Co-design of digital public health substance use resources: A collaboration between young people and experts.

ISSUE ADDRESSED: Substance use and mental illness remain critical issues for young Australians, however, engagement with evidence-based health resources is challenging among this age group. This study aimed to develop engaging, useful digital health resources, underpinned by neuroscience principles, to build awareness of the harms of electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) and concurrent alcohol and antidepressant use. METHODS: A mixed-methods approach was adopted to co-design two evidence-based videos resources. The resources were co-designed with the Matilda Centre's Youth Advisory Board Centre's Youth Advisory Board through a series focus groups and individual feedback reviews. Young people residing in New South Wales were then invited to complete a survey to evaluate the usefulness, relatability and impact on perceived harms associated with each substance pre- and post-viewing resources. RESULTS: A total of 100 participants completed the survey (mean age = 21.5 years, SD = 2.77, 42% Female, 2% Non-binary). The animated videos were well received, with the large majority (91% and 87% respectively) of participants rating them 'excellent' or 'very good'. After viewing the videos, there was a significant increase in the perception of harm associated with e-cigarette use, monthly (t(99) = 2.76, p = .003), weekly (t(99) = 4.82, p < .001) and daily (t(99) = 4.92, p < .001), and consuming alcohol whilst taking antidepressants both weekly (t(100) = 2.93, p = .004) and daily (t(100) = 3.13, p = .002). CONCLUSIONS: This study describes a successful co-design process demonstrating how meaningful involvement of young people, alongside traditional research methods, can produce substance use prevention resources that are useful, engaging and increase knowledge of harms among young people. SO WHAT?: To achieve meaningful public health impact researchers, experts and digital creators can work together to co-create substance use educational materials that are engaging, well-liked, while imparting important health knowledge.

Interventions to prevent or cease electronic cigarette use in children and adolescents.

BACKGROUND: The prevalence of e-cigarette use has increased globally amongst children and adolescents in recent years. In response to the increasing prevalence and emerging evidence about the potential harms of e-cigarettes in children and adolescents, leading public health organisations have called for approaches to address increasing e-cigarette use. Whilst evaluations of approaches to reduce uptake and use regularly appear in the literature, the collective long-term benefit of these is currently unclear. OBJECTIVES: The co-primary objectives of the review were to: (1) evaluate the effectiveness of interventions to prevent e-cigarette use in children and adolescents (aged 19 years and younger) with no prior use, relative to no intervention, waitlist control, usual practice, or an alternative intervention; and (2) evaluate the effectiveness of interventions to cease e-cigarette use in children and adolescents (aged 19 years and younger) reporting current use, relative to no intervention, waitlist control, usual practice, or an alternative intervention. Secondary objectives were to: (1) examine the effect of such interventions on child and adolescent use of other tobacco products (e.g. cigarettes, cigars types, and chewing tobacco); and (2) describe the unintended adverse effects of the intervention on individuals (e.g. physical or mental health of individuals), or on organisations (e.g. intervention displacement of key curricula or learning opportunities for school students) where such interventions are being implemented. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, Ovid PsycINFO, EBSCO CINAHL, and Clarivate Web of Science Core Collection from inception to 1 May 2023. Additionally, we searched two trial registry platforms (WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform; US National Institutes of Health Ongoing Trials Register ClinicalTrials.gov), Google Scholar, and the reference lists of relevant systematic reviews. We contacted corresponding authors of articles identified as ongoing studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), including cluster-RCTs, factorial RCTs, and stepped-wedge RCTs. To be eligible, the primary targets of the interventions must have been children and adolescents aged 19 years or younger. Interventions could have been conducted in any setting, including community, school, health services, or the home, and must have sought to influence children or adolescent (or both) e-cigarette use directly. Studies with a comparator of no intervention (i.e. control), waitlist control, usual practice, or an alternative intervention not targeting e-cigarette use were eligible. We included measures to assess the effectiveness of interventions to: prevent child and adolescent e-cigarette use (including measures of e-cigarette use amongst those who were never-users); and cease e-cigarette use (including measures of e-cigarette use amongst children and adolescents who were e-cigarette current-users). Measures of e-cigarette use included current-use (defined as use in the past 30 days) and ever-use (defined as any lifetime use). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently screened the titles and abstracts of references, with any discrepancies resolved through consensus. Pairs of review authors independently assessed the full-text articles for inclusion in the review. We planned for two review authors to independently extract information from the included studies and assess risk of bias using the Cochrane RoB 2 tool. We planned to conduct multiple meta-analyses using a random-effects model to align with the co-primary objectives of the review. First, we planned to pool interventions to prevent child and adolescent e-cigarette use and conduct two analyses using the outcome measures of 'ever-use' and 'current-use'. Second, we planned to pool interventions to cease child and adolescent e-cigarette use and conduct one analysis using the outcome measure of 'current-use'. Where data were unsuitable for pooling in meta-analyses, we planned to conduct a narrative synthesis using vote-counting approaches and to follow the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions and the Synthesis Without Meta-analysis (SWiM) guidelines. MAIN RESULTS: The search of electronic databases identified 7141 citations, with a further 287 records identified from the search of trial registries and Google Scholar. Of the 110 studies (116 records) evaluated in full text, we considered 88 to be ineligible for inclusion for the following reasons: inappropriate outcome (27 studies); intervention (12 studies); study design (31 studies); and participants (18 studies). The remaining 22 studies (28 records) were identified as ongoing studies that may be eligible for inclusion in a future review update. We identified no studies with published data that were eligible for inclusion in the review. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We identified no RCTs that met the inclusion criteria for the review, and as such, there is no evidence available from RCTs to assess the potential impact of interventions targeting children and adolescent e-cigarette use, tobacco use, or any unintended adverse effects. Evidence from studies employing other trial designs (e.g. non-randomised) may exist; however, such studies were not eligible for inclusion in the review. Evidence from studies using non-randomised designs should be examined to guide actions to prevent or cease e-cigarette use. This is a living systematic review. We search for new evidence every month and update the review when we identify relevant new evidence. Please refer to the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for the current status of this review.

Study protocol of the Our Futures Vaping Trial: a cluster randomised controlled trial of a school-based eHealth intervention to prevent e-cigarette use among adolescents.

BACKGROUND: Effective and scalable prevention approaches are urgently needed to address the rapidly increasing rates of e-cigarette use among adolescents. School-based eHealth interventions can be an efficient, effective, and economical approach, yet there are none targeting e-cigarettes within Australia. This paper describes the protocol of the OurFutures Vaping Trial which aims to evaluate the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of the first school-based eHealth intervention targeting e-cigarettes in Australia. METHODS: A two-arm cluster randomised controlled trial will be conducted among Year 7 and 8 students (aged 12-14 years) in 42 secondary schools across New South Wales, Western Australia and Queensland, Australia. Using stratified block randomisation, schools will be assigned to either the OurFutures Vaping Program intervention group or an active control group (health education as usual). The intervention consists of four web-based cartoon lessons and accompanying activities delivered during health education over a four-week period. Whilst primarily focused on e-cigarette use, the program simultaneously addresses tobacco cigarette use. Students will complete online self-report surveys at baseline, post-intervention, 6-, 12-, 24-, and 36-months after baseline. The primary outcome is the uptake of e-cigarette use at 12-month follow-up. Secondary outcomes include the uptake of tobacco smoking, frequency/quantity of e-cigarettes use and tobacco smoking, intentions to use e-cigarettes/tobacco cigarettes, knowledge about e-cigarettes/tobacco cigarettes, motives and attitudes relating to e-cigarettes, self-efficacy to resist peer pressure and refuse e-cigarettes, mental health, quality of life, and resource utilisation. Generalized mixed effects regression will investigate whether receiving the intervention reduces the likelihood of primary and secondary outcomes. Cost-effectiveness and the effect on primary and secondary outcomes will also be examined over the longer-term. DISCUSSION: If effective, the intervention will be readily accessible to schools via the OurFutures platform and has the potential to make substantial health and economic impact. Without such intervention, young Australians will be the first generation to use nicotine at higher rates than previous generations, thereby undoing decades of effective tobacco control. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The trial has been prospectively registered with the Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ACTRN12623000022662; date registered: 10/01/2023).

The impact of supported accommodation on health and criminal justice outcomes of people released from prison: a systematic literature review.

BACKGROUND: Supported accommodation intends to address challenges arising following release from prison; however, impact of services, and of specific service components, is unclear. We describe key characteristics of supported accommodation, including program components and outcomes/impact; and distil best-evidence components. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review, searching relevant databases in November 2022. Data were synthesised via effect direction plots according to the Synthesis Without Meta-analysis guidelines. We assessed study quality using the McGill Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool, and certainty in evidence using the GRADE framework. RESULTS: Twenty-eight studies were included; predominantly cross-sectional. Program components which address life skills, vocational training, AOD use, and mental health appear to positively impact criminal justice outcomes. Criminal justice outcomes were the most commonly reported, and while we identified a reduction in parole revocations and reincarceration, outcomes were otherwise mixed. Variable design, often lacking rigour, and inconsistent outcome reporting limited assessment of these outcomes, and subsequently certainty in findings was low. CONCLUSION: Post-release supported accommodation may reduce parole revocations and reincarceration. Despite limitations in the literature, the findings presented herein represent current best evidence. Future studies should clearly define program components and measure their impact; use analyses which reflect the high risk of adverse outcomes, such as time-to-event analyses; and consider outcomes which reflect the range of challenges faced by people leaving prison. REGISTRATION: PROSPERO registration CRD42020189821.

Responding to global stimulant use: challenges and opportunities.

We did a global review to synthesise data on the prevalence, harms, and interventions for stimulant use, focusing specifically on the use of cocaine and amphetamines. Modelling estimated the effect of cocaine and amphetamine use on mortality, suicidality, and blood borne virus incidence. The estimated global prevalence of cocaine use was 0·4% and amphetamine use was 0·7%, with dependence affecting 16% of people who used cocaine and 11% of those who used amphetamine. Stimulant use was associated with elevated mortality, increased incidence of HIV and hepatitis C infection, poor mental health (suicidality, psychosis, depression, and violence), and increased risk of cardiovascular events. No effective pharmacotherapies are available that reduce stimulant use, and the available psychosocial interventions (except for contingency management) had a weak overall effect. Generic approaches can address mental health and blood borne virus infection risk if better tailored to mitigate the harms associated with stimulant use. Substantial and sustained investment is needed to develop more effective interventions to reduce stimulant use.

All-Cause and Overdose Mortality Risk Among People Prescribed Opioids: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate all-cause and overdose crude mortality rates and standardized mortality ratios among people prescribed opioids for chronic noncancer pain and risk of overdose death in this population relative to people with similar clinical profiles but not prescribed opioids. DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis. METHODS: Medline, Embase, and PsycINFO were searched in February 2018 and October 2019 for articles published beginning 2009. Due to limitations in published studies, we revised our inclusion criteria to include cohort studies of people prescribed opioids, excluding those studies where people were explicitly prescribed opioids for the treatment of opioid use disorder or acute cancer or palliative pain. We estimated pooled all-cause and overdose crude mortality rates using random effects meta-analysis models. No studies reported standardized mortality ratios or relative risks. RESULTS: We included 13 cohorts with 6,029,810 participants. The pooled all-cause crude mortality rate, based on 10 cohorts, was 28.8 per 1000 person-years (95% CI = 17.9-46.4), with substantial heterogeneity (I2 = 99.9%). The pooled overdose crude mortality rate, based on six cohorts, was 1.1 per 1000 person-years (95% CI = 0.4-3.4), with substantial heterogeneity (I2 = 99.5%), but indications for opioid prescribing and opioid exposure were poorly ascertained. We were unable to estimate mortality in this population relative to clinically similar populations not prescribed opioids. CONCLUSIONS: Methodological limitations in the identified literature complicate efforts to determine the overdose mortality risk of people prescribed opioids. There is a need for large-scale clinical trials to assess adverse outcomes in opioid prescribing, especially for chronic noncancer pain.

Understanding the evidence for medical cannabis and cannabis-based medicines for the treatment of chronic non-cancer pain.

The use of medical cannabis and cannabis-based medicines has received increasing interest in recent years; with a corresponding surge in the number of studies and reviews conducted in the field. Despite this growth in evidence, the findings and conclusions of these studies have been inconsistent. In this paper, we outline the current evidence for medical cannabis and cannabis-based medicines in the treatment and management of chronic non-cancer pain. We discuss limitations of the current evidence, including limitations of randomised control trials in the field, limits on generalisability of previous findings and common issues such as problems with measurements of dose and type of cannabinoids. We discuss future directions for medicinal cannabinoid research, including addressing limitations in trial design; developing frameworks to monitor for use disorder and other unintended outcomes; and considering endpoints other than 30% or 50% reductions in pain severity.

Family-based prevention programmes for alcohol use in young people.

BACKGROUND: Alcohol use in young people is a risk factor for a range of short- and long-term harms and is a cause of concern for health services, policy-makers, youth workers, teachers, and parents. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of universal, selective, and indicated family-based prevention programmes in preventing alcohol use or problem drinking in school-aged children (up to 18 years of age).Specifically, on these outcomes, the review aimed:• to assess the effectiveness of universal family-based prevention programmes for all children up to 18 years ('universal interventions');• to assess the effectiveness of selective family-based prevention programmes for children up to 18 years at elevated risk of alcohol use or problem drinking ('selective interventions'); and• to assess the effectiveness of indicated family-based prevention programmes for children up to 18 years who are currently consuming alcohol, or who have initiated use or regular use ('indicated interventions'). SEARCH METHODS: We identified relevant evidence from the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), in the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE (Ovid 1966 to June 2018), Embase (1988 to June 2018), Education Resource Information Center (ERIC; EBSCOhost; 1966 to June 2018), PsycINFO (Ovid 1806 to June 2018), and Google Scholar. We also searched clinical trial registers and handsearched references of topic-related systematic reviews and the included studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and cluster RCTs (C-RCTs) involving the parents of school-aged children who were part of the general population with no known risk factors (universal interventions), were at elevated risk of alcohol use or problem drinking (selective interventions), or were already consuming alcohol (indicated interventions). Psychosocial or educational interventions involving parents with or without involvement of children were compared with no intervention, or with alternate (e.g. child only) interventions, allowing experimental isolation of parent components. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. MAIN RESULTS: We included 46 studies (39,822 participants), with 27 classified as universal, 12 as selective, and seven as indicated. We performed meta-analyses according to outcome, including studies reporting on the prevalence, frequency, or volume of alcohol use. The overall quality of evidence was low or very low, and there was high, unexplained heterogeneity.Upon comparing any family intervention to no intervention/standard care, we found no intervention effect on the prevalence (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.08 to 0.08; studies = 12; participants = 7490; I² = 57%; low-quality evidence) or frequency (SMD -0.31, 95% CI -0.83 to 0.21; studies = 8; participants = 1835; I² = 96%; very low-quality evidence) of alcohol use in comparison with no intervention/standard care. The effect of any parent/family interventions on alcohol consumption volume compared with no intervention/standard care was very small (SMD -0.14, 95% CI -0.27 to 0.00; studies = 5; participants = 1825; I² = 42%; low-quality evidence).When comparing parent/family and adolescent interventions versus interventions with young people alone, we found no difference in alcohol use prevalence (SMD -0.39, 95% CI -0.91 to 0.14; studies = 4; participants = 5640; I² = 99%; very low-quality evidence) or frequency (SMD -0.16, 95% CI -0.42 to 0.09; studies = 4; participants = 915; I² = 73%; very low-quality evidence). For this comparison, no trials reporting on the volume of alcohol use could be pooled in meta-analysis.In general, the results remained consistent in separate subgroup analyses of universal, selective, and indicated interventions. No adverse effects were reported. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The results of this review indicate that there are no clear benefits of family-based programmes for alcohol use among young people. Patterns differ slightly across outcomes, but overall, the variation, heterogeneity, and number of analyses performed preclude any conclusions about intervention effects. Additional independent studies are required to strengthen the evidence and clarify the marginal effects observed.

Evidence for cannabis and cannabinoids for epilepsy: a systematic review of controlled and observational evidence.

Review evidence for cannabinoids as adjunctive treatments for treatment-resistant epilepsy. Systematic search of Medline, Embase and PsycINFO was conducted in October 2017. Outcomes were: 50%+ seizure reduction, complete seizure freedom; improved quality of life (QoL). Tolerability/safety were assessed by study withdrawals, adverse events (AEs) and serious adverse events (SAEs). Analyses were conducted in Stata V.15.0. 36 studies were identified: 6 randomised controlled trials (RCTs), 30 observational studies. Mean age of participants was 16.1 years (range 0.5-55 years). Cannabidiol (CBD) 20 mg/kg/day was more effective than placebo at reducing seizure frequency by 50%+(relative risk (RR) 1.74, 95% CI 1.24 to 2.43, 2 RCTs, 291 patients, low Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) rating). The number needed to treat for one person using CBD to experience 50%+ seizure reduction was 8 (95% CI 6 to 17). CBD was more effective than placebo at achieving complete seizure freedom (RR 6.17, 95% CI 1.50 to 25.32, 3 RCTs, 306 patients, low GRADE rating), and improving QoL (RR 1.73, 95% CI 1.33 to 2.26), however increased risk of AEs (RR 1.24, 95% CI 1.13 to 1.36) and SAEs (RR 2.55, 95% CI 1.48 to 4.38). Pooled across 17 observational studies, 48.5% (95% CI 39.0% to 58.1%) of patients reported 50%+ reductions in seizures; in 14 observational studies 8.5% (95% CI 3.8% to 14.5%) were seizure-free. Twelve observational studies reported improved QoL (55.8%, 95% CI 40.5 to 70.6); 50.6% (95% CI 31.7 to 69.4) AEs and 2.2% (95% CI 0 to 7.9) SAEs. Pharmaceutical-grade CBD as adjuvant treatment in paediatric-onset drug-resistant epilepsy may reduce seizure frequency. Existing RCT evidence is mostly in paediatric samples with rare and severe epilepsy syndromes; RCTs examining other syndromes and cannabinoids are needed. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42017055412.

The Methodological Quality and Effectiveness of Technology-Based Smoking Cessation Interventions for Disadvantaged Groups: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Aims: To assess the methodological quality and effectiveness of technology-based smoking cessation interventions in disadvantaged groups. Method: Four databases (EMBASE, Cochrane, Medline, and PsycInfo) were searched for studies conducted from 1980 to May 2016. Randomized controlled trials that compared a behavioral smoking cessation intervention delivered primarily through a technology-based platform (eg, mobile phone) with a no-intervention comparison group among disadvantaged smokers were included. Three reviewers assessed all relevant studies for inclusion, and one reviewer extracted study, participant and intervention-level data, with a subset crosschecked by a second reviewer. Results: Thirteen studies targeting disadvantaged smokers (n =4820) were included. Only one study scored highly in terms of methodological rigor on EPOC criteria for judging risk of bias. Of the 13 studies using a technology-based platform, most utilized websites (n = 5) or computer programs (n = 5), and seven additionally offered nicotine replacement therapy. Technology-based interventions increased the odds of smoking cessation for disadvantaged groups at 1 month (odds ratio [OR] 1.70, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.10, 2.63), 3 months (OR 1.30, 95% CI 1.07, 1.59), 6 months (OR 1.29, 95% CI 1.03, 1.62), and 18 months post-intervention (OR 1.83, 95% CI 1.11, 3.01). Conclusion: Few methodologically rigorous studies were identified. Mobile phone text-messaging, computer- and website-delivered quit support showed promise at increasing quit rates among Indigenous, psychiatric and inpatient substance use disorder patients. Further research is needed to address the role technology-based interventions have on overcoming health inequalities to meet the needs of disadvantaged groups. Implications: This review provides the first quantitative evidence of the effectiveness of a range of technology-based smoking cessation interventions among disadvantaged smokers, with separate estimates on the basis of intervention type, and cessation outcome measure. Providing cost-effective, easily accessible and real-time smoking cessation treatment is needed, and innovative technology-based platforms will help reach this endpoint. These interventions need to be tested in larger scale randomized controlled trial designs and target broader disadvantaged groups. Data collection beyond 6 months is also needed in order to establish the efficacy of these intervention approaches on long-term cessation rates among disadvantaged population groups.

Psychosocial therapies for the adjunctive treatment of bipolar disorder in adults: network meta-analysis.

BackgroundFew trials have compared psychosocial therapies for people with bipolar affective disorder, and conventional meta-analyses provided limited comparisons between therapies.AimsTo combine evidence for the efficacy of psychosocial interventions used as adjunctive treatment of bipolar disorder in adults, using network meta-analysis (NMA).MethodSystematic review identified studies and NMA was used to pool data on relapse to mania or depression, medication adherence, and symptom scales for mania, depression and Global Assessment of Functioning (GAF).ResultsCarer-focused interventions significantly reduced the risk of depressive or manic relapse. Psychoeducation alone and in combination with cognitive-behavioural therapy (CBT) significantly reduced medication non-adherence. Psychoeducation plus CBT significantly reduced manic symptoms and increased GAF. No intervention was associated with a significant reduction in depression symptom scale scores.ConclusionsOnly interventions for family members affected relapse rates. Psychoeducation plus CBT reduced medication non-adherence, improved mania symptoms and GAF. Novel methods for addressing depressive symptoms are required.

Smoking and Mental Illness: A Bibliometric Analysis of Research Output Over Time.

INTRODUCTION: The prevalence of smoking among persons with a mental illness has remained unchanged, being 2-3 times higher than the general population in high-income countries. Assessment of the volume and characteristics of research output over time can assist in identifying research priorities to promote progress within a field. The aim of this study was to undertake such an assessment in the field of smoking and mental illness. METHODS: A descriptive repeat cross-sectional study was conducted of peer-reviewed publications in Medline and PsycINFO for the periods 1993-1995, 2003-2005, and 2013-2015. Publications were classified as data- or non-data-based; data-based publications were further categorized by study type, population, setting, and for intervention-focused publications by level of evidence and research translation phase. RESULTS: Included were 547 articles published in 1993-1995 (n = 65), 2003-2005 (n = 153), and 2013-2015 (n = 329). The number and proportion of data-based publications significantly increased over time, although their focus remained predominantly descriptive (≥83%); less than 14% of publications in any period had an intervention focus. The proportion of publications reporting on study populations with multiple diagnostic categories and recruiting from nonmental health settings, significantly increased from 1993-1995 to 2003-2005, however then plateaued by 2013-2015. The level of evidence provided by intervention-focused publications was suggested to increase over time, however there was no evident variation in translation phase. CONCLUSIONS: Research has increased over time to characterize smoking among those with a mental illness; however more is needed to inform the development and implementation of effective cessation interventions for this group. IMPLICATIONS: This is the first study to examine the volume and characteristics of research publications in the field of smoking and mental illness over time. The number of publications increased fivefold between 1993-1995 and 2013-2015. Between 1993-1995 and 2003-2005, progression was also indicated by increased: data-based publications, diagnostic diversity of samples, and variation in study settings; however further increases in such measures were not evident in 2013-2015. Notably, it continues to be the case that few intervention studies are undertaken. To achieve meaningful changes in the smoking prevalence of this group, a greater focus on research that assesses the effectiveness and implementation of tailored cessation interventions is required.

Effectiveness of a clinical practice change intervention in increasing the provision of nicotine dependence treatment in inpatient psychiatric facilities: an implementation trial.

BACKGROUND: Despite clinical practice guidelines recommending the routine provision of nicotine dependence treatment to smokers in inpatient psychiatric facilities, the prevalence of such treatment provision is low. The aim of this study was to examine the effectiveness of a clinical practice change intervention in increasing clinician recorded provision of nicotine dependence treatment to patients in inpatient psychiatric facilities. METHODS: We undertook an interrupted time series analysis of nicotine dependence treatment provision before, during and after a clinical practice change intervention to increase clinician recorded provision of nicotine dependence treatment for all hospital discharges (aged >18 years, N = 4175) over a 19 month period in two inpatient adult psychiatric facilities in New South Wales, Australia. The clinical practice change intervention comprised six key strategies: leadership and consensus, enabling systems and procedures, training and education, information and resources, audit and feedback and an on-site practice change support officer. Systematic medical record audit and segmented logistic regression was used to determine differences in proportions for each nicotine dependence treatment outcome measure between the 'pre', 'during' and 'post-intervention' periods. RESULTS: The prevalence of all five outcome measures increased significantly between the pre and post-intervention periods, including clinician recorded: assessment of patient smoking status (36.43 to 51.95%; adjusted odds ratio [AOR] = 2.39, 99% Confidence Interval [CI]: 1.23 to 4.66); assessment of patient nicotine dependence status (4.74 to 11.04%; AOR = 109.67, 99% CI: 35.35 to 340.22); provision of brief advice to quit (0.85 to 8.81%; AOR = 97.43, 99% CI: 31.03 to 306.30); provision of nicotine replacement therapy (8.06 to 26.25%; AOR = 19.59, 99% CI: 8.17 to 46.94); and provision of nicotine dependence treatment on discharge (8.82 to 13.45%, AOR = 12.36; 99% CI: 6.08 to 25.14). CONCLUSIONS: This is the first study to provide evidence that a clinical practice change intervention may increase clinician recorded provision of nicotine dependence treatment in inpatient psychiatric settings. The intervention offers a mechanism for psychiatric facilities to increase the provision of nicotine dependence treatment in accordance with clinical guidelines.

Estimating the number of adults with severe and persistent mental illness who have complex, multi-agency needs.

OBJECTIVE: A population health approach to mental health service planning requires estimates that align interventions with the needs of people with mental illness. The primary objective was to estimate the number of people in Australia living with severe and persistent mental illness who have complex, multi-agency needs. The secondary objective was to describe the possible service needs of individuals with severe mental illness. METHODS: We disaggregated the estimated 12-month prevalence of adults with severe mental illness into needs-based sub-groups, using multiple data sources. Possible service needs of 1825 adults with psychotic disorders and 334 adults with severe past-year affective and/or anxiety disorders were described using data from the 2010 Survey of High Impact Psychosis and 2007 National Survey of Mental Health and Wellbeing, respectively. RESULTS: Using best available data, we estimated that 3.3% of adults experience a severe mental illness each year, of whom one-third (1.1% of adults) experience a persistent mental illness that requires ongoing services to address residual disability. Among those with severe and persistent mental illness, one-third of adults (0.4% or 59,000 adults in 2015) have complex needs requiring multi-agency support to maximise their health, housing, social participation and personal functioning. Survey of High Impact Psychosis data indicated that among adults with psychotic disorders, use of accommodation (40%), non-government (30%) services and receipt of income support (85%) services were common, as were possible needs for support with socialising, personal care and employment. National Survey of Mental Health and Wellbeing data indicated that among individuals with severe affective and anxiety disorders, receipt of income support (37%) was common (information on accommodation and non-government support services was not available), as were possible needs for financial management and employment support. CONCLUSION: Agreed indicators of complex, multi-agency needs are required to refine these estimates. Closer alignment of information collected about possible service needs across epidemiological surveys is needed.

Efficacy of a universal smoking cessation intervention initiated in inpatient psychiatry and continued post-discharge: A randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: Interventions are required to redress the disproportionate tobacco-related health burden experienced by persons with a mental illness. This study aimed to assess the efficacy of a universal smoking cessation intervention initiated within an acute psychiatric inpatient setting and continued post-discharge in reducing smoking prevalence and increasing quitting behaviours. METHOD: A randomised controlled trial was undertaken across four psychiatric inpatient facilities in Australia. Participants ( N = 754) were randomised to receive either usual care ( n = 375) or an intervention comprising a brief motivational interview and self-help material while in hospital, followed by a 4-month pharmacological and psychosocial intervention ( n = 379) upon discharge. Primary outcomes assessed at 6 and 12 months post-discharge were 7-day point prevalence and 1-month prolonged smoking abstinence. A number of secondary smoking-related outcomes were also assessed. Subgroup analyses were conducted based on psychiatric diagnosis, baseline readiness to quit and nicotine dependence. RESULTS: Seven-day point prevalence abstinence was higher for intervention participants (15.8%) than controls (9.3%) at 6 months post-discharge (odds ratio = 1.07, p = 0.04), but not at 12 months (13.4% and 10.0%, respectively; odds ratio = 1.03, p = 0.25). Significant intervention effects were not found on measures of prolonged abstinence at either 6 or 12 months post-discharge. Differential intervention effects for the primary outcomes were not detected for any subgroups. At both 6 and 12 months post-discharge, intervention group participants were significantly more likely to smoke fewer cigarettes per day, have reduced cigarette consumption by ⩾50% and to have made at least one quit attempt, relative to controls. CONCLUSIONS: Universal smoking cessation treatment initiated in inpatient psychiatry and continued post-discharge was efficacious in increasing 7-day point prevalence smoking cessation rates and related quitting behaviours at 6 months post-discharge, with sustained effects on quitting behaviour at 12 months. Further research is required to identify strategies for achieving longer term smoking cessation.

The prevalence and burden of bipolar disorder: findings from the Global Burden of Disease Study 2013.

OBJECTIVES: We present the global burden of bipolar disorder based on findings from the Global Burden of Disease Study 2013 (GBD 2013). METHODS: Data on the epidemiology of bipolar disorder were obtained from a systematic literature review and assembled using Bayesian meta-regression modelling to produce prevalence by country, age, sex and year. Years lived with disability (YLDs) were estimated by multiplying prevalence by disability weights quantifying the severity of the health loss associated with bipolar disorder. As there were no years of life lost (YLLs) attributed to bipolar disorder, YLDs equated to disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) as a measure of total burden. RESULTS: There were 32.7 million cases of bipolar disorder globally in 1990 and 48.8 million in 2013; equivalent to a 49.1% increase in prevalent cases, all accounted for by population increase and ageing. Bipolar disorder accounted for 9.9 million DALYs in 2013, explaining 0.4% of total DALYs and 1.3% of total YLDs. There were 5.5 million DALYs recorded for female individuals and 4.4 million for male individuals. DALYs were evident from age 10 years, peaked in the 20s, and decreased thereafter. DALYs were relatively constant geographically. CONCLUSIONS: Despite being relatively rare, bipolar disorder is a disabling illness due to its early onset, severity and chronicity. Population growth and aging are leading to an increase in the burden of bipolar disorder over time. It is important that resources be directed towards improving the coverage of evidence-based intervention strategies for bipolar disorder and establishing strategies to prevent new cases of the disorder.

Smoking and environmental characteristics of smokers with a mental illness, and associations with quitting behaviour and motivation; a cross sectional study.

BACKGROUND: Persons with a mental illness are less likely to be successful in attempts to quit smoking. A number of smoking and environmental characteristics have been shown to be related to quitting behaviour and motivation of smokers generally, however have been less studied among smokers with a mental illness. This study aimed to report the prevalence of smoking characteristics and a variety of physical and social environmental characteristics of smokers with a mental illness, and explore their association with quitting behaviour and motivation. METHODS: A cross-sectional descriptive study was undertaken of 754 smokers admitted to four psychiatric inpatient facilities in Australia. Multivariable logistic regression analyses were undertaken to explore the association between smoking and environmental characteristics and recent quitting behaviour and motivation. RESULTS: Participants were primarily daily smokers (93 %), consumed >10 cigarettes per day (74 %), and highly nicotine dependent (51 %). A third (32 %) lived in a house in which smoking was permitted, and 44 % lived with other smokers. The majority of participants believed that significant others (68-82 %) and health care providers (80-91 %) would be supportive of their quitting smoking. Reflecting previous research, the smoking characteristics examined were variously associated with quitting behaviour and motivation. Additionally, participants not living with other smokers were more likely to have quit for a longer duration (OR 2.02), and those perceiving their psychiatrist to be supportive of a quit attempt were more likely to have had more quit attempts in the past six months (OR 2.83). CONCLUSIONS: Modifiable characteristics of the physical and social environment, and of smoking, should be considered in smoking cessation interventions for persons with a mental illness.

Impact of a postdischarge smoking cessation intervention for smokers admitted to an inpatient psychiatric facility: a randomized controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: Persons with a mental disorder smoke at higher rates and suffer disproportionate tobacco-related burden compared with the general population. The aim of this study was to determine if a smoking cessation intervention initiated during a psychiatric hospitalization and continued postdischarge was effective in reducing smoking behaviors among persons with a mental disorder. METHODS: A randomized controlled trial was conducted at an Australian inpatient psychiatric facility. Participants were 205 patient smokers allocated to a treatment as usual control (n = 101) or a smoking cessation intervention (n = 104) incorporating psychosocial and pharmacological support for 4 months postdischarge. Follow-up assessments were conducted at 1 week, 2, 4, and 6 months postdischarge and included abstinence from cigarettes, quit attempts, daily cigarette consumption, and nicotine dependence. RESULTS: Rates of continuous and 7-day point prevalence abstinence did not differ between treatment conditions at the 6-month follow-up; however, point prevalence abstinence was significantly higher for intervention (11.5%) compared with control (2%) participants at 4 months (OR = 6.46, p = .01). Participants in the intervention condition reported significantly more quit attempts (F[1, 202.5] = 15.23, p = .0001), lower daily cigarette consumption (F[4, 586] = 6.5, p < .001), and lower levels of nicotine dependence (F[3, 406] = 8.5, p < .0001) compared with controls at all follow-up assessments. CONCLUSIONS: Postdischarge cessation support was effective in encouraging quit attempts and reducing cigarette consumption up to 6 months postdischarge. Additional support strategies are required to facilitate longer-term cessation benefits for smokers with a mental disorder.

The impact of a smoke-free psychiatric hospitalization on patient smoking outcomes: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: Smoke-free policies have been introduced in inpatient psychiatric facilities in most developed nations. Such a period of supported abstinence during hospitalization may impact smoking behaviours post discharge, yet little quantitative evidence exists. The aim of this review was to provide the first synthesis of the research evidence examining the impact of a smoke-free psychiatric hospitalization on patients' smoking-related behaviours, motivation, and beliefs. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of electronic databases PubMed, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and EMBASE from inception to June 2013. Studies were included if they were conducted in an inpatient psychiatric facility with a smoke-free policy and if they examined any change in patients' smoking-related behaviours, motivation, or beliefs either during admission, post discharge, or both. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration Risk of Bias Tool. RESULTS: Fourteen studies were included in the review. Of the four studies that assessed change in smoking from admission to post discharge, two indicated a significant decline in cigarette consumption up to 3 months post discharge. Positive changes in motivation to quit and beliefs about quitting ability were identified in two studies. One study reported an increase in the rate of quit attempts and one reported a decline in nicotine dependence levels. CONCLUSIONS: A smoke-free psychiatric hospitalization may have a positive impact on patients' smoking-related behaviours, motivation, and beliefs, both during admission and up to 3 months post discharge. Further controlled studies with more rigorous designs are required to confirm this potential.