A Latent Class Analysis of Adolescents in First-Year University: Associations with Psychosocial Adjustment Throughout the Emerging Adult Period and Post-University Outcomes.

The long-term outcomes for adolescents who struggle in first-year university remain unexplored. This 7-year longitudinal study aimed to identify distinct groups of adolescents based on their characteristics/behaviors in first-year university, and then assess whether these groups differ in psychosocial adjustment trajectories (i.e., mental health, positive relationships) throughout the emerging adult period, as well as in graduation rates, employment characteristics, and reflections on time spent at university. Participants (N = 1017; 71% female; Year 1 Mage = 19 years) enrolled in a Canadian university completed a survey annually for 7 years. Four groups in Year 1 were identified: Good Students who exhibited no difficulties; Sensation-Seeking who prioritized social engagement and substance use over academic engagement but reported no psychological adjustment difficulties; Struggling Students who had the most difficulties; and Club Involved who exhibited high club involvement. The Struggling Students Group continued to have more psychosocial adjustment difficulties than the other groups during and after university, were more likely to drop out of university, and to later have less job satisfaction. This group requires the most support. Consideration also should be given to the Sensation-Seeking Group, as they reported a lack of academic motivation (and regret about that later) and also were more likely to drop out of university. At the same time, they may be more difficult to target given that they did not report psychosocial difficulties. Overall, the findings highlight the need for early support and discourage a 'one-size fits all' method for promoting psychosocial adjustment.

Sociodemographic characteristics of patients with children in a methadone maintenance program: a cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: Ever-increasing numbers of opioid use disorder (OUD) in Canada has created the recent opioid crisis. One common treatment for OUD is methadone maintenance treatment (MMT). Various factors, including being a parent which entails specific stressors, may increase susceptibility to negative treatment outcomes. This study aims to investigate differences between OUD patients with and without children in socio-demographic and clinical outcomes. METHODS: Data for this study are part of a larger program. All participants are 18+ years old with OUD, provided consent, and receiving MMT. We performed a multivariable logistic regression to examine the differences between participants' parental status, sociodemographic variables, and clinical parameters including MMT outcomes. We performed subgroup analyses on individuals with children younger than 18. RESULTS: A total of 1099 participants were included, with 64% having children. Participants with children were older (OR 1.06, 95% CI 1.04, 1.08), more likely to be female (OR 2.39, 95% CI 1.75, 3.27), living with a partner (OR 1.75, 95% CI 1.27, 2.41), first exposed to opioids through a prescription (OR 1.517, 95% CI 1.13, 2.04) and had lower levels of education (OR 1.86, 95% CI 1.20, 2.87). There was no significant difference in illicit opioid use patterns between groups. Same results held true in the subgroup analyses based on the age of the children except for participant age. CONCLUSION: Our results demonstrate social and demographic differences between parents and non-parents receiving MMT. These differences highlight the need to understand necessary additional support for parents such as child support and other necessary therapies.

A systematic review of comparisons between protocols or registrations and full reports in primary biomedical research.

BACKGROUND: Prospective study protocols and registrations can play a significant role in reducing incomplete or selective reporting of primary biomedical research, because they are pre-specified blueprints which are available for the evaluation of, and comparison with, full reports. However, inconsistencies between protocols or registrations and full reports have been frequently documented. In this systematic review, which forms part of our series on the state of reporting of primary biomedical, we aimed to survey the existing evidence of inconsistencies between protocols or registrations (i.e., what was planned to be done and/or what was actually done) and full reports (i.e., what was reported in the literature); this was based on findings from systematic reviews and surveys in the literature. METHODS: Electronic databases, including CINAHL, MEDLINE, Web of Science, and EMBASE, were searched to identify eligible surveys and systematic reviews. Our primary outcome was the level of inconsistency (expressed as a percentage, with higher percentages indicating greater inconsistency) between protocols or registration and full reports. We summarized the findings from the included systematic reviews and surveys qualitatively. RESULTS: There were 37 studies (33 surveys and 4 systematic reviews) included in our analyses. Most studies (n = 36) compared protocols or registrations with full reports in clinical trials, while a single survey focused on primary studies of clinical trials and observational research. High inconsistency levels were found in outcome reporting (ranging from 14% to 100%), subgroup reporting (from 12% to 100%), statistical analyses (from 9% to 47%), and other measure comparisons. Some factors, such as outcomes with significant results, sponsorship, type of outcome and disease speciality were reported to be significantly related to inconsistent reporting. CONCLUSIONS: We found that inconsistent reporting between protocols or registrations and full reports of primary biomedical research is frequent, prevalent and suboptimal. We also identified methodological issues such as the need for consensus on measuring inconsistency across sources for trial reports, and more studies evaluating transparency and reproducibility in reporting all aspects of study design and analysis. A joint effort involving authors, journals, sponsors, regulators and research ethics committees is required to solve this problem.

A scoping review of comparisons between abstracts and full reports in primary biomedical research.

BACKGROUND: Evidence shows that research abstracts are commonly inconsistent with their corresponding full reports, and may mislead readers. In this scoping review, which is part of our series on the state of reporting of primary biomedical research, we summarized the evidence from systematic reviews and surveys, to investigate the current state of inconsistent abstract reporting, and to evaluate factors associated with improved reporting by comparing abstracts and their full reports. METHODS: We searched EMBASE, Web of Science, MEDLINE, and CINAHL from January 1st 1996 to September 30th 2016 to retrieve eligible systematic reviews and surveys. Our primary outcome was the level of inconsistency between abstracts and corresponding full reports, which was expressed as a percentage (with a lower percentage indicating better reporting) or categorized rating (such as major/minor difference, high/medium/low inconsistency), as reported by the authors. We used medians and interquartile ranges to describe the level of inconsistency across studies. No quantitative syntheses were conducted. Data from the included systematic reviews or surveys was summarized qualitatively. RESULTS: Seventeen studies that addressed this topic were included. The level of inconsistency was reported to have a median of 39% (interquartile range: 14% - 54%), and to range from 4% to 78%. In some studies that separated major from minor inconsistency, the level of major inconsistency ranged from 5% to 45% (median: 19%, interquartile range: 7% - 31%), which included discrepancies in specifying the study design or sample size, designating a primary outcome measure, presenting main results, and drawing a conclusion. A longer time interval between conference abstracts and the publication of full reports was found to be the only factor which was marginally or significantly associated with increased likelihood of reporting inconsistencies. CONCLUSIONS: This scoping review revealed that abstracts are frequently inconsistent with full reports, and efforts are needed to improve the consistency of abstract reporting in the primary biomedical community.

Factors affecting participant recruitment and retention in borderline personality disorder research: a feasibility study.

BACKGROUND: Previous studies have shown that stigma is a major barrier to participation in psychiatric research and that individuals who participate in psychiatric research may differ clinically and demographically from non-participants. However, few studies have explored research recruitment and retention challenges in the context of personality disorders. AIM: To provide an analysis of the factors affecting participant recruitment and retention in a study of borderline personality disorder among general psychiatric inpatients. METHODS: Adult inpatients in a tertiary psychiatric hospital were approached about participating in a cross-sectional study of borderline personality disorder. Recruitment rates, retention rates, and reasons for declining participation or withdrawing from the study were collected. Demographic characteristics were compared between participants and non-participants and between patients who remained in the study and those who withdrew. RESULTS: A total of 71 participants were recruited into the study between January 2018 and March 2020. Recruitment and retention rates were 45% and 70%, respectively. Lack of interest was the most commonly cited reason for non-participation, followed by scheduling conflicts and concerns regarding mental/physical well-being. Age and sex were not predictors of study participation or retention. CONCLUSIONS: More research is needed to explore patients' perspectives and attitudes towards borderline personality disorder diagnosis and research, determine effects of different recruitment strategies, and identify clinical predictors of recruitment and retention in personality disorder research.

A comparison of electronically-delivered and face to face cognitive behavioural therapies in depressive disorders: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) is a widely used treatment for depression. However, limited resource availability poses several barriers to patients seeking access to care, including lengthy wait times and geographical limitations. This has prompted health care services to introduce electronically delivered CBT (eCBT) to facilitate access. Although previous reviews have compared the effects of eCBT to face-to-face CBT, there is an overall lack of adequately powered and up-to-date evidence in the literature to provide a reliable comparison between the two modes of administration. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the effects of eCBT compared to face-to-face CBT through a systematic review of the literature. METHODS: To be eligible for this review, studies needed to be randomized controlled trials evaluating the clinical effectiveness of any form of eCBT compared to face-to-face CBT. These encompassed studies evaluating a wide range of outcomes including severity of symptoms, adverse outcomes, clinically relevant outcomes, global functionality, participant satisfaction, quality of life, and affordability. There were no restrictions on participant age or sex.We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Psych Info, Cochrane CENTRAL and CINAHL databases from inception to February 20th, 2020 using a comprehensive search strategy. All stages of literature screening and data extraction were completed independently in duplicate. Data extraction and risk of bias analyses, including GRADE ratings, were conducted on studies meeting inclusion criteria. Qualitative measures are reported in a narrative summary. We pooled quantitative data in meta-analyses to provide an estimated summary effect. This review adheres to PRISMA reporting guidelines. FINDINGS: In total, we included 17 studies in our analyses. Our results demonstrated that eCBT was more effective than face-to-face CBT at reducing depression symptom severity (Standardized mean difference [SMD]: -1.73; 95% confidence interval [CI]: -2.72, -0.74; GRADE: moderate quality of evidence). There were no significant differences between the two interventions on participant satisfaction (SMD 0.13 95%; CI -0.32, 0.59; GRADE: low quality of evidence). One RCT reported eCBT to be less costly than face-to-face CBT (GRADE: low quality of evidence). Results did not differ when stratified by subgroups such as participant age and study location. INTERPRETATION: Although we found eCBT to have moderate evidence of effectiveness in reducing symptoms of depression, high heterogeneity among studies precludes definitive conclusions for all outcomes. With the current reliance and accessibility of technology to increasing number of people worldwide, serious consideration in utilizing technology should be given to maximize accessibility for depression treatments. Our results found eCBT is at least as effective as face to face CBT, thus eCBT should be offered if preferred by patients and therapists. FUNDING: This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

Treatment Outcomes in Patients With Opioid Use Disorder Who Were First Introduced to Opioids by Prescription: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

OBJECTIVE: Prescription opioid misuse has led to a new cohort of opioid use disorder (OUD) patients who were introduced to opioids through a legitimate prescription. This change has caused a shift in the demographic profile of OUD patients from predominantly young men to middle age and older people. The management of OUD includes medication-assisted treatment (MAT), which produces varying rates of treatment response. In this study, we will examine whether the source of first opioid use has an effect on treatment outcomes in OUD. Using a systematic review of the literature, we will investigate the association between source of first opioid introduction and treatment outcomes defined as continuing illicit opioid use and poly-substance use while in MAT. METHODS: Medline, EMBASE, CINHAL, and PsycInfo were searched from inception to December 31st, 2019 inclusive using a comprehensive search strategy. Five pairs of reviewers conducted screening and data extraction independently in duplicate. The review is conducted and reported according to the PRISMA guidelines. A random-effects model was used for meta analyses assuming heterogeneity among the included studies. RESULTS: The initial search results in 27,345 articles that were screened, and five observational studies were included in the qualitative and quantitative analyses. Our results found that those who were introduced to opioids through a legitimate prescription were significantly less likely to have illicit opioid use (0.70, 95% CI 0.50, 0.99) while on MAT. They were also less likely to use cannabis (0.54, 95% CI 0.32, 0.89), alcohol (0.75, 95% CI 0.59, 0.95), cocaine (0.50, 95% CI 0.29, 0.85), and injection drug use (0.25, 95% CI 0.14, 0.43) than those introduced to opioids through recreational means. CONCLUSION: This study shows that the first exposure to opioids, whether through a prescription or recreationally, influences prognosis and treatment outcomes of opioid use disorder. Although the increased pattern of prescribing opioids may have led to increased OUD in a new cohort of patients, these patients are less likely to continue to use illicit drugs and have a different prognostic and clinical profile that requires a tailored approach to treatment. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42017058143.

The association between health conditions and cannabis use in patients with opioid use disorder receiving methadone maintenance treatment.

BACKGROUND: Cannabis is the most commonly used substance among patients in methadone maintenance treatment (MMT) for opioid use disorder. Current treatment programmes neither screen nor manage cannabis use. The recent legalisation of cannabis in Canada incites consideration into how this may affect the current opioid crisis. AIMS: Investigate the health status of cannabis users in MMT. METHOD: Patients were recruited from addiction clinics in Ontario, Canada. Regression analyses were used to assess the association between adverse health conditions and cannabis use. Further analyses were used to assess sex differences and heaviness of cannabis use. RESULTS: We included 672 patients (49.9% cannabis users). Cannabis users were more likely to consume alcohol (odds ratio 1.46, 95% CI 1.04-2.06, P = 0.029) and have anxiety disorders (odds ratio 1.75, 95% CI 1.02-3.02, P = 0.043), but were less likely to use heroin (odds ratio 0.45, 95% CI 0.24-0.86, P = 0.016). There was no association between cannabis use and pain (odds ratio 0.98, 95% CI 0.94-1.03, P = 0.463). A significant association was seen between alcohol and cannabis use in women (odds ratio 1.79, 95% CI 1.06-3.02, P = 0.028), and anxiety disorders and cannabis use in men (odds ratio 2.59, 95% CI 1.21-5.53, P = 0.014). Heaviness of cannabis use was not associated with health outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that cannabis use is common and associated with psychiatric comorbidities and substance use among patients in MMT, advocating for screening of cannabis use in this population. DECLARATION OF INTEREST: None.

Adverse Outcomes Associated with Prescription Opioids for Acute Low Back Pain: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Acute low back pain (ALBP) is a common clinical complaint that can last anywhere from 24 hours to 12 weeks. In recent years, there has been an opioid epidemic which is linked to the increased availability of prescription opioids. Though guidelines recommend that in the treatment of ALBP, opioids should be used when other treatments fail, we have seen an increase in opioid prescriptions for ALBP. With this crisis, it is important to examine if there are any adverse outcomes associated with prescribing opioids for ALBP. OBJECTIVE: We aim to review the published literature to examine the adverse outcomes associated with opioid use for ALBP. STUDY DESIGN: We performed a systematic review with meta-analysis in accordance with our published protocol and PRISMA guidelines. SETTING: The review was conducted at McMaster University. METHODS: Various electronic databases for articles published from inception to September 30, 2017, inclusive. Both randomized clinical trials and observational studies on the impact of opioid use in ALBP in the adult population were included. Eight pairs of independent reviewers performed screening, data extraction, and assessment of methodological quality. The identified articles were assessed for risk of bias using sensitivity analysis. Trials with comparative outcomes were reported in a meta-analysis using a fixed effects model. RESULTS: A total of 13,889 studies were initially screened for the review and a total of 4 studies were included in the full review, of which 2 studies were meta-analyzed. Our results showed that prescribing opioids for ALBP was significantly associated with long-term continued opioid use (1.57, 95% CI, 1.06-2.33). There was no significant association found between unemployment duration and prescribing opioids for ALBP (3.54, 95% CI, -7.57 to 14.66). LIMITATIONS: Due to the limited number of studies that considered unemployment, only an unpooled analysis was conducted. Among the included studies there was both statistical and clinical heterogeneity due to differences in methodology, study design, risk of selection or performance bias. Most of the studies had an unclear or high risk of bias and poorly defined side effects. CONCLUSIONS: Due to the lack of literature examining long-term adverse outcomes associated with prescribing opioids for ALBP, no definitive conclusions can be made. However, with the literature available, there does seem to be risk associated with prescribing opioids for ALBP so there is a great need to conduct further investigations examining these adverse outcomes for ALBP patients. KEY WORDS: Acute low back pain, opioids, prescriptions, low back pain, long-term use, opioid use disorder.

Association Between Socio-Demographic and Health Functioning Variables Among Patients with Opioid Use Disorder Introduced by Prescription: A Prospective Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Prescription opioid misuse in Canada has become a serious public health concern and has contributed to Canada's opioid crisis. There are thousands of Canadians who are currently receiving treatment for opioid use disorder, which is a chronic relapsing disorder with enormous impact on individuals and society. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to compare the clinical and demographic differences between cohorts of patients who were introduced to opioids through a prescription and those introduced to opioids for non-medical purposes. STUDY DESIGN: This was an observational, prospective cohort study. SETTING: The study took place in 19 Canadian Addiction Treatment Centres across Ontario. METHODS: We included a total of 976 participants who were diagnosed with Opioid Use Disorder and currently receiving methadone maintenance treatment. We excluded participants who were on any other type of prescription opioid or who were missing their 6-month follow-up urine screens. We measured the participants' initial source of introduction to opioids along with other variables using the Maudsley Addiction Profile. We also measured illicit opioid use using urine screens at baseline and at 6-months follow-up. RESULTS: Almost half the sample (n = 469) were initiated to opioids via prescription. Women were more likely to be initiated to opioids via a prescription (OR = 1.385, 95% CI 1.027-1.866, P = .033). Those initiated via prescription were also more likely to have post-secondary education, older age of onset of opioid use, less likely to have hepatitis C and less likely to have use cannabis. Chronic pain was significantly associated with initiation to opioids through prescription (OR = 2.720, 95% CI 1.998-3.722, P < .0001). Analyses by gender revealed that men initiated by prescription were less likely to have liver disease and less likely to use cannabis, while women initiated by prescription had a higher methadone dose. LIMITATIONS: This project was limited by its study design being observational in nature; no causal relationships can be inferred. Also, the data did not allow determination of the role that the prescribed opioids played in developing opioid use disorder. CONCLUSIONS: Our results have revealed that almost half of this methadone maintenance treatment (MMT) population has been introduced to opioids through a prescription. Given that the increasing prescribing rates of opioids has an impact on this at-risk population, alternative treatments for pain should be considered to help decrease this opioid epidemic in Canada. KEY WORDS: Opioid use disorder, chronic pain relief, methadone maintenance treatment, prescriptions, male, female.

Treatment outcomes in patients with opioid use disorder initiated by prescription: a systematic review protocol.

BACKGROUND: In North America, opioid use has become a public health crisis with policy makers declaring it a state of emergency. Opioid substitution therapy (OST) is a harm-reduction method used in treating opioid use disorder. While OST has shown to be successful in improving treatment outcomes, there is still a great degree of variability among patients. This cohort of patients has shifted from young males using heroin to a greater number of older people and women using prescription opioids. The primary objective of this review is to examine the literature on the association between the first exposure to opioids through prescription versus illicit use and OST treatment outcomes. METHOD: An electronic search will be conducted on the EMBASE, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) databases. Two independent reviewers will conduct the initial title and abstract screenings using predetermined criteria for inclusion and exclusion. Reviewers will then conduct full-text data extraction using a pilot-tested data extraction form in duplicate. A third author will resolve disagreements if consensus cannot be reached. Quality and risk of bias assessment will be conducted along with a sensitivity analysis for all included studies. Qualitative summary of the evidence will be provided, and when possible, a meta-analysis will be conducted, along with heterogeneity calculation. The reporting of this protocol follows the PRISMA-P. DISCUSSION: We expect that this review will help determine whether patients that were initially exposed to opioids through a prescription differ in OST treatment outcomes in comparison to people who used opioids through illicit means. We hope that this review will provide evidence related to prescription opioids exposure and future treatment outcomes, which will aid clinicians in their decisions to prescribe opioids or not for specific populations at risk. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42017058143.

Identifying patient-important outcomes in medication-assisted treatment for opioid use disorder patients: a systematic review protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Illicit opioid use has become a national crisis in Canada, with over 65 000 people seeking treatment for opioid use disorder (OUD) in Ontario and British Columbia alone. Medication-assisted treatment (MAT) is a common treatment for OUD. There is substantial variability in treatment outcomes used to evaluate effectiveness of MAT, making it difficult to establish clinically and scientifically relevant treatment effect. Furthermore, patients are often excluded from the process of determining these outcomes. The primary objective of this review is to examine outcomes currently used to measure MAT effectiveness and to identify patient-relevant outcomes to enhance effectiveness of treatment options. This review refers to patient-important outcomes as those outcomes patients consider important to or markers of treatment success. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Cochrane Clinical Trials Registry, National Institutes for Health Clinical Trials Registry and WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform databases will be searched. We will search databases from inception to the date the search is ran. Studies of interest include those evaluating the effectiveness of MAT for patients with OUD, with or without consultation with patients regarding what they consider to be important as an indicator of treatment success. Results will be analysed using thematic analysis and qualitative analysis where possible. This will result in comprehensive synthesis of all outcomes and measures found related to OUD treatment effectiveness. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: We are collaborating with Canadian Addiction Treatment Centres which provide MAT to patients with OUD who will participate in disseminating study results. Dissemination strategies will involve sharing study results through workshops, presentations, peer-reviewed publications, study reports, community presentations and resources in primary care settings. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42018095553.

Does the medical literature remain inadequately described despite having reporting guidelines for 21 years? - A systematic review of reviews: an update.

PURPOSE: Reporting guidelines (eg, Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials [CONSORT] statement) are intended to improve reporting standards and enhance the transparency and reproducibility of research findings. Despite accessibility of such guidelines, researchers are not required to adhere to them. Our goal was to determine the current status of reporting quality in the medical literature and examine whether adherence of reporting guidelines has improved since the inception of reporting guidelines. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Eight reporting guidelines, such as CONSORT, Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA), STrengthening the Reporting of OBservational studies in Epidemiology (STROBE), Quality of Reporting of Meta-analysis (QUOROM), STAndards for Reporting of Diagnostic accuracy (STARD), Animal Research: Reporting In Vivo Experiments (ARRIVE), Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS), and Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) were examined. Our inclusion criteria included reviews published between January 1996 to September 2016 which investigated the adherence to reporting guidelines in the literature that addressed clinical trials, systematic reviews, observational studies, meta-analysis, diagnostic accuracy, economic evaluations, and preclinical animal studies that were in English. All reviews were found on Web of Science, Excerpta Medical Database (EMBASE), MEDLINE, and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL). RESULTS: Among the general searching of 26,819 studies by using the designed searching method, 124 studies were included post screening. We found that 87.9% of the included studies reported suboptimal adherence to reporting guidelines. Factors associated with poor adherence included non-pharmacological interventions, year of publication, and trials concluding with significant results. Improved adherence was associated with better study designs such as allocation concealment, random sequence, large sample sizes, adequately powered studies, multiple authorships, and being published in journals endorsing guidelines. CONCLUSION: We conclude that the level of adherence to reporting guidelines remains suboptimal. Endorsement of reporting guidelines by journals is important and recommended.