Online alcohol interventions : a systematic review

Background: There has been a significant increase in the availability of online programs for alcohol problems. A systematic review of the research evidence underpinning these programs is timely. Objectives: Our objective was to review the efficacy of online interventions for alcohol misuse. Systematic searches of Medline, PsycINFO, Web of Science, and Scopus were conducted for English abstracts (excluding dissertations) published from 1998 onward. Search terms were: (1) Internet, Web*; (2) online, computer*; (3) alcohol*; and (4) E\effect*, trial*, random* (where * denotes a wildcard). Forward and backward searches from identified papers were also conducted. Articles were included if (1) the primary intervention was delivered and accessed via the Internet, (2) the intervention focused on moderating or stopping alcohol consumption, and (3) the study was a randomized controlled trial of an alcohol-related screen, assessment, or intervention. Results: The literature search initially yielded 31 randomized controlled trials (RCTs), 17 of which met inclusion criteria. Of these 17 studies, 12 (70.6%) were conducted with university students, and 11 (64.7%) specifically focused on at-risk, heavy, or binge drinkers. Sample sizes ranged from 40 to 3216 (median 261), with 12 (70.6%) studies predominantly involving brief personalized feedback interventions. Using published data, effect sizes could be extracted from 8 of the 17 studies. In relation to alcohol units per week or month and based on 5 RCTs where a measure of alcohol units per week or month could be extracted, differential effect sizes to post treatment ranged from 0.02 to 0.81 (mean 0.42, median 0.54). Pre-post effect sizes for brief personalized feedback interventions ranged from 0.02 to 0.81, and in 2 multi-session modularized interventions, a pre-post effect size of 0.56 was obtained in both. Pre-post differential effect sizes for peak blood alcohol concentrations (BAC) ranged from 0.22 to 0.88, with a mean effect size of 0.66. Conclusions: The available evidence suggests that users can benefit from online alcohol interventions and that this approach could be particularly useful for groups less likely to access traditional alcohol-related services, such as women, young people, and at-risk users. However, caution should be exercised given the limited number of studies allowing extraction of effect sizes, the heterogeneity of outcome measures and follow-up periods, and the large proportion of student-based studies. More extensive RCTs in community samples are required to better understand the efficacy of specific online alcohol approaches, program dosage, the additive effect of telephone or face-to-face interventions, and effective strategies for their dissemination and marketing.

A systematic review of the literature comparing the practices of dispensing and non-dispensing doctors

Objectives: Some doctors perform the dual roles of prescribing and dispensing pharmaceuticals. The dispensing doctors (DDs) role may give rise to prescribing behaviours that vary from those of non-DDs. The aim of this review was to systematically and comparatively appraise the research evidence related to the practices of DDs. Methods: A systematic search of bibliographic databases and reference lists from selected papers were the sources of the data. Inclusion criteria were papers published in English, between 1970 and 2008 that provided quantitative data comparing the practices of DDs and non-DDs. At least two of the authors abstracted data from all eligible papers using a purpose-made data extraction form. Results: Twenty-one papers were included in this review. Evidence indicated that DDs prescribed more pharmaceutical items and less often generically than non-DDs. There was limited evidence to suggest that DDs prescribed less judiciously and were associated with poor dispensing standards. Patient convenience and access to pharmaceuticals were main reasons for doctors to dispense. Conclusion: DDs can fill an important gap in the provision of pharmaceuticals for their patients especially where health workforce shortages exist. There was evidence the dispensing role influenced prescribing. Patient convenience should be balanced against scarce medical resources, being utilised for dispensing.

Family-based programmes for preventing smoking by children and adolescents (Review)

Background There is evidence that family and friends influence children's decisions to smoke. Objectives To assess the effectiveness of interventions to help families stop children starting smoking. Search methods We searched 14 electronic bibliographic databases, including the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group specialized register, MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL unpublished material, and key articles' reference lists. We performed free-text internet searches and targeted searches of appropriate websites, and hand-searched key journals not available electronically. We consulted authors and experts in the field. The most recent search was 3 April 2014. There were no date or language limitations. Selection criteria Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of interventions with children (aged 5-12) or adolescents (aged 13-18) and families to deter tobacco use. The primary outcome was the effect of the intervention on the smoking status of children who reported no use of tobacco at baseline. Included trials had to report outcomes measured at least six months from the start of the intervention. Data collection and analysis We reviewed all potentially relevant citations and retrieved the full text to determine whether the study was an RCT and matched our inclusion criteria. Two authors independently extracted study data for each RCT and assessed them for risk of bias. We pooled risk ratios using a Mantel-Haenszel fixed effect model. Main results Twenty-seven RCTs were included. The interventions were very heterogeneous in the components of the family intervention, the other risk behaviours targeted alongside tobacco, the age of children at baseline and the length of follow-up. Two interventions were tested by two RCTs, one was tested by three RCTs and the remaining 20 distinct interventions were tested only by one RCT. Twenty-three interventions were tested in the USA, two in Europe, one in Australia and one in India. The control conditions fell into two main groups: no intervention or usual care; or school-based interventions provided to all participants. These two groups of studies were considered separately. Most studies had a judgement of 'unclear' for at least one risk of bias criteria, so the quality of evidence was downgraded to moderate. Although there was heterogeneity between studies there was little evidence of statistical heterogeneity in the results. We were unable to extract data from all studies in a format that allowed inclusion in a meta-analysis. There was moderate quality evidence family-based interventions had a positive impact on preventing smoking when compared to a no intervention control. Nine studies (4810 participants) reporting smoking uptake amongst baseline non-smokers could be pooled, but eight studies with about 5000 participants could not be pooled because of insufficient data. The pooled estimate detected a significant reduction in smoking behaviour in the intervention arms (risk ratio [RR] 0.76, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.68 to 0.84). Most of these studies used intensive interventions. Estimates for the medium and low intensity subgroups were similar but confidence intervals were wide. Two studies in which some of the 4487 participants already had smoking experience at baseline did not detect evidence of effect (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.17). Eight RCTs compared a combined family plus school intervention to a school intervention only. Of the three studies with data, two RCTS with outcomes for 2301 baseline never smokers detected evidence of an effect (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.75 to 0.96) and one study with data for 1096 participants not restricted to never users at baseline also detected a benefit (RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.38 to 0.94). The other five studies with about 18,500 participants did not report data in a format allowing meta-analysis. One RCT also compared a family intervention to a school 'good behaviour' intervention and did not detect a difference between the two types of programme (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.38, n = 388). No studies identified any adverse effects of intervention. Authors' conclusions There is moderate quality evidence to suggest that family-based interventions can have a positive effect on preventing children and adolescents from starting to smoke. There were more studies of high intensity programmes compared to a control group receiving no intervention, than there were for other compairsons. The evidence is therefore strongest for high intensity programmes used independently of school interventions. Programmes typically addressed family functioning, and were introduced when children were between 11 and 14 years old. Based on this moderate quality evidence a family intervention might reduce uptake or experimentation with smoking by between 16 and 32%. However, these findings should be interpreted cautiously because effect estimates could not include data from all studies. Our interpretation is that the common feature of the effective high intensity interventions was encouraging authoritative parenting (which is usually defined as showing strong interest in and care for the adolescent, often with rule setting). This is different from authoritarian parenting (do as I say) or neglectful or unsupervised parenting.

A systematic review of hepatitis C clinical practice guidelines: Benefits, limitations and harms

Background Hepatitis C (HCV) was described as a “viral time bomb” due to its prevalence and potential for causing serious, life-threatening complications. The Australian’s National Hepatitis C Strategy calls for a coordinated, evidence-based approach to testing, management, care and support of HCV. This review aimed to systematically and comparatively appraise existing international HCV clinical guidelines. Methods A systematic search of bibliographic databases and reference lists from selected papers were the source of data. Inclusion criteria were latest clinical guidelines as defined by Institute of Medicine, published in English, between January 2002 and November 2014. Quality of the guidelines was independently assessed using the iCAHE instrument. Results Twenty-eight international clinical practice guidelines were included. The majority of the international guidelines were based on the same primary studies however clinical recommendations on pre- and in-treatment assessments, choice of pharmaceuticals, and dosages and duration of the same pharmaceutical agents varied considerably. This diversity was beyond what would be considered reasonable practice context variations. Furthermore, there is limited guidance on post-treatment surveillance and care. Conclusions/implications There is a need for a harmonised international consensus on the clinical management of HCV. Key message A lack of consistency among international HCV clinical guidelines may impede effective and efficient patient care.

Review and evaluation of mindfulness-based iPhone apps

Background There is growing evidence for the positive impact of mindfulness on wellbeing. Mindfulness-based mobile apps may have potential as an alternative delivery medium for training. While there are hundreds of such apps, there is little information on their quality. Objective This study aimed to conduct a systematic review of mindfulness-based iPhone mobile apps and to evaluate their quality using a recently-developed expert rating scale, the Mobile Application Rating Scale (MARS). It also aimed to describe features of selected high-quality mindfulness apps. Methods A search for “mindfulness” was conducted in iTunes and Google Apps Marketplace. Apps that provided mindfulness training and education were included. Those containing only reminders, timers or guided meditation tracks were excluded. An expert rater reviewed and rated app quality using the MARS engagement, functionality, visual aesthetics, information quality and subjective quality subscales. A second rater provided MARS ratings on 30% of the apps for inter-rater reliability purposes. Results The “mindfulness” search identified 700 apps. However, 94 were duplicates, 6 were not accessible and 40 were not in English. Of the remaining 560, 23 apps met inclusion criteria and were reviewed. The median MARS score was 3.2 (out of 5.0), which exceeded the minimum acceptable score (3.0). The Headspace app had the highest average score (4.0), followed by Smiling Mind (3.7), iMindfulness (3.5) and Mindfulness Daily (3.5). There was a high level of inter-rater reliability between the two MARS raters. Conclusions Though many apps claim to be mindfulness-related, most were guided meditation apps, timers, or reminders. Very few had high ratings on the MARS subscales of visual aesthetics, engagement, functionality or information quality. Little evidence is available on the efficacy of the apps in developing mindfulness.

Educational interventions for preventing vascular catheter bloodstream infections in critical care: Evidence map, systematic review and economic evaluation

Background Bloodstream infections resulting from intravascular catheters (catheter-BSI) in critical care increase patients' length of stay, morbidity and mortality, and the management of these infections and their complications has been estimated to cost the NHS annually £19.1–36.2M. Catheter-BSI are thought to be largely preventable using educational interventions, but guidance as to which types of intervention might be most clinically effective is lacking. Objective To assess the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of educational interventions for preventing catheter-BSI in critical care units in England. Data sources Sixteen electronic bibliographic databases – including MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), NHS Economic Evaluation Database (NHS EED), EMBASE and The Cochrane Library databases – were searched from database inception to February 2011, with searches updated in March 2012. Bibliographies of systematic reviews and related papers were screened and experts contacted to identify any additional references. Review methods References were screened independently by two reviewers using a priori selection criteria. A descriptive map was created to summarise the characteristics of relevant studies. Further selection criteria developed in consultation with the project Advisory Group were used to prioritise a subset of studies relevant to NHS practice and policy for systematic review. A decision-analytic economic model was developed to investigate the cost-effectiveness of educational interventions for preventing catheter-BSI. Results Seventy-four studies were included in the descriptive map, of which 24 were prioritised for systematic review. Studies have predominantly been conducted in the USA, using single-cohort before-and-after study designs. Diverse types of educational intervention appear effective at reducing the incidence density of catheter-BSI (risk ratios statistically significantly < 1.0), but single lectures were not effective. The economic model showed that implementing an educational intervention in critical care units in England would be cost-effective and potentially cost-saving, with incremental cost-effectiveness ratios under worst-case sensitivity analyses of < £5000/quality-adjusted life-year. Limitations Low-quality primary studies cannot definitively prove that the planned interventions were responsible for observed changes in catheter-BSI incidence. Poor reporting gave unclear estimates of risk of bias. Some model parameters were sourced from other locations owing to a lack of UK data. Conclusions Our results suggest that it would be cost-effective and may be cost-saving for the NHS to implement educational interventions in critical care units. However, more robust primary studies are needed to exclude the possible influence of secular trends on observed reductions in catheter-BSI.

Family-based interventions in preventing children and adolescents from using tobacco: A systematic review and meta-analysis

- Background Tobacco is the main preventable cause of death and disease worldwide. Adolescent smoking is increasing in many countries with poorer countries following the earlier experiences of affluent countries. Preventing adolescents starting smoking is crucial to decreasing tobacco-related illness. - Objective To assess effectiveness of family-based interventions alone and combined with school-based interventions to prevent children and adolescents from initiating tobacco use. - Data Sources 14 bibliographic databases and the Internet, journals hand-searched, experts consulted. - Study Eligibility Criteria, Participants, and Interventions Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with children or adolescents and families, interventions to prevent starting tobacco use, follow-up ≥ 6 months. - Study Appraisal/Synthesis methods Abstracts/titles independently assessed and data independently entered by two authors. Risk-of-bias assessed with the Cochrane Risk-of-Bias tool. - Results Twenty-seven RCTs were included. Nine trials of never-smokers compared to a control provided data for meta-analysis. Family intervention trials had significantly fewer students who started smoking. Meta-analysis of twoRCTs of combined family and school interventions compared to school only, showed additional significant benefit. The common feature of effective high intensity interventions was encouraging authoritative parenting. - Limitations Only 14 RCTs provided data for meta-analysis (about 1/3 of participants). Of the 13 RCTs which did not provide data for meta-analysis eight compared a family intervention to no intervention and one found significant effects, and five compared a family + school intervention to a school intervention and none found additional significant effects. - Conclusions and Implications of Key Findings There is moderate quality evidence that family-based interventions prevent children and adolescents starting to smoke.