A systematic review of the effectiveness of employer-led interventions for drug misuse.

AIMS: Employers in the United States incur substantial costs associated with substance use disorders. Our goal was to examine the effectiveness of employer-led interventions to reduce the adverse effects of drug misuse in the workplace. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of studies that evaluated the effectiveness of recommended workplace interventions for opioids and related drugs: employee education, drug testing, employee assistance programs, supervisor training, written workplace drug-free policy, and restructuring employee health benefit plans. We searched PubMed MEDLINE, EMBASE (embase.com), PsycINFO (Ebsco), ABI Inform Global, Business Source Premier, EconLit, CENTRAL, Web of Science (Thomson Reuters), Scopus (Elsevier), Proquest Dissertations, and Epistemonikos from inception through May 8, 2019, with no date or language restrictions. We included randomized controlled trials, quasi-experimental studies, and cross-sectional studies with no language or date restrictions. The Downs and Black questionnaire was used to assess the quality of included studies. The results were reported using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines. RESULTS: In all, 27 studies met our inclusion criteria and were included in the systematic review. Results were mixed, with each intervention shown to be effective in at least one study, but none showing effectiveness in over 50% of studies. Studies examining the impact of interventions on workplace injuries or accidents were more commonly reported to be effective. Although four studies were randomized controlled trials, the quality of all included studies was "fair" or "poor." CONCLUSIONS: Despite the opioid epidemic, high-quality studies evaluating the effectiveness of employer-led interventions to prevent or reduce the adverse effects of substance use are lacking. Higher quality and mixed methods studies are needed to determine whether any of the interventions are generalizable and whether contextual adaptations are needed. In the meantime, there is a reason to believe that commonly recommended, employer-led interventions may be effective in some environments.

The efficacy of smoking cessation interventions in low- and middle-income countries: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

AIMS: To summarize evidence for the efficacy of smoking cessation interventions in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. SETTING: LMICs as defined by the World Bank. PARTICIPANTS: Adult current cigarette smokers residing in LMICs. INTERVENTIONS: Behavioral and/or pharmacotherapy smoking cessation interventions. MEASUREMENTS: PubMed MEDLINE, EMBASE (embase.com), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (Wiley), PsycINFO (Ebsco), SciELO, WHO Global Index Medicus and Scopus were searched from inception to 4 April 2018. Only studies with at least 6 months of follow-up were included. We used the most rigorous assessment of abstinence reported by each study. Effect sizes were computed from abstracted data. Where possible, a meta-analysis was performed using Mantel-Haenzel random-effect models reporting odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI). FINDINGS: Twenty-four randomized controlled trials were included. Six investigated the efficacy of pharmacological agents. Four trials that compared nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) to placebo found NRT improved cessation rates (n : NRT 546, control 684, OR = 1.76, 95% CI = 1.30-2.77, P < 0.001, I2  = 13%). Eight trials found that behavioral counseling was more effective than minimal interventions (e.g. brief advice); n : Counseling 2941, control 2794, OR = 6.87, 95% CI = 4.18-11.29, P < 0.001, I2  = 67%). There was also evidence of the benefit of brief advice over usual care (n : Brief advice 373, control 355, OR = 2.46, 95% CI = 1.56-3.88, P < 0.001, I2  = 0%). CONCLUSION: Nicotine replacement therapy, behavioral counseling and brief advice appear to be effective in aiding smoking cessation in low- and middle-income countries. There is limited rigorous research on other smoking cessation interventions in these regions.

Emergency department use by centenarians: the 2008 Nationwide Emergency Department Sample.

INTRODUCTION: Older adults have higher rates of emergency department use than do younger adults, and the number of centenarians is expected to increase. The objective of this study was to examine centenarians' use of the emergency department in the United States, including diagnoses, charges, and disposition. METHODS: The 2008 Nationwide Emergency Department Sample, Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality provided encounter-level data on emergency department visits and weights for producing nationwide estimates. From this data set, we collected patient characteristics including age, sex, primary diagnosis, and disposition. We used χ(2) tests and t tests to test for significant differences among people aged 80 to 89, 90 to 99, and 100 years or older. RESULTS: Centenarians had a lower rate of emergency department use than those aged 90 to 99 (736 per 1,000 vs 950 per 1,000; P < .05). We found no significant difference in use between centenarians and those aged 80 to 89. The most common diagnoses for centenarians were superficial injuries (5.8% of visits), pneumonia (5.1%), and urinary tract infections (5.1%). Centenarians were more likely to visit the emergency department for fall-related injuries (21.5%) than those aged 80 to 89 (14.1%; P < .05) and 90 to 99 (18.7%; P < .05). Centenarians were more likely to die in the emergency department (2.0%) than were those aged 80 to 89 (0.6%; P < .05) and 90 to 99 (0.7%; P < .05). CONCLUSION: Centenarians in emergency departments in the United States have different diagnoses, conditions, and outcomes than other older Americans.