Patient-level interventions to reduce alcohol-related harms in low- and middle-income countries: A systematic review and meta-summary.

BACKGROUND: Disease and disability from alcohol use disproportionately impact people in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). While varied interventions have been shown to reduce alcohol use in high-income countries, their efficacy in LMICs has not been assessed. This systematic review describes current published literature on patient-level alcohol interventions in LMICs and specifically describes clinical trials evaluating interventions to reduce alcohol use in LMICs. METHODS AND FINDINGS: In accordance with PRISMA, we performed a systematic review using an electronic search strategy from January 1, 1995 to December 1, 2020. Title, abstract, as well as full-text screening and extraction were performed in duplicate. A meta-summary was performed on randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated alcohol-related outcomes. We searched the following electronic databases: PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane, WHO Global Health Library, and PsycINFO. Articles that evaluated patient-level interventions targeting alcohol use and alcohol-related harm in LMICs were eligible for inclusion. No studies were excluded based on language. After screening 5,036 articles, 117 articles fit our inclusion criteria, 75 of which were RCTs. Of these RCTs, 93% were performed in 13 middle-income countries, while 7% were from 2 low-income countries. These RCTs evaluated brief interventions (24, defined as any intervention ranging from advice to counseling, lasting less than 1 hour per session up to 4 sessions), psychotherapy or counseling (15, defined as an interaction with a counselor longer than a brief intervention or that included a psychotherapeutic component), health promotion and education (20, defined as an intervention encouraged individuals' agency of taking care of their health), or biologic treatments (19, defined as interventions where the biological function of alcohol use disorder (AUD) as the main nexus of intervention) with 3 mixing categories of intervention types. Due to high heterogeneity of intervention types, outcome measures, and follow-up times, we did not conduct meta-analysis to compare and contrast studies, but created a meta-summary of all 75 RCT studies. The most commonly evaluated intervention with the most consistent positive effect was a brief intervention; similarly, motivational interviewing (MI) techniques were most commonly utilized among the diverse array of interventions evaluated. CONCLUSIONS: Our review demonstrated numerous patient-level interventions that have the potential to be effective in LMICs, but further research to standardize interventions, populations, and outcome measures is necessary to accurately assess their effectiveness. Brief interventions and MI techniques were the most commonly evaluated and had the most consistent positive effect on alcohol-related outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Protocol Registry: PROSPERO CRD42017055549.

Stigma reduction interventions for epilepsy: A systematized literature review.

OBJECTIVE: Epilepsy is a disease that is stigmatized globally. Several studies have introduced sensitization efforts to reduce stigma towards people with epilepsy (PWE) in various settings. Although sensitization efforts have shown some evidence of improved attitudes towards epilepsy, progress has been limited. This systematized literature review summarizes the existing literature concerning interventions that reduce stigma towards PWE. By conducting an overview of existing interventions, we aimed to consolidate knowledge and outcomes of existing efforts as well as highlight gaps and directions for future interventions. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE (via PubMed) and Embase for English-language studies published between January 1, 1970 and November 15, 2017 that focused on stigma reduction strategies for PWE in any global setting. Studies were included if they described a stigma reduction intervention for epilepsy. Studies were excluded if they were reviews, editorials, conference proceedings, abstracts, or did not discuss a stigma reduction intervention. We thematically grouped studies based on type(s) of intervention(s) addressed and summarized interventions, outcome measures, and results for each study included in the review. RESULTS: Of the 1975 initial citations, 32 studies met our inclusion criteria. Interventions clustered into four broad categories including public awareness interventions, policy-based interventions, school-based interventions, and interventions that targeted PWE themselves as well as their caregivers and peers. Efficacy of these interventions as reported by the authors was mixed. Many studies did not use validated outcome measures to assess stigma. CONCLUSIONS: Although intervention efforts have been made towards epilepsy stigma reduction at many levels, stigma towards and discrimination against PWE prevail worldwide. About 75% of the studies included in this review were conducted in high-income countries (HICs) despite the disproportional need in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Furthermore, robust outcome measures to assess efficacy in stigma reduction for interventions are lacking, calling into question the validity of reported outcomes for both positive and null findings. Therefore, more work is needed in both developing effective stigma reduction strategies, especially in LMICs, and validating tools to measure their efficacy. This article is part of the Special Issue "The Intersection of Culture, Resources, and Disease: Epilepsy Care in Uganda".