therapy) and intensity (repetitions, repetition/minute), content (intervention type/mode), and context (e.g., severity strata). Results: Eight studies were included from four countries, largely reflecting inpatient rehabilitation. Time in therapy ranged from 23 to 121 min/day. Time on task ranged from 8 to 44 min/day. Repetitions ranged from 36 to 57/session, and 15 to 282/day. Time on task was lowest in the stratum of people with severe upper limb impairment (8 min/day), the upper limit for this stratum was 41.5 min/day. There was minimal reporting of usual care content across all studies. Conclusion: Upper limb motor intervention dose appears to be increasing in usual care compared to prior reports (e.g., average 21 min/day and 23 to 32 repetitions/session). Context variability suggests that doses are lowest in the stratum of patients with a severely impaired upper limb. Consistent reporting of the multiple dimensions of dose and content is necessary to better understand usual care offered during inpatient rehabilitation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]