Forming a national multicentre collaboration to conduct clinical trials: increasing high-quality research in the drug and alcohol field

Organic Collaborative Research Partnership Building: Researchers, Needle and Syringe Program Providers, and People Who Inject Drugs

(1) Background: People who inject drugs (PWID) and needle and syringe program (NSP) providers increasingly partner with researchers to explore harm reduction best practice. However, a paucity of research exists regarding how best to engage PWID and community NSP providers to generate the evidence for sustainable harm reduction services. (2) Aim: This study reports on our use of an organic community research partnership-building approach between researchers, NSP providers, and PWID in Canberra ACT, Australia. (3) Method: Survey participants included both PWID (n = 70) and NSP providers (n = 26) across primary (n = 2), secondary (n = 7), and outreach (n = 1) services in Canberra ACT. Applying an organic partnership-building strategy, we engaged with partners and adapted approaches according to information gained in the process of implementation. (4) Results: We found engaging in relationship building around partner priority activities created mutual understanding and trust premised in authenticity of the evolving partnership. Our organic approach, which included a partner audit of the research tools for relevance, resulted in high acceptance and enrolment into the research by NSP providers and PWID. Finally, we observed strong social capital building utilizing an organic approach for the sustainability of the partnership. (5) Conclusions: The results of this study provide evidence for the benefits of organic collaborative research partnership building with NSP providers and PWID for authentic service program implementation. Our approach to research partnership building resulted in strong relationships built on shared goals and objectives, mutual gains, and complementary expertise. We propose the wider use of organic approaches to developing collaborative research partnerships with NSP providers and PWID to enhance consumer responsiveness towards service provision.

Smoking Cessation among Low-Socioeconomic Status and Disadvantaged Population Groups: A Systematic Review of Research Output

Background: Smoking cessation research output should move beyond descriptive research of the health problem to testing interventions that can provide causal data and effective evidence-based solutions. This review examined the number and type of published smoking cessation studies conducted in low-socioeconomic status (low-SES) and disadvantaged population groups. Methods: A systematic database search was conducted for two time periods: 2000–2004 (TP1) and 2008–2012 (TP2). Publications that examined smoking cessation in a low-SES or disadvantaged population were coded by: population of interest; study type (reviews, non-data based publications, data-based publications (descriptive, measurement and intervention research)); and country. Intervention studies were coded in accordance with the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care data collection checklist and use of biochemical verification of self-reported abstinence was assessed. Results: 278 citations were included. Research output (i.e., all study types) had increased from TP1 27% to TP2 73% (χ² = 73.13, p < 0.001), however, the proportion of data-based research had not significantly increased from TP1 and TP2: descriptive (TP1 = 23% vs. TP2 = 33%) or intervention (TP1 = 77% vs. TP2 = 67%). The proportion of intervention studies adopting biochemical verification of self-reported abstinence had significantly decreased from TP1 to TP2 with an increased reliance on self-reported abstinence (TP1 = 12% vs. TP2 = 36%). Conclusions: The current research output is not ideal or optimal to decrease smoking rates. Research institutions, scholars and funding organisations should take heed to review findings when developing future research and policy.

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

BACKGROUND

Problem alcohol use is common among illicit drug users 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 opiate overdose in opioid users.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of psychosocial interventions for problem alcohol use in illicit drug users (principally problem drug users of opiates and stimulants).

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Drugs and Alcohol Group trials register (June 2014), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library, Issue 11, June 2014), MEDLINE (1966 to June 2014); EMBASE (1974 to June 2014); CINAHL (1982 to June 2014); PsycINFO (1872 to June 2014) 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; 2) online registers of clinical trials: Current Controlled Trials, Clinical Trials.org, Center Watch and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials comparing psychosocial interventions with another therapy (other psychosocial treatment, including non-pharmacological therapies, or placebo) in adult (over the age of 18 years) illicit drug users with concurrent problem alcohol use.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used the standard methodological procedures expected by The Cochrane Collaboration.

MAIN RESULTS

Four studies, involving 594 participants, were included. Half of the trials were rated as having a high or unclear risk of bias. The studies considered six different psychosocial interventions grouped into four comparisons: (1) cognitive-behavioural coping skills training versus 12-step facilitation (one study; 41 participants), (2) brief intervention versus treatment as usual (one study; 110 participants), (3) group or individual motivational interviewing (MI) versus hepatitis health promotion (one study; 256 participants) and (4) brief motivational intervention (BMI) versus assessment-only (one study; 187 participants). Differences between studies precluded any data pooling. Findings are described for each trial individually.Comparison 1: low-quality evidence; no significant difference for any of the outcomes considered Alcohol abstinence as maximum number of weeks of consecutive alcohol abstinence during treatment: mean difference (MD) 0.40 (95% confidence interval (CI) -1.14 to 1.94); illicit drug abstinence as maximum number of weeks of consecutive abstinence from cocaine during treatment: MD 0.80 (95% CI -0.70 to 2.30); alcohol abstinence as number achieving three or more weeks of consecutive alcohol abstinence during treatment: risk ratio (RR) 1.96 (95% CI 0.43 to 8.94); illicit drug abstinence as number achieving three or more weeks of consecutive abstinence from cocaine during treatment: RR 1.10 (95% CI 0.42 to 2.88); alcohol abstinence during follow-up year: RR 2.38 (95% CI 0.10 to 55.06); illicit drug abstinence as abstinence from cocaine during follow-up year: RR 0.39 (95% CI 0.04 to 3.98), moderate-quality evidence.Comparison 2: low-quality evidence, no significant difference for all the outcomes considered Alcohol use as AUDIT scores at three months: MD 0.80 (95% -1.80 to 3.40); alcohol use as AUDIT scores at nine months: MD 2.30 (95% CI -0.58 to 5.18); alcohol use as number of drinks per week at three months: MD 0.70 (95% CI -3.85 to 5.25); alcohol use as number of drinks per week at nine months: MD -0.30 (95% CI -4.79 to 4.19); alcohol use as decreased alcohol use at three months: RR 1.13 (95% CI 0.67 to 1.93); alcohol use as decreased alcohol use at nine months: RR 1.34 (95% CI 0.69 to 2.58), moderate-quality evidence.Comparison 3 (group and individual MI), low-quality evidence: no significant difference for all outcomes Group MI: number of standard drinks consumed per day over the past month: MD -0.40 (95% CI -2.03 to 1.23); frequency of drug use: MD 0.00 (95% CI -0.03 to 0.03); composite drug score (frequency*severity for all drugs taken): MD 0.00 (95% CI -0.42 to 0.42); greater than 50% reduction in number of standard drinks consumed per day over the last 30 days: RR 1.10 (95% CI 0.82 to 1.48); abstinence from alcohol over the last 30 days: RR 0.88 (95% CI 0.49 to 1.58).Individual MI: number of standard drinks consumed per day over the past month: MD -0.10 (95% CI -1.89 to 1.69); frequency of drug use (as measured using the Addiction Severity Index (ASI drug): MD 0.00 (95% CI -0.03 to 0.03); composite drug score (frequency*severity for all drugs taken): MD -0.10 (95% CI -0.46 to 0.26); greater than 50% reduction in number of standard drinks consumed per day over the last 30 days: RR 0.92 (95% CI 0.68 to 1.26); abstinence from alcohol over the last 30 days: RR 0.97 (95% CI 0.56 to 1.67).Comparison 4: more people reduced alcohol use (by seven or more days in the past month at 6 months) in the BMI group than in the control group (RR 1.67; 95% CI 1.08 to 2.60), moderate-quality evidence. No significant difference was reported for all other outcomes: number of days in the past 30 days with alcohol use at one month: MD -0.30 (95% CI -3.38 to 2.78); number of days in the past month with alcohol use at six months: MD -1.50 (95% CI -4.56 to 1.56); 25% reduction of drinking days in the past month: RR 1.23 (95% CI 0.96 to 1.57); 50% reduction of drinking days in the past month: RR 1.27 (95% CI 0.96 to 1.68); 75% reduction of drinking days in the past month: RR 1.21 (95% CI 0.84 to 1.75); one or more drinking days' reduction in the past month: RR 1.12 (95% CI 0.91 to 1.38).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is low-quality evidence to suggest that there is no difference in effectiveness between different types of interventions to reduce alcohol consumption in concurrent problem alcohol and illicit drug users 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.

Reaching the hard-to-reach: a systematic review of strategies for improving health and medical research with socially disadvantaged groups

Background

This study aims to review the literature regarding the barriers to sampling, recruitment, participation, and retention of members of socioeconomically disadvantaged groups in health research and strategies for increasing the amount of health research conducted with socially disadvantaged groups.

Methods

A systematic review with narrative synthesis was conducted. Searches of electronic databases Medline, PsychInfo, EMBASE, Social Science Index via Web of Knowledge and CINHAL were conducted for English language articles published up to May 2013. Qualitative and quantitative studies as well as literature reviews were included. Articles were included if they reported attempts to increase disadvantaged group participation in research, or the barriers to research with disadvantaged groups. Groups of interest were those described as socially, culturally or financially disadvantaged compared to the majority of society. Eligible articles were categorised according to five phases of research: 1) sampling, 2) recruitment and gaining consent, 3) data collection and measurement, 4) intervention delivery and uptake, and 5) retention and attrition.

Results

In total, 116 papers from 115 studies met inclusion criteria and 31 previous literature reviews were included. A comprehensive summation of the major barriers to working with various disadvantaged groups is provided, along with proposed strategies for addressing each of the identified types of barriers. Most studies of strategies to address the barriers were of a descriptive nature and only nine studies reported the results of randomised trials.

Conclusions

To tackle the challenges of research with socially disadvantaged groups, and increase their representation in health and medical research, researchers and research institutions need to acknowledge extended timeframes, plan for higher resourcing costs and operate via community partnerships.

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of psychosocial interventions for problem alcohol use in illicit drug users (principally problem drug users of opiates and stimulants).

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Drugs and Alcohol Group trials register (November 2011), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library, Issue 11, November 2011), PUBMED (1966 to 2011); EMBASE (1974 to 2011); CINAHL (1982 to 2011); PsycINFO (1872 to 2011) and reference list of articles. We also searched: 1) conference proceedings (online archives only) of the Society for the Study of Addiction (SSA), International Harm Reduction Association (IHRA), International Conference on Alcohol Harm Reduction (ICAHR), and American Association for the Treatment of Opioid Dependence (AATOD); 2) online registers of clinical trials, Current Controlled Trials (CCT), Clinical Trials.org, Center Watch and International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials comparing psychosocial interventions with another therapy (other psychosocial treatment, including non-pharmacological therapies or placebo) in adult (over the age of 18 years) illicit drug users with concurrent problem alcohol use.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed risk of bias and extracted data from included trials.

MAIN RESULTS

Four studies, 594 participants, were included. Half of the trials were rated as having high or unclear risk of bias. They considered six different psychosocial interventions grouped into four comparisons: (1) cognitive-behavioural coping skills training versus 12-step facilitation (N = 41), (2) brief intervention versus treatment as usual (N = 110), (3) hepatitis health promotion versus motivational interviewing (N = 256), and (4) brief motivational intervention versus assessment-only group (N = 187). Differences between studies precluded any pooling of data. Findings are described for each trial individually:comparison 1: no significant difference; comparison 2: higher rates of decreased alcohol use at three months (risk ratio (RR) 0.32; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.19 to 0.54) and nine months (RR 0.16; 95% CI 0.08 to 0.33) in the treatment as usual group; comparison 3 (group and individual format): no significant difference; comparison 4: more people reduced alcohol use (by seven or more days in the past 30 days at 6 months) in the brief motivational intervention compared to controls (RR 1.67; 95% CI 1.08 to 2.60).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Very little evidence exists that there is no difference in the effectiveness between different types of interventions and that brief interventions are not superior to assessment only or treatment as usual. No conclusion can be made because of the paucity of the data and the low quality of the retrieved studies.