1 / 23

Journal Club

Journal Club. Alcohol, Other Drugs, and Health: Current Evidence May–June 2012. Featured Article.

joann
Download Presentation

Journal Club

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Journal Club Alcohol, Other Drugs, and Health: Current Evidence May–June 2012

  2. Featured Article A Randomized Controlled Trial of a Brief Intervention for Illicit Drugs Linked to the Alcohol, Smoking and Substance Involvement Screening Test (ASSIST) in Clients Recruited from Primary Health-Care Settings in Four Countries Humeniuk R, et al. Addiction. 2012;107(5):957-66.

  3. Study Objective • To evaluate the effectiveness of a brief intervention (BI) for illicit drugs (cannabis, cocaine, amphetamine-type stimulants and opioids) linked to the Alcohol, Smoking and Substance Involvement Screening Test (ASSIST). www.aodhealth.org

  4. Study Design • Prospective randomized controlled trial conducted in primary health-care settings* in Australia, Brazil, India, and the United States. • Patients screened with the ASSIST who scored in the moderate-risk range for cannabis, cocaine, amphetamine-type stimulants, or opioids (N=731) were assigned to either waitlist (control group) or to A brief intervention (BI) for the drug receiving the highest score. • ASSIST-specific scores for cannabis, stimulants, or opioids as well as ASSIST total illicit substance involvement scores at baseline and 3 months were compared. *Sexually-transmitted disease, dental, primary-care, and other outpatient clinics.

  5. Assessing Validity of an Article about Therapy • Are the results valid? • What are the results? • How can I apply the results to patient care? www.aodhealth.org

  6. Are the Results Valid? • Were patients randomized? • Was randomization concealed? • Were patients analyzed in the groups to which they were randomized? • Were patients in the treatment and control groups similar with respect to known prognostic variables? www.aodhealth.org

  7. Are the Results Valid?(cont‘d) • Were patients aware of group allocation? • Were clinicians aware of group allocation? • Were outcome assessors aware of group allocation? • Was follow-up complete? www.aodhealth.org

  8. Were patients randomized? • Yes. • Patients were randomized to BI or waitlist immediately following the baseline interview. • Randomization was stratified by gender, substance, and level of use (high/low). www.aodhealth.org

  9. Was randomization concealed? • Yes. • Randomization lists for each drug category and country were prepared by the study coordinating center in Australia using a web-based randomization program. www.aodhealth.org

  10. Were patients analyzed in the groups to which they were randomized? • Yes (intention-to-treat analysis). www.aodhealth.org

  11. Were the patients in the treatment and control groups similar? • Unknown. • A demographic profile questionnaire was administered at baseline, however, demographic data broken down by group assignment was not provided. • More than two-thirds of the total sample were men; the mean age was 31.4 years (SD=9.3), and the average years of education was 9.5 (SD=5.2). Just over half had never been married, and roughly one-third were either married or cohabiting. Most identified themselves as Caucasian (59.6%), followed by Indian (24.4%) or African (7.3%). Fifteen per cent (15%) of participants had received previous treatment for drug or alcohol problems. • Groups did not differ significantly at baseline with respect to their total illicit substance involvement scores or specific substance involvement scores. www.aodhealth.org

  12. Were patients aware of group allocation? • Yes. • It was not possible to blind the patients as to whether they were receiving the BI or not. www.aodhealth.org

  13. Were clinicians aware of group allocation? • Yes. • Clinical research staff were not blind to group allocation as they were responsible for administering the intervention at baseline. www.aodhealth.org

  14. Were outcome assessors aware of group allocation? • Yes. • In the majority of cases, the same clinical researcher performed both the baseline and follow-up interviews. www.aodhealth.org

  15. Was follow-up complete? • Forty-nine of 372 participants in the intervention group were lost to follow-up (13%) compared with 51 of 359 participants in the control group (14%). www.aodhealth.org

  16. What Are the Results? • How large was the treatment effect? • How precise was the estimate of the treatment effect? www.aodhealth.org

  17. How large was the treatment effect? www.aodhealth.org 17

  18. How large was the treatment effect? (cont’d) www.aodhealth.org 18

  19. How large was the treatment effect? (cont’d) www.aodhealth.org 19

  20. How Can I Apply the Results to Patient Care? • Were the study patients similar to the patients in my practice? • Were all clinically important outcomes considered? • Are the likely treatment benefits worth the potential harm and costs? www.aodhealth.org

  21. Were the study patients similar to those in my practice? • Participants were adult men and women from 4 countries. The majority were not from the United States. Diverse study sites were selected to represent a broad range of cultural, political and economic systems in which substance-related problems occur. www.aodhealth.org

  22. Were all clinically important outcomes considered? • No. • Drug use was indirectly assessed using ASSIST scores, limiting the clinical relevance and interpretation. www.aodhealth.org

  23. Are the likely treatment benefits worth the potential harm and costs? • No harms or costs were presented. The benefits were modest, of questionable clinical relevance, likely biased due to lack of blinding, and not statistically significant in the US sample. • Additional research is needed prior to widespread dissemination. www.aodhealth.org

More Related