Global Prevalence of Adolescent Use of Nonprescription Weight-Loss Products: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Importance: Use of nonprescribed weight-loss products in adolescents is a public health concern that is associated with negative physical and psychological consequences. However, the prevalence of nonprescribed weight-loss product use in adolescents is unknown. Objective: To determine the global prevalence of nonprescription weight-loss product use in children and adolescents. Data Sources: Four databases, including MEDLINE, PsycINFO, CINAHL (Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health), and EMBASE, were searched for quantitative studies that reported prevalence data on use of nonprescription weight-loss products with no restrictions on publication date. The search was performed December 1, 2020, and updated March 6, 2023. Study Selection: Studies were included in the meta-analysis if they reported the prevalence of weight-loss product use, were published in English, and included individuals 18 years or younger. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Data extraction was completed by 2 independent reviewers. Data analysis determined the overall pooled proportion of weight-loss product use in total and during the past week, past 30 days, past year, or lifetime. Inverse variance heterogeneity effect models were used. Main Outcomes and Measures: The main outcome measure was the prevalence of nonprescription weight-loss product use in adolescents for all included studies and over the past week, past month, past year, or lifetime. Subgroup analysis included separation of groups by sex, specific weight-loss product types, geographical location, and study publication time. Results: A total of 90 articles (604 552 unique participants) were included in the meta-analysis. Of these, 50 studies (56%) were from North America. The reported prevalence of weight-loss product use in adolescents was 5.5% (96% CI, 5.5%-5.6%) overall. When identifying use of weight-loss products in the general population, prevalence was 2.0% (95% CI, 1.9%-2.1%) in the past week, 4.4% (95% CI, 4.3%-4.5%) in the past month, 6.2% (95% CI, 6.1%-6.3%) in the past year, and 8.9% (95% CI, 8.6%-9.2%) in their lifetime. Use of weight-loss products was higher among girls than boys. Conclusions and Relevance: This meta-analysis found that use of weight-loss products occurs at high levels in adolescents, especially girls. These findings suggest that, given the ineffectiveness of these products for weight loss coupled with their harmful long-term health consequences, interventions are required to reduce use of weight-loss products in this group.

Measuring the importance of different barriers to opioid agonist treatment using best-worst scaling in an Australian setting.

OBJECTIVE: Opioid agonist treatment (OAT) is an effective treatment for opioid use disorder (OUD), however several client barriers to OAT are reported. Client importance of these barriers using economic preference elicitation measures have not been identified. This paper determines the most important OAT barriers using best-worst scaling (BWS) and compares the results of BWS to Likert scale. METHODS: Cross-sectional self-completed survey with 191 opioid dependent clients who attended Australian needle and syringe sites. Participants were presented 15 Likert scale barriers and 15 BWS barrier scenarios. The BWS data was presented using count analysis, multinomial logit and mixed logit models. The ranking of barrier items was completed using three BWS methods and one Likert scale method, with share preference results (BWS) or mean scores (Likert) used to rank the 15 barriers. RESULTS: The most important client barriers were 'enjoy using opioids', 'lack of support services' and 'hard to access'. The four ranking methods produced different barrier rankings for the most important barriers, but similar results for the least important barriers. CONCLUSION: Policies around OAT as a harm reduction approach, increased support services and increased availability of OAT services would be beneficial in improving OAT uptake. Comparing BWS and Likert methods produced different highest ranked barriers, indicating the method used to identify preferences has significant implications on the type of intervention prioritised.

Identifying the most common barriers to opioid agonist treatment in an Australian setting.

BACKGROUND: Opioid use disorder is a public health concern in Australia. Opioid agonist treatment (OAT) is effective at treating and minimising harm from opioid use disorder, yet is underused in Australia due to client barriers. Although these barriers have been reported, the barriers that are most important to clients is unclear. The aim of this paper was to determine the most important OAT barriers to Australian clients. METHODS: A cross-sectional, self-completed survey was given to 204 opioid-dependent clients who attended needle and syringe sites in Australia. Participants were given 15 OAT barrier statements, which they answered using a 5-point Likert scale (1=strongly disagree, 2=disagree, 3=neutral, 4=agree and 5=strongly agree). The Likert scale data are presented using the count method and the mean Likert scores (for the whole sample and for subgroups). RESULTS: The two methods determined that the four most important barriers to OAT were stigma, lack of support services, no flexibility and enjoy using opioids. Furthermore, those who used prescription opioids (compared with heroin) were female or non-binary (compared with male), were not currently using OAT (compared with current OAT), were younger (compared with older) and had high dependence scores (compared with low dependence scores) were impacted more by certain OAT barriers. CONCLUSIONS: Policies around improving support services, reducing stigma and increasing flexibility would be beneficial to reduce barriers to OAT in Australia. Second, certain groups were more vulnerable to OAT barriers, emphasising the importance to better tailor opioid treatment programs to these specific populations to increase treatment engagement.

The impact of loneliness and social isolation on health state utility values: a systematic literature review.

BACKGROUND: Loneliness and social isolation are recognised as social problems and denote a significant health burden. The aim of this study was to conduct a systematic literature review to explore the health state utility values (HSUVs) associated with loneliness and/or social isolation. METHOD: Peer-reviewed journals published in English language that reported both HSUVs along with loneliness and/or social isolation scores were identified through five databases. No restrictions were made relating to the population, study design or utility estimation method used. RESULTS: In total, 19 papers were included; 12 included a measure of loneliness, four studies included a measure of social isolation and three studies considered both loneliness and social isolation. All studies focused on individuals with pre-existing health conditions-where the EQ-5D-3L instrument was most frequently used to assess HSUVs. HSUVs ranged from 0.5 to 0.95 in those who reported not being lonely, 0.42 to 0.97 in those who experienced some level of loneliness, 0.3 to 0.87 in those who were socially isolated and 0.63 to 0.94 in those who were not socially isolated. CONCLUSION: There was significant variation in HSUVs complicated by the presence of co-morbidities, population heterogeneity, variations in methods used to derive utility scores and differences in the measurement of loneliness and/or social isolation. Nevertheless, the lower HSUVs observed should be considered to significantly impact quality of life, though we also note the need for further research to explore the unique impact of loneliness and social isolation on HSUVs that can be used in the future economic evaluations.

Barriers to accessing opioid substitution treatment for opioid use disorder: A systematic review from the client perspective.

OBJECTIVES: To update the existing evidence to identify specific barriers to initiation of opioid substitution therapy (OST) for those with opioid use disorder (OUD). METHODS: The review follows Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews andMeta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Six databases were initially searched in November 2019, with the search updated on 11 November 2020, for qualitative or quantitative studies reporting the barriers to initiating OST from the client with OUD perspective. Thematic analysis of the barriers to OST was undertaken to determine barrier themes and subthemes. RESULTS: There were 37 studies included in the review; 18 were qualitative, 15 were quantitative and four were mixed methods. The barrier themes identified were stigma and fear, regulatory, logistical, attitudinal and social factors. Within these barrier themes 19 barrier subthemes were identified. The most reported OST barrier subthemes were negative treatment perceptions, cost, stigma and lack of flexibility. CONCLUSION: This review discusses important barriers to OST and examines reported barriers from the client perspective. OST guidelines and programs would benefit by introducing programs that reduce stigma, increase treatment knowledge and health literacy, reduce treatment costs, increase treatment flexibility and allow for easier treatment access.