Mentoring adolescents to prevent drug and alcohol use

The effectiveness of digital health technologies for reducing substance use among young people: a systematic review & meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Substance use amongst young people poses developmental and clinical challenges, necessitating early detection and treatment. Considering the widespread use of technology in young people, delivering interventions digitally may help to reduce and monitor their substance use.

AIMS

We conducted a systematic review and two meta-analyses to assess the effectiveness of digital interventions for reducing substance use (alcohol, smoking, and other substances) among young people aged 10 to 24 years old.

METHOD

Embase, Global Health, Medline, PsychINFO, Web of Science and reference lists of relevant papers were searched in November 2020. Studies were included if they quantitatively evaluated the effectiveness of digital health technologies for treating substance use. A narrative synthesis and meta-analysis were conducted.

RESULTS

Forty-two studies were included in the systematic review and 18 in the meta-analyses. Digital interventions showed small, but statistically significant reductions in weekly alcohol consumption compared to controls (SMD= -0.12, 95% CI= -0.17 to -0.06, I2=0%), but no overall effect was seen on 30-day smoking abstinence (OR = 1.12, 95% CI = 0.70 to 1.80, I2=81%). The effectiveness of digital interventions for reducing substance use is generally weak, however, promising results such as reducing alcohol use were seen. Large-scale studies should investigate the viability of digital interventions, collect user feedback, and determine cost-effectiveness.

PRISMA/PROSPERO

This systematic review was conducted following Cochrane methodology PRISMA guidelines. The review was registered with PROSPERO in November 2020 (CRD42020218442).

Adverse and other unintended consequences of setting-based interventions to prevent illicit drug use: A systematic review of reviews

This article explores adverse and unintended consequences (AUCs) of setting-based public health interventions to prevent illicit drug use, including the mechanisms leading to these AUCs. Additionally, the reporting of AUCs in systematic reviews was assessed. Therefore, we conducted a systematic review of reviews and searched four big databases were searched. We included systematic reviews concerned with setting-based interventions to prevent illicit drug use. We used AMSTAR 2 to rate the overall confidence of the results presented in the reviews. Data on study characteristics, types and mechanisms of AUCs were extracted. An a priori categorisation of consequences drew on the WHO-INTEGRATE framework, and the categorisation of mechanisms on the Behaviour Change Wheel. For reviews reporting AUCs, the same information was also retrieved from relevant primary studies. Findings were synthesised narratively and in tables. Finally, we included 72 reviews, of which 18 reported on AUCs. From these, 11 primary studies were identified. Most of the reviews and primary studies were conducted in educational settings. The most prevalent AUCs reported in systematic reviews and primary studies were paradoxical health effects (i.e. increase of drug use). Potential mechanisms discussed primarily focussed on the change though social norms and practices. Changes of knowledge and perception were also mentioned. Concluding, the identified reviews and primary studies paid insufficient attention to AUCs of public health interventions to prevent illicit drug use. Where reported, it was mostly as an afterthought and narrowly framed as health related. No mentions of potential broader social consequences were found.

Developing a taxonomy to characterise trusted adult support in the lives of adolescents

Introduction

A systematic review of trusted adult interventions for adolescents revealed that there was no common terminology, agreed explicit definition, or detail, regarding the personal qualities, functions and roles fulfilled by trusted adults that was used consistently across the papers. To provide clarity, we therefore aimed to produce a taxonomy of trusted adult input, using evidence drawn from our review.

Methods

Data from the review findings were used to compile the taxonomy, moving from the general to the more specific, in a four stage process. This involved: (1) compilation of elements described in individual papers, (2) grouping of elements derived from stage 1 into categories, (3) examination of context and nature of the relationship, (4) development of a categorisation of trusted adult input.

Findings

The resulting taxonomy encapsulates core essential qualities provided by people acting in trusted adult or mentoring roles, and gives details relating to what a young person might expect from individuals they put their trust in. The taxonomy consists of six categories relating to: delivery context, roles of trusted adults, nature of support, personal qualities, actions/functions, and impact.

Conclusions

The taxonomy describes key elements that define the trusted adult role, and has the potential to inform the development of policies and guidelines relating to support provision. It may be used as a framework for the reporting of trusted adult interventions within research, and act as a helpful guide if a young person is in doubt about the behaviour or qualities displayed by an adult in their environment.

Characteristics of stakeholder involvement in systematic and rapid reviews: a methodological review in the area of health services research

OBJECTIVE

Engaging stakeholders in reviews is considered to generate more relevant evidence and to facilitate dissemination and use. As little is known about stakeholder involvement, we assessed the characteristics of their engagement in systematic and rapid reviews and the methodological quality of included studies. Stakeholders were people with a particular interest in the research topic.

DESIGN

Methodological review.

SEARCH STRATEGY

Four databases (Medline, Embase, Cochrane database of systematic reviews, databases of the University of York, Center for Reviews and Dissemination (CRD)) were searched based on an a priori protocol. Four types of reviews (Cochrane and non-Cochrane systematic reviews, rapid and CRD rapid reviews) were retrieved between January 2011 and October 2015, pooled by potential review type and duplicates excluded. Articles were randomly ordered and screened for inclusion and exclusion criteria until 30 reviews per group were reached. Their methodological quality was assessed using AMSTAR and stakeholder characteristics were collected.

RESULTS

In total, 57 822 deduplicated citations were detected with potential non-Cochrane systematic reviews being the biggest group (56 986 records). We found stakeholder involvement in 13% (4/30) of Cochrane, 20% (6/30) of non-Cochrane, 43% (13/30) of rapid and 93% (28/30) of CRD reviews. Overall, 33% (17/51) of the responding contact authors mentioned positive effects of stakeholder involvement. A conflict of interest statement remained unmentioned in 40% (12/30) of non-Cochrane and in 27% (8/30) of rapid reviews, but not in Cochrane or CRD reviews. At most, half of non-Cochrane and rapid reviews mentioned an a priori study protocol in contrast to all Cochrane reviews.

CONCLUSION

Stakeholder engagement was not general practice, except for CRD reviews, although it was more common in rapid reviews. Reporting factors, such as including an a priori study protocol and a conflict of interest statement should be considered in conjunction with involving stakeholders.

Psychosocial interventions to reduce alcohol consumption in concurrent problem alcohol and illicit drug users

BACKGROUND

Problem alcohol use is common among people who use illicit drugs (PWID) and is associated with adverse health outcomes. It is also an important factor contributing to a poor prognosis among drug users with hepatitis C virus (HCV) as it impacts on progression to hepatic cirrhosis or opioid overdose in PWID.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of psychosocial interventions to reduce alcohol consumption in PWID (users of opioids and stimulants).

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Drugs and Alcohol Group trials register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and PsycINFO, from inception up to August 2017, and the reference lists of eligible articles. We also searched: 1) conference proceedings (online archives only) of the Society for the Study of Addiction, International Harm Reduction Association, International Conference on Alcohol Harm Reduction and American Association for the Treatment of Opioid Dependence; and 2) online registers of clinical trials: Current Controlled Trials, ClinicalTrials.gov, Center Watch and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials comparing psychosocial interventions with other psychosocial treatment, or treatment as usual, in adult PWIDs (aged at least 18 years) with concurrent problem alcohol use.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used the standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.

MAIN RESULTS

We included seven trials (825 participants). We judged the majority of the trials to have a high or unclear risk of bias.The psychosocial interventions considered in the studies were: cognitive-behavioural coping skills training (one study), twelve-step programme (one study), brief intervention (three studies), motivational interviewing (two studies), and brief motivational interviewing (one study). Two studies were considered in two comparisons. There were no data for the secondary outcome, alcohol-related harm. The results were as follows.Comparison 1: cognitive-behavioural coping skills training versus twelve-step programme (one study, 41 participants)There was no significant difference between groups for either of the primary outcomes (alcohol abstinence assessed with Substance Abuse Calendar and breathalyser at one year: risk ratio (RR) 2.38 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.10 to 55.06); and retention in treatment, measured at end of treatment: RR 0.89 (95% CI 0.62 to 1.29), or for any of the secondary outcomes reported. The quality of evidence for the primary outcomes was very low.Comparison 2: brief intervention versus treatment as usual (three studies, 197 participants)There was no significant difference between groups for either of the primary outcomes (alcohol use, measured as scores on the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT) or Alcohol, Smoking and Substance Involvement Screening Test (ASSIST) at three months: standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.07 (95% CI -0.24 to 0.37); and retention in treatment, measured at three months: RR 0.94 (95% CI 0.78 to 1.13), or for any of the secondary outcomes reported. The quality of evidence for the primary outcomes was low.Comparison 3: motivational interviewing versus treatment as usual or educational intervention only (three studies, 462 participants)There was no significant difference between groups for either of the primary outcomes (alcohol use, measured as scores on the AUDIT or ASSIST at three months: SMD 0.04 (95% CI -0.29 to 0.37); and retention in treatment, measured at three months: RR 0.93 (95% CI 0.60 to 1.43), or for any of the secondary outcomes reported. The quality of evidence for the primary outcomes was low.Comparison 4: brief motivational intervention (BMI) versus assessment only (one study, 187 participants)More people reduced alcohol use (by seven or more days in the past month, measured at six months) in the BMI group than in the control group (RR 1.67; 95% CI 1.08 to 2.60). There was no difference between groups for the other primary outcome, retention in treatment, measured at end of treatment: RR 0.98 (95% CI 0.94 to 1.02), or for any of the secondary outcomes reported. The quality of evidence for the primary outcomes was moderate.Comparison 5: motivational interviewing (intensive) versus motivational interviewing (one study, 163 participants)There was no significant difference between groups for either of the primary outcomes (alcohol use, measured using the Addiction Severity Index-alcohol score (ASI) at two months: MD 0.03 (95% CI 0.02 to 0.08); and retention in treatment, measured at end of treatment: RR 17.63 (95% CI 1.03 to 300.48), or for any of the secondary outcomes reported. The quality of evidence for the primary outcomes was low.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found low to very low-quality evidence to suggest that there is no difference in effectiveness between different types of psychosocial interventions to reduce alcohol consumption among people who use illicit drugs, and that brief interventions are not superior to assessment-only or to treatment as usual. No firm conclusions can be made because of the paucity of the data and the low quality of the retrieved studies.

Acceptability and stakeholders perspectives on feasibility of using trained psychologists and health workers to deliver school-based sexual and reproductive health services to adolescents in urban Accra, Ghana

BACKGROUND

Adolescent sexual and reproductive health is recognized as a key developmental issue of international concern. However, adolescents' access to sexual and reproductive health (SRH) information and services is largely inadequate in sub-Saharan Africa. With increasing enrollment in schools, this could be an avenue to reach adolescents with SRH information and services. This study was therefore conducted to assess the acceptability and stakeholders' perspectives on the feasibility of using health workers and trained psychologists to provide school-based SRH services in Ghana.

METHODS

Fourteen (14) focus group discussions (N = 136) were conducted; 8 among adolescents aged 12-17 years (4 boys, 4 girls groups), 4 among parents (2 males, 2 females groups) and two among mixed teacher groups. We also conducted 18 in-depth interviews with teachers, managers of schools, health workers, clinical psychologists, as well as adolescent SRH program managers in the Ghana Health Service, Ghana Education Service, UNICEF, UNESCO and National Population Council, Ghana. We audio-recorded all interviews and took field notes. Interviews were transcribed and transcripts imported into NVivo 11 for analysis using grounded theory approach to qualitative data analysis.

RESULTS

Many respondents reported that it was challenging for parents and/or teachers to provide adolescents with SRH information. For this reason, they agreed that it was a good idea to have health workers and psychologists provide SRH information and services to adolescents in school. Although, there was general agreement about providing SRH services in school, many of the respondents disagreed with distribution of condoms in schools as they believed that availing condoms would encourage adolescents to experiment with sex. While majority of respondents thought it was acceptable to use psychologists and health workers to provide school-based sexual and reproductive health to adolescents, some teachers and education managers thought the implementation of such a program would oppose practical challenges. Key among the challenges were how to pay for the services that health workers and trained psychologists will render, and the availability of psychologists to cater for all schools.

CONCLUSION

Stakeholders believe it is feasible and acceptable to use trained psychologists and health workers to deliver school-based SRH information and services in the Ghanaian school context. However, provisions must be made to cater for financial and other logistical considerations in the implementation of school-based SRH programs.

Interventions for Adolescent Substance Abuse: An Overview of Systematic Reviews

Many unhealthy behaviors often begin during adolescence and represent major public health challenges. Substance abuse has a major impact on individuals, families, and communities, as its effects are cumulative, contributing to costly social, physical, and mental health problems. We conducted an overview of systematic reviews to evaluate the effectiveness of interventions to prevent substance abuse among adolescents. We report findings from a total of 46 systematic reviews focusing on interventions for smoking/tobacco use, alcohol use, drug use, and combined substance abuse. Our overview findings suggest that among smoking/tobacco interventions, school-based prevention programs and family-based intensive interventions typically addressing family functioning are effective in reducing smoking. Mass media campaigns are also effective given that these were of reasonable intensity over extensive periods of time. Among interventions for alcohol use, school-based alcohol prevention interventions have been associated with reduced frequency of drinking, while family-based interventions have a small but persistent effect on alcohol misuse among adolescents. For drug abuse, school-based interventions based on a combination of social competence and social influence approaches have shown protective effects against drugs and cannabis use. Among the interventions targeting combined substance abuse, school-based primary prevention programs are effective. Evidence from Internet-based interventions, policy initiatives, and incentives appears to be mixed and needs further research. Future research should focus on evaluating the effectiveness of specific interventions components with standardized intervention and outcome measures. Various delivery platforms, including digital platforms and policy initiative, have the potential to improve substance abuse outcomes among adolescents; however, these require further research.

Family-based programmes for preventing smoking by children and adolescents

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.