Systematic review of mentoring to prevent or reduce alcohol and drug use by adolescents.

BACKGROUND: Use of alcohol and illicit drugs by adolescents is an important problem worldwide. OBJECTIVE: To undertake a systematic review of mentoring in preventing/reducing adolescents' alcohol and drug use. DATA SOURCES: We searched 8 multidisciplinary electronic databases, the gray literature, and reference lists of included studies. STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA, PARTICIPANTS, AND INTERVENTIONS: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of mentoring in adolescents to prevent/reduce alcohol or drug use. RESULTS: Six RCTs were included in this review. Four RCTs provided evidence on mentoring and alcohol use. The 2 that could be pooled showed less alcohol use by mentored youth. Six RCTs on mentoring and drug use were identified, 2 of which provided some evidence of the effect of mentoring in reducing drug use. LIMITATIONS: Only 1 RCT was at low risk of bias for randomization. None of the studies stated they concealed allocation. Of the 6 included studies, 1 was at high risk and 5 at unclear risk for attrition. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS OF KEY FINDINGS: Four RCTs provided evidence on mentoring and alcohol use, and the 2 that could be pooled showed less use by mentored youth. The 6 RCTs that provided evidence on drug use could not be pooled. Two did provide some evidence that mentoring is associated with less drug use. Very few well-designed studies evaluate the effects of mentoring on adolescent drug and alcohol use.

Systematic review of mentoring to prevent or reduce tobacco use by adolescents.

BACKGROUND: Surveys conducted 1998 to 2008 (530,849 13- to 15-year-olds, 100 countries) by the World Health Organization and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found increased tobacco use. OBJECTIVES: To conduct a systematic review of mentoring to prevent/reduce youth smoking. DATA SOURCES: Eight electronic peer-reviewed databases and gray literature searched through January 2013. STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA, PARTICIPANTS, AND INTERVENTIONS: Studies were included if they were randomized controlled trials, included children or adolescents, employed mentoring (consistent companionship, support, guidance to develop youth competence and character), and reported tobacco use. STUDY APPRAISAL/SYNTHESIS METHODS: Two reviewers independently assessed abstracts and full-text studies. Disagreements were resolved through consensus. RESULTS: Four randomized controlled trials were identified. Two studies focused exclusively on tobacco outcomes; the other 2 reported on both drug and tobacco use reductions. Only 1 study reported that mentoring (by peers) reduced adolescent smoking. Heterogeneity of both participants and outcome measures did not permit meta-analysis. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS OF KEY FINDINGS: There is limited literature on this topic. Further research achieving sample sizes required by power computations, minimizing attrition, and ascertaining mentoring content and achievements from mentor and mentee perspectives is needed.

Mortality and morbidity among military personnel and civilians during the 1930s and World War II from transmission of hepatitis during yellow fever vaccination: systematic review.

During World War II, nearly all US and Allied troops received yellow fever vaccine. Until May 1942, it was both grown and suspended in human serum. In April 1942, major epidemics of hepatitis occurred in US and Allied troops who had received yellow fever vaccine. A rapid and thorough investigation by the US surgeon general followed, and a directive was issued discontinuing the use of human serum in vaccine production. The large number of cases of hepatitis caused by the administration of this vaccine could have been avoided. Had authorities undertaken a thorough review of the literature, they would have discovered published reports, as early as 1885, of postvaccination epidemics of hepatitis in both men and horses. It would take 4 additional decades of experiments and epidemiological research before viruses of hepatitis A, B, C, D, and E were identified, their modes of transmission understood, and their genomes sequenced.

How many published cases of serious adverse events after yellow fever vaccination meet Brighton Collaboration diagnostic criteria?

OBJECTIVES: To perform a systematic review of all serious adverse events (SAEs) after yellow fever vaccination and to assess them according to Brighton Collaboration criteria. METHODS: Nine electronic databases were searched with the terms "yellow fever vaccine" and "adverse events" to 10 July 2013 (no language/date limits). Two reviewers independently assessed studies, entered data, and assessed cases with Brighton Collaboration criteria. RESULTS: One hundred and thirty-one cases met Brighton Collaboration criteria: 32 anaphylaxis, 41 neurologic (one death), 56 viscerotropic (24 deaths), and 2 both neurologic and viscerotropic criteria. All SAEs occurred following first yellow fever (YF) vaccination. Two additional cases which met Brighton Collaboration criteria were proven due to wild virus. An additional 345 cases were presented with insufficient detail to meet Brighton Collaboration criteria:173 neurological, 68 viscerotropic (24 deaths), 67 anaphylaxis, and 34 cases from a UK database and 3 from a Swiss database described as "serious adverse events" but not further classified into neurologic or viscerotropic. A further 253 cases were excluded as presenting insufficient data to be regarded as yellow fever vaccine (YFV) related SAEs. CONCLUSIONS: One hundred and thirty-one cases met Brighton Collaboration criteria for serious adverse events after yellow fever vaccination. Another 345 cases did not meet Brighton criteria and 253 were excluded as presenting insufficient data to be regarded as serious adverse events after YFV. There are likely to be cases in areas that are remote or with insufficient diagnostic resources that are neither correctly assessed nor not published.

The safety of yellow fever vaccine 17D or 17DD in children, pregnant women, HIV+ individuals, and older persons: systematic review.

Yellow fever vaccine provides long-lasting immunity. Rare serious adverse events after vaccination include neurologic or viscerotropic syndromes or anaphylaxis. We conducted a systematic review of adverse events associated with yellow fever vaccination in vulnerable populations. Nine electronic bibliographic databases and reference lists of included articles were searched. Electronic databases identified 2,415 abstracts for review, and 32 abstracts were included in this review. We identified nine studies of adverse events in infants and children, eight studies of adverse events in pregnant women, nine studies of adverse events in human immunodeficiency virus-positive patients, five studies of adverse events in persons 60 years and older, and one study of adverse events in individuals taking immunosuppressive medications. Two case studies of maternal-neonate transmission resulted in serious adverse events, and the five passive surveillance databases identified very small numbers of cases of yellow fever vaccine-associated viscerotropic disease, yellow fever vaccine-associated neurotropic disease, and anaphylaxis in persons ≥ 60 years. No other serious adverse events were identified in the other studies of vulnerable groups.

Advancing family-centred care in child and adolescent mental health: a critical review of the literature.

Family-centred care (FCC) is a key factor in increasing health and related system responsiveness to the needs of children and families; unfortunately, it is an unfamiliar service model in children's mental health. This critical review of the literature addresses three key questions: What are the concepts, characteristics and principles of FCC in the context of delivering mental health services to children? What are the enablers, barriers and demonstrated benefits to using a family-centred approach to care in children's mental health? And how can we facilitate moving an FCC model forward in children's mental health? A range of databases was searched for the years 2000­2011, for children ages zero to 18 years. Articles were selected for inclusion if a family-centred approach to care was articulated and the context was the intervention and treatment side of the mental healthcare system. This literature review uncovered a multiplicity of terms and concepts, all closely related to FCC. Two of the most frequently used terms in children's mental health are family centred and family focused, which have important differences, particularly in regard to how the family is viewed. Initial benefits to FCC include improved child and family management skills and function, an increased stability of living situation, improved cost-effectiveness, increased consumer and family satisfaction and improved child and family health and well-being. Significant challenges exist in evaluating FCC because of varying interpretations of its core concepts and applications. Nonetheless, a shared understanding of FCC in a children's mental health context seems possible, and examples can be found of best practices, enablers and strategies, including opportunities for innovative policy change to overcome barriers.

Mentoring adolescents to prevent drug and alcohol use.

BACKGROUND: Many adolescents receive mentoring. There is no systematic review if mentoring prevents alcohol and drug use. OBJECTIVES: Assess effectiveness of mentoring to prevent adolescent alcohol/drug use. SEARCH METHODS: Cochrane CENTRAL (issue 4), MEDLINE (1950-to July 2011), EMBASE (1980-to July 2011), 5 other electronic and 11 Grey literature electronic databases, 10 websites, reference lists, experts in addictions and mentoring. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of mentoring in adolescents to prevent alcohol/drug use. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We identified 2,113 abstracts, independently assessed 233 full-text articles, 4 RCTs met inclusion criteria. Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed risks of bias. We contacted investigators for missing information. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 4 RCTs (1,194 adolescents). No RCT reported enough detail to assess whether a strong randomisation method was used or allocation was concealed. Blinding was not possible as the intervention was mentoring. Three RCTs provided complete data. No selective reporting.Three RCTs provided evidence about mentoring and preventing alcohol use. We pooled two RCTs (RR for mentoring compared to no intervention = 0.71 (95% CI = 0.57 to 0.90, P value = 0.005). A third RCT found no significant differences.Three RCTs provided evidence about mentoring and preventing drug use, but could not be pooled. One found significantly less use of "illegal" drugs," one did not, and one assessed only marijuana use and found no significant differences.One RCT measured "substance use" without separating alcohol and drugs, and found no difference for mentoring. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: All four RCTs were in the US, and included "deprived" and mostly minority adolescents. Participants were young (in two studies age 12, and in two others 9-16). All students at baseline were non-users of alcohol and drugs. Two RCTs found mentoring reduced the rate of initiation of alcohol, and one of drug usage. The ability of the interventions to be effective was limited by the low rates of commencing alcohol and drug use during the intervention period in two studies (the use of marijuana in one study increased to 1% in the experimental and to 1.6% in the control group, and in another study drug usage rose to 6% in the experimental and 11% in the control group). However, in a third study there was scope for the intervention to have an effect as alcohol use rose to 19% in the experimental and 27% in the control group. The studies assessed structured programmes and not informal mentors.

Reporting rates of yellow fever vaccine 17D or 17DD-associated serious adverse events in pharmacovigilance data bases: systematic review.

PURPOSE: To assess the reporting rates of serious adverse events attributable to yellow fever vaccination with 17D and 17DD strains as reported in pharmacovigilance databases, and assess reasons for differences in reporting rates. METHODS: We searched 9 electronic databases for peer reviewed and grey literature (government reports, conferences), in all languages. Reference lists of key studies were also reviewed to identify additional studies. RESULTS: We identified 2,415 abstracts, of which 472 were selected for full text review. We identified 15 pharmacovigilance databases which reported adverse events attributed to yellow fever vaccination, of which 10 contributed data to this review with about 107,600,000 patients (allowing for overlapping time periods for the studies of the US VAERS database), and the data are very heavily weighted (94%) by the Brazilian database. The estimates of serious adverse events form three groups. The estimates for Australia were low at 0/210,656 for "severe neurological disease" and 1/210,656 for YEL-AVD, and also low for Brazil with 9 hypersensitivity events, 0.23 anaphylactic shock events, 0.84 neurologic syndrome events and 0.19 viscerotropic events cases/million doses. The five analyses of partly overlapping periods for the US VAERS database provide an estimate of 3.6/cases per million YEL-AND in one analysis and 7.8 in another, and 3.1 YEL-AVD in one analysis and 3.9 in another. The estimates for the UK used only the inclusive term of "serious adverse events" not further classified into YEL-And or YEL-AND and reported 34 "serious adverse events." The Swiss database used the term "serious adverse events" and reported 7 such events (including 4 "neurologic reactions") for a reporting rate of 25 "serious adverse events"/million doses. CONCLUSIONS: Reporting rates for serious adverse events following yellow fever vaccination are low. Differences in reporting rates may be due to differences in definitions, surveillance system organisation, methods of reporting cases, administration of YFV with other vaccines, incomplete information about denominators, time intervals for reporting events, the degree of passive reporting, access to diagnostic resources, and differences in time periods of reporting.

Active and passive surveillance of yellow fever vaccine 17D or 17DD-associated serious adverse events: systematic review.

PURPOSE: To identify the rate of serious adverse events attributable to yellow fever vaccination with 17D and 17DD strains reported in active and passive surveillance data. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of published literature on adverse events associated with yellow fever. We searched 9 electronic databases for peer reviewed and grey literature in all languages. There were no restrictions on date of publication. Reference lists of key studies were also reviewed to identify additional studies. PRINCIPAL RESULTS: We identified 66 relevant studies: 24 used active, 17 a combination of passive and active (15 of which were pharmacovigilance databases), and 25 passive surveillance. ACTIVE SURVEILLANCE: A total of 2,660,929 patients in general populations were followed for adverse events after vaccination, heavily weighted (97.7%) by one large Brazilian study. There were no observed cases of viscerotropic or neurotropic disease, one of anaphylaxis and 26 cases of urticaria (hypersensitivity). We also identified four studies of infants and children (n=2199), four studies of women (n=1334), and one study of 174 HIV+, and no serious adverse events were observed. PHARMACOVIGILANCE DATABASES: 10 of the 15 databases contributed data to this review, with 107,621,154 patients, heavily weighted (94%) by the Brazilian database. The estimates for Australia were low at 0/210,656 for "severe neurological disease" and 1/210,656 for YEL-AVD, and also low for Brazil with 9 hypersensitivity events, 0.23 anaphylactic shock events, 0.84 neurologic syndrome events and 0.19 viscerotropic events cases/million doses. The five analyses of partly overlapping periods for the US VAERS database provided an estimate of 6.6 YEL-AVD and YEL-AND cases per million, and estimates between 11.1 and 15.6 of overall "serious adverse events" per million. The estimates for the UK were higher at 34 "serious adverse events" and also for Switzerland with 14.6 "neurologic events" and 40 "serious events not neurological"/million doses. PASSIVE SURVEILLANCE: Six studies of campaigns in general populations included 94,500,528 individuals, very heavily weighted (99%) by the Brazilian data, and providing an estimate of 0.51 serious AEFIs/million doses. Five retrospective reviews of hospital or clinic records included 60,698 individuals, and no serious AEFIs were proven. The data are heavily weighted (96%) by the data from the Hospital for Tropical Diseases, London. Two studies included 35,723 children, four studies included 138 pregnant women, six studies included 191 HIV+ patients, and there was one review of patients who were HIV+, and no serious AEFIs were proven. MAJOR CONCLUSIONS: The databases in each country used different definitions, protocols, surveillance mechanisms for the initial identification and reporting of cases, and strategies for the clinical and laboratory follow up of cases. The pharmacovigilance databases provide three sets of estimates: a low estimate from the Brazilian and Australian data, a medium estimate from the US VAERS data, and a higher estimate from the UK and Swiss data. The estimates from the active surveillance data are lower (and strongly influenced by the Brazilian data) and the estimates from the passive surveillance studies are also lower (strongly influenced by the London Hospital for Tropical Diseases data from the early 1950s). Sophisticated pathology, histopathology and tests such as PCR amplicon sequencing are needed to prove that serious adverse events were actually caused by the yellow fever vaccine, and the availability of such diagnostic capability is strongly biased towards recent reports from developed countries. Despite these variations in the estimation of serious harm, overall the 17D and 17DD yellow fever vaccine has proven to be a very safe vaccine and is highly effective against an illness with high potential mortality rates.