The DECIDE evidence to recommendation framework adapted to the public health field in Sweden.

Organizations worldwide compile results from scientific studies, and grade the evidence of interventions, in order to assist policy makers. However, quality of evidence alone is seldom sufficient to make a recommendation. The Developing and Evaluating Communication Strategies to Support Informed Decisions and Practice Based on Evidence (DECIDE) framework aims to facilitate decision making and to improve dissemination and implementation of recommendations in the healthcare and public health sector. The aim of this study was to investigate whether the DECIDE framework is applicable in the public health field in Sweden. The DECIDE framework was presented and discussed in interviews with stakeholders and governmental organizations and tested in panels. Content analyses were performed. In general, the informants were positive to the DECIDE framework. However, two questions, the first regarding individual autonomy and the second regarding method sustainability, were by the stakeholders felt to be missing in the framework. The importance of the composition of the DECIDE stakeholder panel was lifted by the informants, as was the significant role of the chair. Further, the informants raised concerns about the general lack of research evidence based on RCT design regarding universal methods in the public health sector. Finally, the local, regional and national levels' responsibility for dissemination and implementation of recommendations were lifted by the informants. The DECIDE framework might be useful as a tool for dissemination and implementation of recommendations in the public health field in Sweden. Important questions for further research are whether these findings are suitable for other public health topics and in other public health settings.

Cost-Effectiveness of School-Based Prevention of Cannabis Use.

BACKGROUND: Cannabis is the most frequently used illicit drug globally. Despite increasing evidence that cannabis use is associated with adverse health effects, the knowledge on preventative strategies is still limited. This study stemmed from a systematic review of effective prevention in which school-based programmes were identified as promising. The primary objective was to evaluate the cost effectiveness of Project ALERT (Adolescent, Learning, Experiences, Resistance, and Training), compared with ordinary ATOD (Alcohol, Tobacco, and Other Drug) education, among Swedish students in the eighth grade of compulsory school. METHODS: The cost-effectiveness analysis was performed from the societal perspective with quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) as an outcome (willingness-to-pay threshold €50,000) and follow-up periods from 1 year to a lifetime, considering a discounting rate of 3%, and with costs inflated to 2013 levels. A Markov model was constructed on the basis of the 'states' of single use, regular use, daily use and use of other illicit drugs, which were associated with 'complications' of psychosis, schizophrenia, traffic accidents, depression and amotivational syndrome. Health and cost consequences were linked to both states and complications. RESULTS: The programme was cost saving on the basis of evidence from the USA (ratio 1:1.1), and was cost effective (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio €22,384 per QALY) after reasonable adjustment for the Swedish context and with 20 years of follow-up. When the target group was restricted to boys who were neither studying nor working/doing work experience, the programme was cost effective after 9 years and cost saving (ratio 1:3.2) after 20 years. CONCLUSION: School-based prevention such as Project ALERT has the potential to be cost effective and to be cost saving if implemented in deprived areas. In the light of the shifting landscape regarding legalization of cannabis, it seems rational to continue the health economic analysis of prevention initiated here.