Effectiveness of psychosocial interventions for reducing parental substance misuse.

BACKGROUND: Parental substance use is a substantial public health and safeguarding concern. There have been a number of trials of interventions relating to substance-using parents that have sought to address this risk factor, with potential outcomes for parent and child. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of psychosocial interventions in reducing parental substance use (alcohol and/or illicit drugs, excluding tobacco). SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following databases from their inception to July 2020: the Cochrane Drugs and Alcohol Group Specialised Register; CENTRAL; MEDLINE; Embase; PsycINFO; CINAHL; Applied Social Science (ASSIA); Sociological Abstracts; Social Science Citation Index (SSCI), Scopus, ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO ICTRP, and TRoPHI. We also searched key journals and the reference lists of included papers and contacted authors publishing in the field. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included data from trials of complex psychosocial interventions targeting substance use in parents of children under the age of 21 years. Studies were only included if they had a minimum follow-up period of six months from the start of the intervention and compared psychosocial interventions to comparison conditions. The primary outcome of this review was a reduction in the frequency of parental substance use. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. MAIN RESULTS: We included 22 unique studies with a total of 2274 participants (mean age of parents ranged from 26.3 to 40.9 years), examining 24 experimental interventions. The majority of studies intervened with mothers only (n = 16; 73%). Heroin, cocaine, and alcohol were the most commonly reported substances used by participants. The interventions targeted either parenting only (n = 13; 59%); drug and alcohol use only (n = 5; 23%); or integrated interventions which addressed both (n = 6; 27%). Half of the studies (n = 11; 50%) compared the experimental intervention to usual treatment. Other comparison groups were minimal intervention, attention controls, and alternative intervention. Eight of the included studies reported data relating to our primary outcome at 6- and/or 12-month follow-up and were included in a meta-analysis. We investigated intervention effectiveness separately for alcohol and drugs. Studies were found to be mostly at low or unclear risk for all 'Risk of bias' domains except blinding of participants and personnel and outcome assessment.  We found moderate-quality evidence that psychosocial interventions are probably more effective at reducing the frequency of parental alcohol misuse than comparison conditions at 6-month (mean difference (MD) -0.32, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.51 to -0.13; 6 studies, 475 participants) and 12-month follow-up (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.25, 95% CI -0.47 to -0.03; 4 studies, 366 participants). We found a significant reduction in frequency of use at 12 months only (SMD -0.21, 95% CI -0.41 to -0.01; 6 studies, 514 participants, moderate-quality evidence). We examined the effect of the intervention type. We found low-quality evidence that psychosocial interventions targeting substance use only may not reduce the frequency of alcohol (6 months: SMD -0.35, 95% CI -0.86 to 0.16; 2 studies, 89 participants and 12 months: SMD -0.09, 95% CI -0.86 to 0.61; 1 study, 34 participants) or drug use (6 months: SMD 0.01, 95% CI -0.42 to 0.44; 2 studies; 87 participants and 12 months: SMD -0.08, 95% CI -0.81 to 0.65; 1 study, 32 participants). A parenting intervention only, without an adjunctive substance use component, may not reduce frequency of alcohol misuse (6 months: SMD -0.21, 95% CI -0.46 to 0.04, 3 studies; 273 participants, low-quality evidence and 12 months: SMD -0.11, 95% CI -0.64 to 0.41; 2 studies; 219 participants, very low-quality evidence) or frequency of drug use  (6 months: SMD 0.10, 95% CI -0.11 to 0.30; 4 studies; 407 participants, moderate-quality evidence and 12 months: SMD -0.13, 95% CI -0.52 to 0.26; 3 studies; 351 participants, very low-quality evidence). Parents receiving integrated interventions which combined both parenting- and substance use-targeted components may reduce alcohol misuse with a small effect size (6 months: SMD -0.56, 95% CI -0.96 to -0.16 and 12 months: SMD -0.42, 95% CI -0.82 to -0.03; 2 studies, 113 participants) and drug use (6 months: SMD -0.39, 95% CI -0.75 to -0.03 and 12 months: SMD -0.43, 95% CI -0.80 to -0.07; 2 studies, 131 participants). However, this evidence was of low quality. Psychosocial interventions in which the child was present in the sessions were not effective in reducing the frequency of parental alcohol or drug use, whilst interventions that did not involve children in any of the sessions were found to reduce frequency of alcohol misuse (6 months: SMD -0.47, 95% CI -0.76 to -0.18; 3 studies, 202 participants and 12 months: SMD -0.34, 95% CI -0.69 to 0.00; 2 studies, 147 participants) and drug use at 12-month follow-up (SMD -0.34, 95% CI -0.69 to 0.01; 2 studies, 141 participants). The quality of this evidence was low. Interventions appeared to be more often beneficial for fathers than for mothers. We found low- to very low-quality evidence of a reduction in frequency of alcohol misuse for mothers at six months only (SMD -0.27, 95% CI -0.50 to -0.04; 4 studies, 328 participants), whilst in fathers there was a reduction in frequency of alcohol misuse (6 months: SMD -0.43, 95% CI -0.78 to -0.09; 2 studies, 147 participants and 12 months: SMD -0.34, 95% CI -0.69 to 0.00; 2 studies, 147 participants) and drug use (6 months: SMD -0.31, 95% CI -0.66 to 0.04; 2 studies, 141 participants and 12 months: SMD -0.34, 95% CI -0.69 to 0.01; 2 studies, 141 participants). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found moderate-quality evidence that psychosocial interventions probably reduce the frequency at which parents use alcohol and drugs. Integrated psychosocial interventions which combine parenting skills interventions with a substance use component may show the most promise. Whilst it appears that mothers may benefit less than fathers from intervention, caution is advised in the interpretation of this evidence, as the interventions provided to mothers alone typically did not address their substance use and other related needs. We found low-quality evidence from few studies that interventions involving children are not beneficial.

Effectiveness of brief alcohol interventions in primary care populations.

BACKGROUND: Excessive drinking is a significant cause of mortality, morbidity and social problems in many countries. Brief interventions aim to reduce alcohol consumption and related harm in hazardous and harmful drinkers who are not actively seeking help for alcohol problems. Interventions usually take the form of a conversation with a primary care provider and may include feedback on the person's alcohol use, information about potential harms and benefits of reducing intake, and advice on how to reduce consumption. Discussion informs the development of a personal plan to help reduce consumption. Brief interventions can also include behaviour change or motivationally-focused counselling.This is an update of a Cochrane Review published in 2007. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of screening and brief alcohol intervention to reduce excessive alcohol consumption in hazardous or harmful drinkers in general practice or emergency care settings. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, and 12 other bibliographic databases to September 2017. We searched Alcohol and Alcohol Problems Science Database (to December 2003, after which the database was discontinued), trials registries, and websites. We carried out handsearching and checked reference lists of included studies and relevant reviews. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of brief interventions to reduce hazardous or harmful alcohol consumption in people attending general practice, emergency care or other primary care settings for reasons other than alcohol treatment. The comparison group was no or minimal intervention, where a measure of alcohol consumption was reported. 'Brief intervention' was defined as a conversation comprising five or fewer sessions of brief advice or brief lifestyle counselling and a total duration of less than 60 minutes. Any more was considered an extended intervention. Digital interventions were not included in this review. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We carried out subgroup analyses where possible to investigate the impact of factors such as gender, age, setting (general practice versus emergency care), treatment exposure and baseline consumption. MAIN RESULTS: We included 69 studies that randomised a total of 33,642 participants. Of these, 42 studies were added for this update (24,057 participants). Most interventions were delivered in general practice (38 studies, 55%) or emergency care (27 studies, 39%) settings. Most studies (61 studies, 88%) compared brief intervention to minimal or no intervention. Extended interventions were compared with brief (4 studies, 6%), minimal or no intervention (7 studies, 10%). Few studies targeted particular age groups: adolescents or young adults (6 studies, 9%) and older adults (4 studies, 6%). Mean baseline alcohol consumption was 244 g/week (30.5 standard UK units) among the studies that reported these data. Main sources of bias were attrition and lack of provider or participant blinding. The primary meta-analysis included 34 studies (15,197 participants) and provided moderate-quality evidence that participants who received brief intervention consumed less alcohol than minimal or no intervention participants after one year (mean difference (MD) -20 g/week, 95% confidence interval (CI) -28 to -12). There was substantial heterogeneity among studies (I² = 73%). A subgroup analysis by gender demonstrated that both men and women reduced alcohol consumption after receiving a brief intervention.We found moderate-quality evidence that brief alcohol interventions have little impact on frequency of binges per week (MD -0.08, 95% CI -0.14 to -0.02; 15 studies, 6946 participants); drinking days per week (MD -0.13, 95% CI -0.23 to -0.04; 11 studies, 5469 participants); or drinking intensity (-0.2 g/drinking day, 95% CI -3.1 to 2.7; 10 studies, 3128 participants).We found moderate-quality evidence of little difference in quantity of alcohol consumed when extended and no or minimal interventions were compared (-14 g/week, 95% CI -37 to 9; 6 studies, 1296 participants). There was little difference in binges per week (-0.08, 95% CI -0.28 to 0.12; 2 studies, 456 participants; moderate-quality evidence) or difference in days drinking per week (-0.45, 95% CI -0.81 to -0.09; 2 studies, 319 participants; moderate-quality evidence). Extended versus no or minimal intervention provided little impact on drinking intensity (9 g/drinking day, 95% CI -26 to 9; 1 study, 158 participants; low-quality evidence).Extended intervention had no greater impact than brief intervention on alcohol consumption, although findings were imprecise (MD 2 g/week, 95% CI -42 to 45; 3 studies, 552 participants; low-quality evidence). Numbers of binges were not reported for this comparison, but one trial suggested a possible drop in days drinking per week (-0.5, 95% CI -1.2 to 0.2; 147 participants; low-quality evidence). Results from this trial also suggested very little impact on drinking intensity (-1.7 g/drinking day, 95% CI -18.9 to 15.5; 147 participants; very low-quality evidence).Only five studies reported adverse effects (very low-quality evidence). No participants experienced any adverse effects in two studies; one study reported that the intervention increased binge drinking for women and two studies reported adverse events related to driving outcomes but concluded they were equivalent in both study arms.Sources of funding were reported by 67 studies (87%). With two exceptions, studies were funded by government institutes, research bodies or charitable foundations. One study was partly funded by a pharmaceutical company and a brewers association, another by a company developing diagnostic testing equipment. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found moderate-quality evidence that brief interventions can reduce alcohol consumption in hazardous and harmful drinkers compared to minimal or no intervention. Longer counselling duration probably has little additional effect. Future studies should focus on identifying the components of interventions which are most closely associated with effectiveness.

Personalised digital interventions for reducing hazardous and harmful alcohol consumption in community-dwelling populations.

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.

Understanding pathways to stimulant use: a mixed-methods examination of the individual, social and cultural factors shaping illicit stimulant use across Europe (ATTUNE): study protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Amphetamine-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 ANALYSIS: We 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 DISSEMINATION: The 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.