Effectiveness of medication for opioid use disorders in transition-age youth: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Sequalae of opioid misuse constitute a public health emergency in the United States. A robust evidence base informs the use of medication for opioid use disorders (MOUD) in adults, with far less research in transition-age youth. This systematic review evaluates the effectiveness of MOUD for transition-age youth (age 16 to 25). METHODS: This synthesis was part of a larger systematic review focused on adolescent substance use interventions. The study team conducted literature searches in MEDLINE, the Cochrane CENTRAL Registry of Controlled Trials, EMBASE, PsycINFO, and CINAHL through October 31, 2019. We screened studies, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias using standard methods. The primary and secondary outcomes were the effect of MOUD on opioid abstinence and treatment retention, respectively. RESULTS: The study team screened a total of 33,272 records and examined 1831 full-text articles. Four randomized trials met criteria for inclusion in the current analysis. All four trials assessed a combination of buprenorphine plus cognitive behavioral therapy versus a comparison condition. Some trials included additional behavioral interventions, and the specific duration/dosage of buprenorphine varied. Risk of bias was moderate for all studies. Studies found that buprenorphine was more effective than clonidine, effectively augmented by memantine, and that longer medication taper durations were more effective than shorter tapers in promoting both abstinence and retention. Notably, we did not identify any studies of methadone or naltrexone, adjunctive behavioral interventions were sparingly described, and treatment durations were far shorter than recommended guidelines in adults. DISCUSSION: The literature guiding youth MOUD is limited, and more research should evaluate the effectiveness of options other than buprenorphine, optimal treatment duration, and the benefit of adjunctive behavioral interventions. Subgroup analyses of extant randomized clinical trials could help to extend knowledge of MOUD effectiveness in this age cohort.

Brief Behavioral Interventions for Substance Use in Adolescents: A Meta-analysis.

CONTEXT: Adolescents with problematic substance use (SU) are at risk for far-reaching adverse outcomes. OBJECTIVE: Synthesize the evidence regarding the effects of brief behavioral interventions for adolescents (12-20 years) with problematic SU. DATA SOURCES: We conducted literature searches in Medline, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Embase, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, and PsycInfo through October 31, 2019. STUDY SELECTION: We screened 33 272 records and citations for interventions in adolescents with at least problematic SU, retrieved 1831 articles, and selected 22 randomized controlled trials of brief interventions meeting eligibility criteria for meta-analysis. DATA EXTRACTION: We followed Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality guidelines. We categorized brief interventions into components, including motivational interviewing (MI), psychoeducation, and treatment as usual. Outcomes included SU (abstinence, days used per month) for alcohol and cannabis, and substance-related problem scales. Strength of evidence (SoE) was assessed. RESULTS: Both pairwise and network meta-analyses were conducted by using random effects models. Compared to treatment as usual, the use of MI reduces heavy alcohol use days by 0.7 days per month (95% credible interval [CrI]: -1.6 to 0.02; low SoE), alcohol use days by 1.1 days per month (95% CrI -2.2 to -0.3; moderate SoE), and overall substance-related problems by a standardized net mean difference of 0.5 (95% CrI -1.0 to 0; low SoE). The use of MI did not reduce cannabis use days, with a net mean difference of -0.05 days per month (95% CrI: -0.26 to 0.14; moderate SoE). LIMITATIONS: There was lack of consistently reported outcomes and limited available comparisons. CONCLUSIONS: The use of MI reduces heavy alcohol use, alcohol use days, and SU-related problems in adolescents but does not reduce cannabis use days.

Contacting authors by telephone increased response proportions compared with emailing: results of a randomized study.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to compare response proportions and research costs of telephone calling vs. continued emailing nonresponding authors of studies included in a systematic review. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Key features of included studies were poorly reported in a systematic review of diabetes quality improvement interventions. We developed a survey to request additional information from contact authors. After three email contact attempts, only 76 of 279 authors (27%) had completed the survey. In this study, we randomly assigned nonresponding authors to contact by telephone calling vs. continued emailing to compare the effect of these strategies on response proportions and research costs. RESULTS: We randomized 87 authors to telephone and 89 to email contact. Telephone contact increased survey completion (36.7% vs. 20.2%; adjusted risk difference of 15.6% [95% confidence interval: 2.90%, 28.4%]; adjusted odds ratio 2.26 [95% confidence interval: 1.10, 4.76]) but required more time to deliver (20 vs. 10 hours in total; 14 vs. 7 minutes per randomized author; 26 vs. 4 weeks), and cost more (total intervention cost of $504 Canadian dollars vs. $252 for the telephone and email arm, respectively). CONCLUSION: Contacting nonresponding authors of included studies by telephone increased response compared with emailing but required more investigator time and had higher cost.

Do quality improvement initiatives for diabetes care address social inequities? Secondary analysis of a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Socially disadvantaged populations carry a disproportionate burden of diabetes-related morbidity and mortality. There is an emerging interest in quality improvement (QI) strategies in the care of patients with diabetes, however, the effect of these interventions on disadvantaged groups remains unclear. OBJECTIVE: This is a secondary analysis of a systematic review that seeks to examine the extent of equity considerations in diabetes QI studies, specifically quantifying the proportion of studies that target interventions toward disadvantaged populations and conduct analyses on the impact of interventions on disadvantaged groups. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Studies were identified using Medline, HealthStar and the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care database. Randomised controlled trials assessing 12 QI strategies targeting health systems, healthcare professionals and/or patients for the management of adult outpatients with diabetes were eligible. The place of residence, race/ethnicity/culture/language, occupational status, gender/sexual identity, religious affiliations, education level, socioeconomic status, social capital, plus age, disability, sexual preferences and relationships (PROGRESS-Plus) framework was used to identify trials that focused on disadvantaged patient populations, to examine the types of equity-relevant factors that are being considered and to explore temporal trends in equity-relevant diabetes QI trials. RESULTS: Of the 278 trials that met the inclusion criteria, 95 trials had equity-relevant considerations. These include 64 targeted trials that focused on a disadvantaged population with the aim to improve the health status of that population and 31 general trials that undertook subgroup analyses to assess the extent to which their interventions may have had differential impacts on disadvantaged subgroups. Trials predominantly focused on race/ethnicity, socioeconomic status and place of residence as potential factors for disadvantage in patients receiving diabetes care. CONCLUSIONS: Less than one-third of diabetes QI trials included equity-relevant considerations, limiting the relevance and applicability of their data to disadvantaged populations. There is a need for better data collection, reporting, analysis and interventions on the social determinants of health that may influence the health outcomes of patients with diabetes. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42013005165.

Using a behaviour change techniques taxonomy to identify active ingredients within trials of implementation interventions for diabetes care.

BACKGROUND: Methodological guidelines for intervention reporting emphasise describing intervention content in detail. Despite this, systematic reviews of quality improvement (QI) implementation interventions continue to be limited by a lack of clarity and detail regarding the intervention content being evaluated. We aimed to apply the recently developed Behaviour Change Techniques Taxonomy version 1 (BCTTv1) to trials of implementation interventions for managing diabetes to assess the capacity and utility of this taxonomy for characterising active ingredients. METHODS: Three psychologists independently coded a random sample of 23 trials of healthcare system, provider- and/or patient-focused implementation interventions from a systematic review that included 142 such studies. Intervention content was coded using the BCTTv1, which describes 93 behaviour change techniques (BCTs) grouped within 16 categories. We supplemented the generic coding instructions within the BCTTv1 with decision rules and examples from this literature. RESULTS: Less than a quarter of possible BCTs within the BCTTv1 were identified. For implementation interventions targeting providers, the most commonly identified BCTs included the following: adding objects to the environment, prompts/cues, instruction on how to perform the behaviour, credible source, goal setting (outcome), feedback on outcome of behaviour, and social support (practical). For implementation interventions also targeting patients, the most commonly identified BCTs included the following: prompts/cues, instruction on how to perform the behaviour, information about health consequences, restructuring the social environment, adding objects to the environment, social support (practical), and goal setting (behaviour). The BCTTv1 mapped well onto implementation interventions directly targeting clinicians and patients and could also be used to examine the impact of system-level interventions on clinician and patient behaviour. CONCLUSIONS: The BCTTv1 can be used to characterise the active ingredients in trials of implementation interventions and provides specificity of content beyond what is given by broader intervention labels. Identification of BCTs may provide a more helpful means of accumulating knowledge on the content used in trials of implementation interventions, which may help to better inform replication efforts. In addition, prospective use of a behaviour change techniques taxonomy for developing and reporting intervention content would further aid in building a cumulative science of effective implementation interventions.

Seeing the forests and the trees--innovative approaches to exploring heterogeneity in systematic reviews of complex interventions to enhance health system decision-making: a protocol.

BACKGROUND: To improve quality of care and patient outcomes, health system decision-makers need to identify and implement effective interventions. An increasing number of systematic reviews document the effects of quality improvement programs to assist decision-makers in developing new initiatives. However, limitations in the reporting of primary studies and current meta-analysis methods (including approaches for exploring heterogeneity) reduce the utility of existing syntheses for health system decision-makers. This study will explore the role of innovative meta-analysis approaches and the added value of enriched and updated data for increasing the utility of systematic reviews of complex interventions. METHODS/DESIGN: We will use the dataset from our recent systematic review of 142 randomized trials of diabetes quality improvement programs to evaluate novel approaches for exploring heterogeneity. These will include exploratory methods, such as multivariate meta-regression analyses and all-subsets combinatorial meta-analysis. We will then update our systematic review to include new trials and enrich the dataset by surveying authors of all included trials. In doing so, we will explore the impact of variables not, reported in previous publications, such as details of study context, on the effectiveness of the intervention. We will use innovative analytical methods on the enriched and updated dataset to identify key success factors in the implementation of quality improvement interventions for diabetes. Decision-makers will be involved throughout to help identify and prioritize variables to be explored and to aid in the interpretation and dissemination of results. DISCUSSION: This study will inform future systematic reviews of complex interventions and describe the value of enriching and updating data for exploring heterogeneity in meta-analysis. It will also result in an updated comprehensive systematic review of diabetes quality improvement interventions that will be useful to health system decision-makers in developing interventions to improve outcomes for people with diabetes. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO registration no. CRD42013005165.