Impact numbers in health policy decisions

Objective: To outline the major methodological issues appropriate to the use of the population impact number (PIN) and the disease impact number (DIN) in health policy decision making. Design: Review of literature and calculation of PIN and DIN statistics in different settings. Setting: Previously proposed extensions to the number needed to treat (NNT): the DIN and the PIN, which give a population perspective to this measure. Main results: The PIN and DIN allow us to compare the population impact of different interventions either within the same disease or in different diseases or conditions. The primary studies used for relative risk estimates should have outcomes, time periods and comparison groups that are congruent and relevant to the local setting. These need to be combined with local data on disease rates and population size. Depending on the particular problem, the target may be disease incidence or prevalence and the effects of interest may be either the incremental impact or the total impact of each intervention. For practical application, it will be important to use sensitivity analyses to determine plausible intervals for the impact numbers. Conclusions: Attention to various methodological issues will permit the DIN and PIN to be used to assist health policy makers assign a population perspective to measures of risk.

An evaluation of tobacco brief intervention training in three Indigenous health care settings in north Queensland

Objective: To evaluate the pilot phase of a tobacco brief intervention program in three Indigenous health care settings in rural and remote north Queensland. Methods: A combination of in-depth interviews with health staff and managers and focus groups with health staff and consumers. Results: The tobacco brief intervention initiative resulted in changes in clinical practice among health care workers in all three sites. Although health workers had reported routinely raising the issue of smoking in a variety of settings prior to the intervention, the training provided them with an additional opportunity to become more aware of new approaches to smoking cessation. Indigenous health workers in particular reported that their own attempts to give up smoking following the training had given them confidence and empathy in offering smoking cessation advice. However, the study found no evidence that anybody had actually given up smoking at six months following the intervention. Integration of brief intervention into routine clinical practice was constrained by organisational, interpersonal and other factors in the broader socio-environmental context. Conclusions/implications: While modest health gains may be possible through brief intervention, the potential effectiveness in Indigenous settings will be limited in the absence of broader strategies aimed at tackling community-identified health priorities such as alcohol misuse, violence, employment and education. Tobacco and other forms of lifestyle brief. intervention need to be part of multi-level health strategies. Training in tobacco brief intervention should address both the Indigenous context and the needs of Indigenous health care workers.

Public policy and the prevention of substance-use disorders

Drug prevention has traditionally focused on influencing individual attitudes and behaviours. In particular, efforts have been directed towards adolescents in the school setting. However, evaluations of school-based drug education have identified limited success. There is increasing recognition that drug abuse is one of a number of risk behaviours, including truancy, delinquency and mental health problems, which share common antecedents that begin in the early years of childhood. Furthermore, these behaviours are shaped by macroenvironmental influences including the economic, social, cultural, and physical environment. Drug prevention needs to adopt a broader perspective: with greater collaboration in related programmes such as crime prevention and suicide prevention; with greater attention to the macroenvironmental influences on problem behaviours; and with greater attention to healthy development in the first years of childhood. (C) 2002 Lippincott Williams Wilkins.