Effectiveness of brief alcohol interventions for pregnant women: a systematic literature review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Prenatal alcohol exposure (PAE) can result in a range of adverse neonatal outcomes, including Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder (FASD). This systematic review and meta-analysis sought to investigate the effectiveness of brief interventions (BIs) in eliminating or reducing 1) alcohol consumption during pregnancy; and 2) PAE-related adverse neonatal outcomes; and 3) cost-effectiveness of BIs. METHOD: We conducted a systematic literature search for original controlled studies (randomized control trials (RCTs); quasi-experimental) in any setting, published from 1987 to 2021. The comparison group was no/minimal intervention, where a measure of alcohol consumption was reported. Studies were critically appraised using the Centre for Evidence-based Medicine Oxford critical appraisal tool for RCTs (1). The certainty in the evidence for each outcome was assessed using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) (2). Meta-analysis of continuous and binary estimates of effect-size for similar outcome measures for BIs versus control groups were pooled and reported as mean difference (MD) Hedges' g and odds ratios (ORs), respectively. RESULTS: In total, 26 studies, all from high income countries, met inclusion criteria. Alcohol abstinence outcome available in 12 studies (n = 2620) found modest effects in favor of BIs conditions by increasing the odds of abstinence by 56% (OR = 1.56, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.15-2.13, I2 = 46.75%; p = 0.04). BIs effects for reduction in mean drinks/week (Cohen's d = - 0.21, 95%CI = - 0.78 to 0.36; p = 0.08) and AUDIT scores (g = 0.10, 95%CI = - 0.06 to 0.26; p = 0.17) were not statistically significant. Among seven studies (n = 740) reporting neonatal outcomes, BI receipt was associated with a modest and significant reduction in preterm birth (OR = 0.67, 95% CI = 0.46-0.98, I2 = 0.00%; p = 0.58). No statistically significant differences were observed for mean birthweight or lower likelihood of low birth weight (LBW). Certainty in the evidence was rated as 'low'. No eligible studies were found on cost-effectiveness of BIs. CONCLUSION: BIs are moderately effective in increasing abstinence during pregnancy and preventing preterm birth. More studies on the effectiveness of BIs are needed from low- and middle-income countries, as well as with younger mothers and with a broader range of ethnic groups.

Why do women consume alcohol during pregnancy or while breastfeeding?

ISSUE: Alcohol consumption during pregnancy and breastfeeding cause adverse health outcomes to the mother and child, including Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder (FASD). APPROACH: Systematic literature review and thematic synthesis. Original studies that contained reasons for alcohol consumption in pregnancy and while breastfeeding were included. The Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) and the Confidence in the Evidence of Reviews of Qualitative Research (CerQUAL) approach were utilised. The review protocol is available on PROSPERO (registration number: CRD42018116998). KEY FINDINGS: Forty-two eligible studies comprising women from 16 countries were included. Most commonly reported reasons of alcohol use in pregnancy were societal pressure and the belief that only "strong" alcohol and alcohol in large quantities is harmful. Other reasons were: a lack of awareness of adverse effects on the fetus; coping with adverse life experiences; consumption based on intuitive decision-making and influenced by personal/peer experiences; belief in the beneficial properties of alcohol; advice from medical practitioners; unwanted or unplanned pregnancy; alcohol dependence; and consumption as a cultural/traditional custom. Reasons for alcohol use during breastfeeding included the belief that alcohol stimulates breast milk production, unclear advice from medical practitioners, unawareness of the risks of infant exposure and to improve mood and celebrate events. IMPLICATIONS: Understanding the context of reasons for alcohol use in pregnancy is crucial for implementing prenatal health education, and preventing FASD and other adverse maternal and child health outcomes. CONCLUSION: Individual beliefs, knowledge/advice, culture and personal circumstances influence alcohol use in pregnancy. Data are limited for reasons surrounding alcohol use while breastfeeding.

The use of patient-reported outcome measures in primary care: applications, benefits and challenges.

PROMs use in primary care has expanded from simply describing patient populations to contributing to decision-making, in response to the increasingly complex, ever-changing healthcare environment. In Alberta, primary care is organized into primary care networks (PCNs), where family physicians are grouped geographically and supported by allied health professionals. PCNs implement programs and services in response to local population health needs with frequent evaluation, often incorporating PROMs for this purpose. As PCN programs and services vary greatly across Alberta, so do their use of PROMs. An area of commonality is the use of the EQ-5D-5L instrument; 29 out of 41 PCNs are registered and licensed to use the instrument. It is often administrated by paper, pre- and post-program, and in combination with other specific measures, depending on the program or target population. Some PCNs share programming and therefore outcome measurement, but often the selection, implementation (including training and administration procedures) and evaluation/reporting of PROMs are unique to the PCN. As well, data analysis is largely dependent on the size and capacity of the PCN. Using PROMs for PCN program evaluation supports clinical understanding and complements clinical outcomes. PROMs describe the population attending a program, as well as provide an element of consistency when examining trends across multiple programs or timepoints. This contributes to inquiries and decisions around program development, components, administrative features, resource allocation and delivery. Challenges of PROMs use in primary care include the absence of cohesive data capture technology. This limits data capabilities and presents difficulties with data fidelity, storage, export, and analysis. Additionally, this real-world application lacks a control arm and presents methodological challenges for comparative research purposes. Furthermore, capturing long term patient outcomes poses administrative challenges of multiple follow ups. More research is required into best reporting mechanisms to ensure the data is used to its full potential. To overcome these challenges, leadership and clinician engagement are key. As well, determining consistent PCN PROM reporting requirements will ensure data are comparable across PCNs and contribute to provincial level evaluations, further supporting the movement towards overall health system quality improvement.