Comparative cost-effectiveness of policy instruments for reducing the global burden of alcohol, tobacco and illicit drug use

Alcohol, tobacco and illicit drug use together pose a formidable challenge to international public health. Building on earlier estimates of the demonstrated burden of alcohol, tobacco and illicit drug use at the global level, this review aims to consider the comparative cost-effectiveness of evidence-based interventions for reducing the global burden of disease from these three risk factors. Although the number of published cost-effectiveness studies in the addictions field is now extensive ( reviewed briefly here) there are a series of practical problems in using them for sector-wide decision making, including methodological heterogeneity, differences in analytical reference point and the specificity of findings to a particular context. In response to these limitations, a more generalised form of cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) is proposed, which enables like-with-like comparisons of the relative efficiency of preventive or individual-based strategies to be made, not only within but also across diseases or their risk factors. The application of generalised CEA to a range of personal and non-personal interventions for reducing the burden of addictive substances is described. While such a development avoids many of the obstacles that have plagued earlier attempts and in so doing opens up new opportunities to address important policy questions, there remain a number of caveats to population-level analysis of this kind, particularly when conducted at the global level. These issues are the subject of the final section of this review.

On the absolute calibration of bench-top small-angle X-ray scattering instruments: a comparison of different standard methods

Absolute calibration relates the measured (arbitrary) intensity to the differential scattering cross section of the sample, which contains all of the quantitative information specific to the material. The importance of absolute calibration in small-angle scattering experiments has long been recognized. This work details the absolute calibration procedure of a small-angle X-ray scattering instrument from Bruker AXS. The absolute calibration presented here was achieved by using a number of different types of primary and secondary standards. The samples were: a glassy carbon specimen, which had been independently calibrated from neutron radiation; a range of pure liquids, which can be used as primary standards as their differential scattering cross section is directly related to their isothermal compressibility; and a suspension of monodisperse silica particles for which the differential scattering cross section is obtained from Porod's law. Good agreement was obtained between the different standard samples, provided that care was taken to obtain significant signal averaging and all sources of background scattering were accounted for. The specimen best suited for routine calibration was the glassy carbon sample, due to its relatively intense scattering and stability over time; however, initial calibration from a primary source is necessary. Pure liquids can be used as primary calibration standards, but the measurements take significantly longer and are, therefore, less suited for frequent use.

Quality of Reporting of Observational Longitudinal Research

Observational longitudinal research is particularly useful for assessing etiology and prognosis and for providing evidence for clinical decision making. However, there are no structured reporting requirements for studies of this design to assist authors, editors, and readers. The authors developed and tested a checklist of criteria related to threats to the internal and external validity of observational longitudinal studies. The checklist criteria concerned recruitment, data collection, biases, and data analysis and descriptive issues relevant to study rationale, study population, and generalizability. Two raters independently assessed 49 randomly selected articles describing stroke research published from 1999 to 2003 in six journals: American Journal of Epidemiology, Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, Stroke, Annals of Neurology, Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, and American Journal of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation. On average, 17 of the 33 checklist criteria were reported. Criteria describing the study design were better reported than those related to internal validity. No relation was found between study type (etiologic or prognostic) or word count and quality of reporting. A flow diagram for summarizing participant flow through a study was developed. Editors and authors should consider using a checklist and flow diagram when reporting on observational longitudinal research.

One size doesn't fit all: Research methodologies in a language variation study of Sudanese teens

The research reported here draws on a study of five teenagers from a Dinka-speaking community of Sudanese settling in Australia. A range of factors including language proficiency, social network structure and language attitudes are examined as possible causes for the variability of language use. The results and discussion illustrate how the use of a triangular research approach captured the complexity of the participants' language situation and was critical to developing a full understanding of the interplay of factors influencing the teens' language maintenance and shift in a way that no single method could. Further, it shows that employment of different methodologies allowed for flexibility in data collection to ensure the fullest response from participants. Overall, this research suggests that for studies of non-standard communities, variability in research methods may prove more of a strength that the use of standardised instruments and approaches.

Comparison of surveys used to measure physical activity

Objective: To compare the level of agreement in results obtained from four physical activity (PA) measurement instruments that are in use in Australia and around the world. Methods: 1,280 randomly selected participants answered two sets of PA questions by telephone. 428 answered the Active Australia (AA) and National Health Surveys, 427 answered the AA and CDC Behavioural Risk Factor Surveillance System surveys (BRFSS), and 425 answered the AA survey and the short International Physical Activity Questionnaire (IPAQ). Results: Among the three pairs of survey items, the difference in mean total PA time was lowest when the AA and NHS items were asked (difference=24) (SE:17) minutes, compared with 144 (SE:21) mins for AA/BRFSS and 406 (SE:27) mins for AA/IPAQ). Correspondingly, prevalence estimates for 'sufficiently active' were similar for AA and NHS (56% and 55% respectively), but about 10% higher when BRFSS data were used, and about 26% higher when the IPAQ items were used, compared with estimates from the AA survey. Conclusions: The findings clearly demonstrate that there are large differences in reported PA times and hence in prevalence estimates of 'sufficient activity' from these four measures. Implications: It is important to consistently use the same survey for population monitoring purposes. As the AA survey has now been used three times in national surveys, its continued use for population surveys is recommended so that trend data ever a longer period of time can be established.

Assessing flow in physical activity: The Flow State Scale-2 and Dispositional Flow Scale-2

The Flow State Scale-2 (FSS-2) and Dispositional Flow Scale-2 (DFS-2) are presented as two self-report instruments designed to assess flow experiences in physical activity. Item modifications were made to the original versions of these scales in order to improve the measurement of some of the flow dimensions. Confirmatory factor analyses of an item identification and a cross-validation sample demonstrated a good fit of the new scales. There was support for both a 9-first-order factor model and a higher order model with a global flow factor. The item identification sample yielded mean item loadings on the first-order factor of .78 for the FSS-2 and .77 for the DFS-2. Reliability estimates ranged from .80 to .90 for the FSS-2, and .81 to .90 for the DFS-2. In the cross-validation sample, mean item loadings on the first-order factor were .80 for the FSS-2, and .73 for the DFS-2. Reliability estimates ranged between .80 to .92 for the FSS-2 and .78 to .86 for the DFS-2. The scales are presented as ways of assessing flow experienced within a particular event (FSS-2) or the frequency of flow experiences in chosen physical activity in general (DFS-2).