RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Engagement in multiple substance use risk behaviours such as tobacco smoking, alcohol and drug use during adolescence can result in adverse health and social outcomes. The impact of interventions that address multiple substance use risk behaviours, and the differential impact of universal versus targeted approaches, is unclear given findings from systematic reviews have been mixed. Our objective was to assess effects of interventions targeting multiple substance use behaviours in adolescents. METHODS: Eight databases were searched to October 2019. Individual and cluster randomised controlled trials were included if they addressed two or more substance use behaviours in individuals aged 8-25 years. Data were pooled in random-effects meta-analyses, reported by intervention and setting. Quality of evidence was assessed using GRADE. Heterogeneity was assessed using between-study variance, τ2 and Ι2, and the p-value of between-study heterogeneity statistic Q. Sensitivity analyses were undertaken using the highest and lowest intra-cluster correlation coefficient (ICC). RESULTS: Of 66 included studies, most were universal (n=52) and school-based (n=41). We found moderate quality evidence that universal school-based interventions are likely to have little or no short-term benefit (up to 12 months) in relation to alcohol use (OR 0.94, 95% CI: 0.84, 1.04), tobacco use (OR 0.98, 95% CI: 0.83, 1.15), cannabis use (OR 1.06, 95% CI: 0.86, 1.31) and other illicit drug use (OR 1.09, 95% CI: 0.85, 1.39). For targeted school-level interventions, there was low quality evidence of no or a small short-term benefit: alcohol use (OR 0.90, 95% CI: 0.74-1.09), tobacco use (OR 0.86, 95% CI: 0.66, 1.11), cannabis use (OR 0.84, 95% CI: 0.66-1.07) and other illicit drug use (OR 0.79, 95% CI 0.62-1.02). There were too few family-level (n=4), individual-level (n=2) and combination level (n=5) studies to draw confident conclusions. Sensitivity analyses of ICC did not change results. CONCLUSIONS: There is low to moderate quality evidence that universal and targeted school-level interventions have no or a small beneficial effect for preventing substance use multiple risk behaviours in adolescents. Higher quality trials and study reporting would allow better evidence syntheses, which is needed given small benefit of universal interventions can have high public health benefit. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2014, Issue 11. Art. No.: CD011374. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011374.
Asunto(s)
Drogas Ilícitas , Trastornos Relacionados con Sustancias , Adolescente , Humanos , Asunción de Riesgos , Trastornos Relacionados con Sustancias/epidemiología , Trastornos Relacionados con Sustancias/prevención & control , Nicotiana , Uso de Tabaco/prevención & controlRESUMEN
Background: Digital behavior change interventions (DBCIs) appear to reduce alcohol consumption, but greater understanding is needed of their mechanisms of action. Purpose: To describe the behavior change techniques (BCTs) used in DBCIs and examine whether individual BCTs, the inclusion of more BCTs or more Control Theory congruent BCTs is associated with increased effectiveness. Methods: Forty-one randomized control trials were extracted from a Cochrane review of alcohol reduction DBCIs and coded for up to 93 BCTs using an established and reliable method. Random effects unadjusted and adjusted meta-regression models were performed to assess associations between BCTs and intervention effectiveness. Results: Interventions used a mean of 9.1 BCTs (range 1-22), 23 different BCTs were used in four or more trials. Trials that used "Behavior substitution" (-95.112 grams per week [gpw], 95% CI: -162.90, -27.34), "Problem solving" (-45.92 gpw, 95% CI: -90.97, -0.87) and "Credible source" (-32.09 gpw, 95% CI: -60.64, -3.55) were significantly associated with greater alcohol reduction than trials without these BCTs. The "Behavior substitution" result should be treated as preliminary because it was reported in only four trials, three of which were conducted by the same research group. "Feedback" was used in 98% of trials (n = 41); other Control Theory congruent BCTs were used less frequently: for example, "Goal setting" 43% (n = 18) and "Self-monitoring" 29%, (n = 12). Conclusions: "Behavior substitution," "Problem solving," and "Credible source" were associated with greater alcohol reduction. Many BCTs were used infrequently in DBCIs, including BCTs with evidence of effectiveness in other domains, such as "Self-monitoring" and "Goal setting."
Asunto(s)
Consumo de Bebidas Alcohólicas/terapia , Alcoholismo/terapia , Medicina de la Conducta/métodos , Ensayos Clínicos Controlados Aleatorios como Asunto , Telemedicina/métodos , HumanosRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Engagement in multiple risk behaviours can have adverse consequences for health during childhood, during adolescence, and later in life, yet little is known about the impact of different types of interventions that target multiple risk behaviours in children and young people, or the differential impact of universal versus targeted approaches. Findings from systematic reviews have been mixed, and effects of these interventions have not been quantitatively estimated. OBJECTIVES: To examine the effects of interventions implemented up to 18 years of age for the primary or secondary prevention of multiple risk behaviours among young people. SEARCH METHODS: We searched 11 databases (Australian Education Index; British Education Index; Campbell Library; Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL); Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), in the Cochrane Library; Embase; Education Resource Information Center (ERIC); International Bibliography of the Social Sciences; MEDLINE; PsycINFO; and Sociological Abstracts) on three occasions (2012, 2015, and 14 November 2016)). We conducted handsearches of reference lists, contacted experts in the field, conducted citation searches, and searched websites of relevant organisations. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), including cluster RCTs, which aimed to address at least two risk behaviours. Participants were children and young people up to 18 years of age and/or parents, guardians, or carers, as long as the intervention aimed to address involvement in multiple risk behaviours among children and young people up to 18 years of age. However, studies could include outcome data on children > 18 years of age at the time of follow-up. Specifically,we included studies with outcomes collected from those eight to 25 years of age. Further, we included only studies with a combined intervention and follow-up period of six months or longer. We excluded interventions aimed at individuals with clinically diagnosed disorders along with clinical interventions. We categorised interventions according to whether they were conducted at the individual level; the family level; or the school level. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We identified a total of 34,680 titles, screened 27,691 articles and assessed 424 full-text articles for eligibility. Two or more review authors independently assessed studies for inclusion in the review, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias.We pooled data in meta-analyses using a random-effects (DerSimonian and Laird) model in RevMan 5.3. For each outcome, we included subgroups related to study type (individual, family, or school level, and universal or targeted approach) and examined effectiveness at up to 12 months' follow-up and over the longer term (> 12 months). We assessed the quality and certainty of evidence using the Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. MAIN RESULTS: We included in the review a total of 70 eligible studies, of which a substantial proportion were universal school-based studies (n = 28; 40%). Most studies were conducted in the USA (n = 55; 79%). On average, studies aimed to prevent four of the primary behaviours. Behaviours that were most frequently addressed included alcohol use (n = 55), drug use (n = 53), and/or antisocial behaviour (n = 53), followed by tobacco use (n = 42). No studies aimed to prevent self-harm or gambling alongside other behaviours.Evidence suggests that for multiple risk behaviours, universal school-based interventions were beneficial in relation to tobacco use (odds ratio (OR) 0.77, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.60 to 0.97; n = 9 studies; 15,354 participants) and alcohol use (OR 0.72, 95% CI 0.56 to 0.92; n = 8 studies; 8751 participants; both moderate-quality evidence) compared to a comparator, and that such interventions may be effective in preventing illicit drug use (OR 0.74, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.00; n = 5 studies; 11,058 participants; low-quality evidence) and engagement in any antisocial behaviour (OR 0.81, 95% CI 0.66 to 0.98; n = 13 studies; 20,756 participants; very low-quality evidence) at up to 12 months' follow-up, although there was evidence of moderate to substantial heterogeneity (I² = 49% to 69%). Moderate-quality evidence also showed that multiple risk behaviour universal school-based interventions improved the odds of physical activity (OR 1.32, 95% CI 1.16 to 1.50; I² = 0%; n = 4 studies; 6441 participants). We considered observed effects to be of public health importance when applied at the population level. Evidence was less certain for the effects of such multiple risk behaviour interventions for cannabis use (OR 0.79, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.01; P = 0.06; n = 5 studies; 4140 participants; I² = 0%; moderate-quality evidence), sexual risk behaviours (OR 0.83, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.12; P = 0.22; n = 6 studies; 12,633 participants; I² = 77%; low-quality evidence), and unhealthy diet (OR 0.82, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.06; P = 0.13; n = 3 studies; 6441 participants; I² = 49%; moderate-quality evidence). It is important to note that some evidence supported the positive effects of universal school-level interventions on three or more risk behaviours.For most outcomes of individual- and family-level targeted and universal interventions, moderate- or low-quality evidence suggests little or no effect, although caution is warranted in interpretation because few of these studies were available for comparison (n ≤ 4 studies for each outcome).Seven studies reported adverse effects, which involved evidence suggestive of increased involvement in a risk behaviour among participants receiving the intervention compared to participants given control interventions.We judged the quality of evidence to be moderate or low for most outcomes, primarily owing to concerns around selection, performance, and detection bias and heterogeneity between studies. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Available evidence is strongest for universal school-based interventions that target multiple- risk behaviours, demonstrating that they may be effective in preventing engagement in tobacco use, alcohol use, illicit drug use, and antisocial behaviour, and in improving physical activity among young people, but not in preventing other risk behaviours. Results of this review do not provide strong evidence of benefit for family- or individual-level interventions across the risk behaviours studied. However, poor reporting and concerns around the quality of evidence highlight the need for high-quality multiple- risk behaviour intervention studies to further strengthen the evidence base in this field.
Asunto(s)
Consumo de Bebidas Alcohólicas/prevención & control , Ejercicio Físico , Abuso de Marihuana/prevención & control , Asunción de Riesgos , Prevención del Hábito de Fumar , Trastorno de la Conducta Social/prevención & control , Trastornos Relacionados con Sustancias/prevención & control , Adolescente , Conducción de Automóvil , Niño , Preescolar , Terapia Familiar , Humanos , Lactante , Evaluación de Programas y Proyectos de Salud , Ensayos Clínicos Controlados Aleatorios como Asunto , Instituciones Académicas , Conducta Sexual , Adulto JovenRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Applying theory to the design and evaluation of interventions is likely to increase effectiveness and improve the evidence base from which future interventions are developed, though few interventions report this. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this paper was to assess how digital interventions to reduce hazardous and harmful alcohol consumption report the use of theory in their development and evaluation, and whether reporting of theory use is associated with intervention effectiveness. METHODS: Randomized controlled trials were extracted from a Cochrane review on digital interventions for reducing hazardous and harmful alcohol consumption. Reporting of theory use within these digital interventions was investigated using the theory coding scheme (TCS). Reported theory use was analyzed by frequency counts and descriptive statistics. Associations were analyzed with meta-regression models. RESULTS: Of 41 trials involving 42 comparisons, half did not mention theory (50% [21/42]), and only 38% (16/42) used theory to select or develop the intervention techniques. Significant heterogeneity existed between studies in the effect of interventions on alcohol reduction (I2=77.6%, P<.001). No significant associations were detected between reporting of theory use and intervention effectiveness in unadjusted models, though the meta-regression was underpowered to detect modest associations. CONCLUSIONS: Digital interventions offer a unique opportunity to refine and develop new dynamic, temporally sensitive theories, yet none of the studies reported refining or developing theory. Clearer selection, application, and reporting of theory use is needed to accurately assess how useful theory is in this field and to advance the field of behavior change theories.
Asunto(s)
Alcoholismo/terapia , Análisis de Regresión , HumanosRESUMEN
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.
Asunto(s)
Trastornos Relacionados con Alcohol/terapia , Terapia Conductista/métodos , Teléfono Celular , Computadoras de Mano , Minicomputadores , Terapia Asistida por Computador/métodos , Consumo de Bebidas Alcohólicas/epidemiología , Consumo de Bebidas Alcohólicas/terapia , Trastornos Relacionados con Alcohol/epidemiología , Consumo Excesivo de Bebidas Alcohólicas/epidemiología , Consumo Excesivo de Bebidas Alcohólicas/terapia , Análisis Costo-Beneficio , Humanos , Entrevista Motivacional , Ensayos Clínicos Controlados Aleatorios como AsuntoRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Previous analyses of adolescent suicides in England and Wales have focused on short time periods. AIMS: To investigate trends in suicide and accidental deaths in adolescents between 1972 and 2011. METHOD: Time trend analysis of rates of suicides and deaths from accidental poisoning and hanging in 10- to 19-year-olds by age, gender and deprivation. Rate ratios were estimated for 1982-1991, 1992-2001 and 2002-2011 with 1972-1981 as comparator. RESULTS: Suicide rates have remained stable in 10- to 14-year-olds, with strong evidence for a reduction in accidental deaths. In males aged 15-19, suicide rates peaked in 2001 before declining. Suicide by hanging is the most common method of suicide. Rates were higher in males and in 15- to 19-year-olds living in more deprived areas. CONCLUSIONS: Suicide rates in adolescents are at their lowest since the early 1970s with no clear evidence that changes in coroners' practices underlie this trend.
Asunto(s)
Causas de Muerte , Suicidio/estadística & datos numéricos , Suicidio/tendencias , Adolescente , Adulto , Niño , Inglaterra/epidemiología , Femenino , Humanos , Masculino , Factores Sexuales , Factores Socioeconómicos , Gales/epidemiología , Adulto JovenRESUMEN
INTRODUCTION: The COVID-19 pandemic has led to unprecedented delays for those awaiting elective hip and knee arthroplasty. Current demand far exceeds available resource, and therefore it is integral that healthcare resource is fairly rationed to those who need it most. We therefore set out to determine if pre-operative health-related quality of life assessment (HRQoL) could be used to triage arthroplasty waiting lists. METHODS: Data regarding demographics, perioperative variables and patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) (pre-operative and 1-year post-operative EuroQOL five dimension (EQ-5D-3L) and Oxford hip and knee scores (OHS/OKS) were retrospectively extracted from electronic patient health records at a large university teaching hospital. Patients were split into two equal groups based on pre-operative EQ-5D TTO scores and compared (Group1 [worse HRQoL] = -0.239 to 0.487; Group2 [better HRQoL] = 0.516-1 [best]). RESULTS: 513 patients were included. Patients in Group1 had significantly greater improvement in post-operative EQ-5D-3L scores compared to Group2 (Median 0.67 vs. 0.19; p < 0.0001), as well as greater improvement in OHS/OKS (Mean 22.4 vs. 16.4; p < 0.0001). Those in Group2 were significantly less likely to achieve the EQ-5D-3L minimum clinically important difference (MCID) attainment (OR 0.13, 95%CI 0.07-0.23; p < 0.0001) with a trend towards lower OHS/OKS MCID attainment (OR 0.66, 95%CI 0.37-1.19; p = 0.168). There was no clinically significant difference in length of stay (Median 3-days both groups), and no statistically significant difference in adverse events (30 days and 1 year readmission/reoperation). CONCLUSIONS: A pre-operative EQ-5D-3L cut-off of ≤0.487 for hip and knee arthroplasty prioritisation may help to maximise clinical utility and cost-effectiveness in a limited resource setting post COVID-19.