Implementation costs of the appraise alcohol brief intervention (ABI) for male remand prisoners: A micro-costing protocol and preliminary findings.

OBJECTIVE: This paper documents the methods used to assess the implementation costs of the APPRAISE alcohol brief intervention (ABI) delivered to male remand prisoners across two study sites in Scotland and North East England. METHOD: We first developed a comprehensive taxonomy of the activities constituting the APPRIASE ABI. Next, data were collected for each activity about the study staff and the subject time spent, in addition to the other resources used and unit costs. RESULTS: From the pilot data collection it was possible to construct a narrative, for both study sites, for how the intervention was delivered and the time required for each activity. The ABI was delivered by Change Grow Live and Humankind intervention staff and staff salaries were obtained from both organizations to calculate the staff delivery costs for each site. Other costs, such as the printing of materials, were estimated based on APPRAISE study records. Due to the ongoing Covid-19 restrictions and limited access to prison resources and staff, there were significant deviations from the initial study protocols. As a result, we document the costs of implementing the ABI as delivered rather than as planned. CONCLUSIONS: This paper provides the first estimates of the implementation costs of an ABI delivered in criminal justice setting in the UK. Although these costs are from a pilot implementation that was heavily impacted by the Covid-19 pandemic, this paper nonetheless provides useful, policy-relevant information on the potential costs of providing ABI to remand prisoners. It also serves as a methodological template, guidance, and proof of concept for future micro-costing studies of ABIs in criminal justice settings.

Working with the police service and homeless services in North West England to reduce alcohol harms: A feasibility study of a tailored Blue Light approach.

INTRODUCTION: Deaths caused by alcohol are increasing in England and 80 % of people with alcohol use disorders (AUDs) are not in treatment. The Blue Light approach (Alcohol Change UK) is an initiative to support people with AUDs who are not in treatment. This study aimed to tailor the Blue Light approach (combined with alcohol identification and alcohol brief interventions [ABI] training) for police officers and homeless service staff in North West England, and to qualitatively evaluate the feasibility and acceptability of the training. METHODS: The Blue Light approach was tailored using co-production activities, based on Transdisciplinary Action Research. Full-day and half-day training sessions were delivered to the police (full-day N = 14, half-day N = 54) and homeless service staff (full-day N = 11, half-day N = 32), in local police stations and online (four half-day sessions). Semi-structured interviews (N = 23) were conducted to evaluate implementation and integration, analysing the qualitative data in line with Normalisation Process Theory. RESULTS: Four themes were identified, each with two to three sub-themes, reflecting: (i) the importance of training for working practice, (ii) implementation of the interventions, (iii) changes to relationships within and between organizations, and (iv) recommendations for further changes to the training. Differences in findings across the organizations (police versus homeless services) and by training type attended (full-day versus half-day, in-person versus online) are presented. CONCLUSIONS: There is evidence to suggest that the training has provided worthwhile knowledge and intervention techniques that can become embedded into working practices. Nevertheless, structural barriers were apparent, primarily within the police service, with clear disparities between recognising the value of the training and what is achievable in practice, given the competing demands.

A multicomponent psychosocial intervention to reduce substance use by adolescents involved in the criminal justice system: the RISKIT-CJS RCT.

Background: Substance use and offending are related in the context of other disinhibitory behaviours. Adolescents involved in the criminal justice system constitute a particularly vulnerable group, with a propensity to engage in risky behaviour that has long-term impact on their future health and well-being. Previous research of the RISKIT programme provided evidence of a potential effect in reducing substance use and risky behaviour in adolescents. Objectives: To evaluate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a multicomponent psychosocial intervention compared with treatment as usual in reducing substance use for substance-using adolescents involved in the criminal justice system. Design: A mixed-methods, prospective, pragmatic, two-arm, randomised controlled trial with follow-up at 6 and 12 months post randomisation. Setting: The study was conducted across youth offending teams, pupil referral units and substance misuse teams across four areas of England (i.e. South East, London, North West, North East). Participants: Adolescents aged between 13 and 17 years (inclusive), recruited between September 2017 and June 2020. Interventions: Participants were randomised to treatment as usual or to treatment as usual in addition to the RISKIT-Criminal Justice System (RISKIT-CJS) programme. The RISKIT-CJS programme was a multicomponent intervention and consisted of two individual motivational interviews with a trained youth worker (lasting 45 minutes each) and two group sessions delivered over half a day on consecutive weeks. Main outcome measures: At 12 months, we assessed per cent days abstinent from substance use over the previous 28 days. Secondary outcome measures included well-being, motivational state, situational confidence, quality of life, resource use and fidelity of interventions delivered. Results: A total of 693 adolescents were assessed for eligibility, of whom 505 (73%) consented. Of these, 246 (49%) were allocated to the RISKIT-CJS intervention and 259 (51%) were allocated to treatment as usual only. At month 12, the overall follow-up rate was 57%: 55% in the RISKIT-CJS arm and 59% in the treatment-as-usual arm. At month 12, we observed an increase in per cent days abstinent from substances in both arms of the study, from 61% to 85%, but there was no evidence that the RISKIT-CJS intervention was superior to treatment as usual. A similar pattern was observed for secondary outcomes. The RISKIT-CJS intervention was not found to be any more cost-effective than treatment as usual. The qualitative research indicated that young people were positive about learning new skills and acquiring new knowledge. Although stakeholders considered the intervention worthwhile, they expressed concern that it came too late for the target population. Limitations: Our original aim to collect data on offences was thwarted by the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, and this affected both the statistical and economic analyses. Although 214 (87%) of the 246 participants allocated to the RISKIT-CJS intervention attended at least one individual face-to-face session, 98 (40%) attended a group session and only 47 (19%) attended all elements of the intervention. Conclusions: The RISKIT-CJS intervention was no more clinically effective or cost-effective than treatment as usual in reducing substance use among adolescents involved in the criminal justice system. Future research: The RISKIT-CJS intervention was considered more acceptable, and adherence was higher, in pupil referral units and substance misuse teams than in youth offending teams. Stakeholders in youth offending teams thought that the intervention was too late in the trajectory for their population. Trial registration: This trial is registered as ISRCTN77037777. Funding: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Public Health Research programme and will be published in full in Public Health Research; Vol. 11, No. 3. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

We explored how useful a psychological intervention was in reducing substance use among young people who had some involvement in the criminal justice system. We recruited young people aged between 13 and 17 years in four areas of England (i.e. South East, London, North West and North East). Young people were recruited from youth offending teams, pupil referral units and substance misuse teams. Those young people who were willing to participate were offered usual treatment and half, chosen at random, were offered an opportunity to take part in the RISKIT-Criminal Justice System (RISKIT-CJS) programme. The RISKIT-CJS programme had four distinct parts. The first was a 1-hour session that used an approach called motivational interviewing to explore the young person's substance use and discuss different strategies to change their behaviour. This was followed by two group sessions delivered over 2 consecutive weeks. These group sessions addressed risks associated with substance use, what triggers use and the health and social consequences. In addition, young people were taught new skills to help them manage in situations in which they might normally use substances. At the end of the group sessions, the young people had another motivational interview. Twelve months after participants started, we found that the frequency of substance use had decreased in both groups; however, the RISKIT-CJS intervention was no better than treatment as usual. When we spoke with young people who had taken part and staff involved with this population, we got a mixed picture. In some settings, particularly pupil referral units, the RISKIT-CJS intervention was well received by young people and staff, and staff felt that it was a useful additional resource to the work that they were currently undertaking. On the other hand, in the youth offending teams, the staff thought that the programme was too different from their normal work to be implemented easily and they considered the population they work with too established in their substance use and criminal activity to benefit from the programme.

The barriers and facilitators to the reporting and recording of self-harm in young people aged 18 and under: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: This systematic review sought to identify, explain and interpret the prominent or recurring themes relating to the barriers and facilitators of reporting and recording of self-harm in young people across different settings, such as the healthcare setting, schools and the criminal justice setting. METHODS: A search strategy was developed to ensure all relevant literature around the reporting and recording of self-harm in young people was obtained. Literature searches were conducted in six databases and a grey literature search of policy documents and relevant material was also conducted. Due to the range of available literature, both quantitative and qualitative methodologies were considered for inclusion. RESULTS: Following the completion of the literature searches and sifting, nineteen papers were eligible for inclusion. Facilitators to reporting self-harm across the different settings were found to be recognising self-harm behaviours, using passive screening, training and experience, positive communication, and safe, private information sharing. Barriers to reporting self-harm included confidentiality concerns, negative perceptions of young people, communication difficulties, stigma, staff lacking knowledge around self-harm, and a lack of time, money and resources. Facilitators to recording self-harm across the different settings included being open to discussing what is recorded, services working together and co-ordinated help. Barriers to recording self-harm were mainly around stigma, the information being recorded and the ability of staff being able to do so, and their length of professional experience. CONCLUSION: Following the review of the current evidence, it was apparent that there was still progress to be made to improve the reporting and recording of self-harm in young people, across the different settings. Future work should concentrate on better understanding the facilitators, whilst aiming to ameliorate the barriers.

What is in a Meter? A Qualitative Exploration into the Implementation of Electricity Metering Across Mumbai Communities Using Normalisation Process Theory.

Metering is fundamental in the efficient operation of electricity networks, as meters facilitate controlled usage and improve health and well-being. However, across the Global South, meters have often been found to be lacking or not fit for purpose. Therefore, this study sought to determine residents' perceptions and access to electricity metering across a community in Mumbai, with the goal of developing recommendations to support the implementation of meters in the future. Fifty semi-structured interviews were conducted by phone, with participants from different areas and socioeconomic classes, within Greater Mumbai. The sample consisted of 20 low-income, 20 middle-income, and 10 high-income participants. The Normalisation Process Theory (NPT) was used to inform the interview schedule and to organise the thematic analysis. Meter accessibility and location was variable across the participant groups, as was the education and awareness of metering technology. Socio-political factors were found to directly affect the use of meters, specifically in the low-income group. The high cost associated with metering was a prominent finding; with a preconception that introducing meters would only increase utility expenditure. Future work should focus around ensuring meters are easy to use, practical and accessible to all residents and supporting education programmes around how to use a meter and how they can reduce utility expenditure. The cost of meters should also be investigated, to establish that the costs, associated with introducing new meters, are not passed disproportionately to consumers. Supplementary Information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s43477-022-00059-y.

A Rapid Systematic Review of Worldwide Alcohol Use Disorders and Brief Alcohol Interventions in the Criminal Justice System.

Although the relationship is complex, there is an association between alcohol use and offending behavior with an interplay between the amount drank, the pattern of drinking and individual and contextual factors. Alcohol brief interventions have been shown to be effective in primary healthcare, however there is currently a lack of compelling evidence in the criminal justice system. We carried out a rapid systematic review of the literature, which updated our review conducted in 2016. Following systematic searches, we included 36 papers on prevalence and 13 papers on effectiveness. Between 26 and 88% of individuals in the policy custody setting scored positive for an alcohol use disorder. In the magistrates court this was 95%; 31-86% in the probation setting and between 19 and 86% in the prison system. In relation to probable dependence, between 21 and 38% of individuals were shown to have probable alcohol dependence in the police custody suite setting; 39 per cent in the magistrate court system; 17-36% in the probation setting and between 18 and 48% in the prison system. This compares to 6% in the general population. We included 13 studies of effectiveness with differing outcome measures and outcomes. We conclude more studies are needed in the field to develop the current evidence base.

A two-arm parallel-group individually randomised prison pilot study of a male remand alcohol intervention for self-efficacy enhancement: the APPRAISE study protocol.

INTRODUCTION: The prevalence of at-risk drinking is far higher among those in contact with the criminal justice system (73%) than the general population (35%). However, there is little evidence on the effectiveness of alcohol brief interventions (ABIs) in reducing risky drinking among those in the criminal justice system, including the prison system and, in particular, those on remand. Building on earlier work, A two-arm parallel group individually randomised Prison Pilot study of a male Remand Alcohol Intervention for Self-efficacy Enhancement (APPRAISE) is a pilot study designed to assess the feasibility and acceptability of an ABI, delivered to male prisoners on remand. The findings of APPRAISE should provide the information required to design a future definitive randomised controlled trial (RCT). METHODS AND ANALYSIS: APPRAISE will use mixed methods, with two linked phases, across two prisons in the UK, recruiting 180 adult men on remand: 90 from Scotland and 90 from England. Phase I will involve a two-arm, parallel-group, individually randomised pilot study. The pilot evaluation will provide data on the likely impact of A two-arm parallel group individually randomised Prison Pilot study of a male Remand Alcohol Intervention for Self-efficacy Enhancement (APPRAISE), which will be used to inform a future definitive multicentre RCT. Phase II will be a process evaluation assessing how the ABI has been implemented to explore the change mechanisms underpinning the ABI (figure 1) and to assess the context within which the ABI is delivered. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The APPRAISE protocol has been approved by the East of Scotland Research Ethics Committee (19/ES/0068), National Offender Management System (2019-240), Health Board Research and Development (2019/0268), Scottish Prison Service research and ethics committee, and by the University of Edinburgh's internal ethics department. The findings will be disseminated via peer-reviewed journal publications, presentations at local, national and international conferences, infographics and shared with relevant stakeholders through meetings and events. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN27417180.

Intermittent fasting interventions for treatment of overweight and obesity in adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the effectiveness of intermittent energy restriction in the treatment for overweight and obesity in adults, when compared to usual care treatment or no treatment. INTRODUCTION: Intermittent energy restriction encompasses dietary approaches including intermittent fasting, alternate day fasting, and fasting for two days per week. Despite the recent popularity of intermittent energy restriction and associated weight loss claims, the supporting evidence base is limited. INCLUSION CRITERIA: This review included overweight or obese (BMI ≥25 kg/m) adults (≥18 years). Intermittent energy restriction was defined as consumption of ≤800 kcal on at least one day, but no more than six days per week. Intermittent energy restriction interventions were compared to no treatment (ad libitum diet) or usual care (continuous energy restriction ∼25% of recommended energy intake). Included interventions had a minimum duration of 12 weeks from baseline to post outcome measurements. The types of studies included were randomized and pseudo-randomized controlled trials. The primary outcome of this review was change in body weight. Secondary outcomes included: i) anthropometric outcomes (change in BMI, waist circumference, fat mass, fat free mass); ii) cardio-metabolic outcomes (change in blood glucose and insulin, lipoprotein profiles and blood pressure); and iii) lifestyle outcomes: diet, physical activity, quality of life and adverse events. METHODS: A systematic search was conducted from database inception to November 2015. The following electronic databases were searched: MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, ClinicalTrials.gov, ISRCTN registry, and anzctr.org.au for English language published studies, protocols and trials. Two independent reviewers evaluated the methodological quality of included studies using the standardized critical appraisal instruments from the Joanna Briggs Institute. Data were extracted from papers included in the review by two independent reviewers using the standardized data extraction tool from the Joanna Briggs Institute. Effect sizes were expressed as weighted mean differences and their 95% confidence intervals were calculated for meta-analyses. RESULTS: Six studies were included in this review. The intermittent energy restriction regimens varied across studies and included alternate day fasting, fasting for two days, and up to four days per week. The duration of studies ranged from three to 12 months. Four studies included continuous energy restriction as a comparator intervention and two studies included a no treatment control intervention. Meta-analyses showed that intermittent energy restriction was more effective than no treatment for weight loss (-4.14 kg; 95% CI -6.30 kg to -1.99 kg; p ≤ 0.001). Although both treatment interventions achieved similar changes in body weight (approximately 7 kg), the pooled estimate for studies that investigated the effect of intermittent energy restriction in comparison to continuous energy restriction revealed no significant difference in weight loss (-1.03 kg; 95% CI -2.46 kg to 0.40 kg; p = 0.156). CONCLUSIONS: Intermittent energy restriction may be an effective strategy for the treatment of overweight and obesity. Intermittent energy restriction was comparable to continuous energy restriction for short term weight loss in overweight and obese adults. Intermittent energy restriction was shown to be more effective than no treatment, however, this should be interpreted cautiously due to the small number of studies and future research is warranted to confirm the findings of this review.

Exploring the factors affecting the implementation of tobacco and substance use interventions within a secondary school setting: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this mixed-methods, systematic literature review was to develop an understanding of the factors affecting the implementation of tobacco and substance use intervention programmes in the secondary school setting using NPT as an analytical framework. METHODS: A search strategy was developed that combined implementation, school and intervention search terms. Literature searches were conducted in MEDLINE, Embase, PsycHINFO, Scopus, ERIC, CINAHL, Web of Science and the Cochrane Library. PROSPERO was also searched for similar systematic reviews and a grey literature search of policy documents and relevant material was also conducted. Papers were eligible for inclusion if they were based in a secondary school and focused on the implementation of a tobacco or substance use programme. Both quantitative and qualitative methodologies were considered for inclusion. Normalisation Process Theory (NPT) was used as a conceptual framework to identify facilitators and barriers of implementation and to structure the synthesis. RESULTS: Inclusion criteria were met by 15 papers. The included papers were both quantitative and qualitative and focused on a range of tobacco and substance use interventions, delivered by differing providers. Key facilitating factors for implementation were positive organisational climate, adequate training and teacher's and pupil's motivation. Barriers to implementation included heavy workloads, budget cuts and lack of resources or support. Quality appraisal identified papers to be of moderate to weak quality, as papers generally lacked detail. CONCLUSION: NPT highlighted the need for studies to extend their focus to include reflexive monitoring around appraisal and the evaluation processes of implementing new tobacco or substance use programs. Future research should also focus on employing implementation theory as a tool to facilitate bridging the gap between school health research and practice.

Intermittent fasting interventions for the treatment of overweight and obesity in adults aged 18 years and over: a systematic review protocol.

REVIEW QUESTION/OBJECTIVE: Are intermittent fasting interventions an effective treatment for overweight and obesity in adults, when compared to usual care treatment (continuous daily energy restriction - reduced calorie diet) or no treatment (ad libitum diet)? BACKGROUND: Overweight and obesity (classified as Body Mass Index [BMI] of greater than or equal to 25 and 30 respectively) is a global public health concern, with more than 1.9 billion adults worldwide being overweight in 2014 (over 600 million of whom are obese), and resulting in more deaths than underweight. A raised BMI in adulthood is associated with an increased risk of developing a number of chronic diseases which include diabetes, cardiovascular disease, muscular skeletal disorders and some cancers. In addition to this substantial impact on individual health and well being, there are also significant wider costs, for example, in England the annual direct cost to the national health service for treating overweight, obesity and associated morbidity is estimated at over £5 billion pounds, with costs to the wider economy estimated at £27 billion. Therefore effective weight management is essential.As overweight and obesity results from an accumulation of excess body fat arising from an energy imbalance - consuming more energy (kcal) than is expended - the majority of weight management approaches center around behaviors to address this imbalance, i.e. reducing energy intake through caloric restriction and increasing energy expenditure through physical activity. However, the aetiology of overweight and obesity is highly complex, involving an interplay of biological, psychological, societal and environmental drivers. Consequently, effective weight management is challenging, and whilst there exists a plethora of available weight loss programs, not all are comprehensively evaluated and compared, and many weight loss attempts result in weight regain and poor long term results. It is therefore vitally important to review the effectiveness of all new approaches to support an evidence-based approach to weight management.Intermittent fasting (IF), also known as alternate day fasting (ADF), periodic fasting or intermittent energy restriction (IER) is a relatively new dietary approach to weight management that involves interspersing normal daily caloric intake with a short period of severe calorie restriction/fasting. In terms of the possible underlying biological benefits of intermittent fasting, there is some evidence, predominantly from animal studies, to demonstrate beneficial effects on weight loss and cardio-metabolic risk factors. Whilst the underpinning mechanistic evidence is limited, there is some evidence to suggest that the benefits may be explained mechanistically through fat utilization and nutritional stress. However current National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidance on the treatment of adult obesity does not recommend the routine use of very low calorie diets (VLCD) (defined as a hypocaloric diet of 800 or less kcal/day) for the treatment of adult obesity. The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence states that this approach should only be recommended if there is a clinical rationale for rapid weight loss and must be nutritionally complete, part of a multi-component weight management strategy, including ongoing support, and should be undertaken for a maximum of 12 weeks (followed continuously or intermittently). Furthermore, the British Dietetic Association raises concerns that rapid weight loss associated with fasting may largely be due to loss of water and glycogen rather than fat, and may result in fatigue, dizziness and low energy levels. Essentially IF involves the intermittent use of a VLCD, and there remain questions about the side effects of this approach, whether there is an optimal fasting pattern or calorie limit, and how sustainable it is for long term weight management.Intermittent fasting has recently gained much popularity following significant media attention. In the UK this dietary approach reached mainstream after a BBC Horizon documentary aired in August 2012, featured an IF approach called the 5:2 diet, which involves five days of regular eating patterns interchanged with two days of fasting (max 500kcal for women and 600kcal for men). However other IF patterns are used such as alternate day fasting. Despite the recent popularity of intermittent fasting and associated weight loss claims, the supporting evidence base in humans remains small and there is only one published systematic review examining the health benefits of this approach. However the aim of this review was to examine the impact of this intervention on wider health benefits (not specifically as a treatment approach for overweight and obesity), and did not provide a comprehensive methodology or meta-analysis of RCT data. This proposed review will hence address these gaps in the evidence base.