Self-reported knowledge, correct knowledge and use of UK drinking guidelines among a representative sample of the English population

Aims: Promotion of lower risk drinking guidelines is a commonly used public health intervention with various purposes, including communicating alcohol consumption risks, informing drinkers' decision-making and, potentially, changing behaviour. UK drinking guidelines were revised in 2016. To inform potential promotion of the new guidelines, we aimed to examine public knowledge and use of the previous drinking guidelines, including by population subgroup. Methods: A demographically representative, cross-sectional online survey of 2100 adults living in England in July 2015 (i.e. two decades after adoption of previous guidelines and prior to introduction of new guidelines). Univariate and multivariate logistic regressions examined associations between demographic variables, alcohol consumption (AUDIT-C), smoking, and knowledge of health conditions and self-reported knowledge and use of drinking guidelines. Multinomial logistic regression examined the same set of variables in relation to accurate knowledge of drinking guidelines (underestimation, accurate-estimation, overestimation). Results: In total, 37.8% of drinkers self-reported knowing their own-gender drinking guideline, of whom 66.2% gave an accurate estimate. Compared to accurate estimation, underestimation was associated with male gender, lower education and AUDIT-C score, while overestimation was associated with smoking. Few (20.8%) reported using guidelines to monitor drinking at least sometimes. Drinking guideline use was associated with higher education, overestimating guidelines and lower AUDIT-C. Correctly endorsing a greater number of health conditions as alcohol-related was associated with self-reported knowledge of guidelines, but was not consistently associated with accurate estimation or use to monitor drinking. Conclusions: Two decades after their introduction, previous UK drinking guidelines were not well known or used by current drinkers. Those who reported using them tended to overestimate recommended daily limits. SHORT SUMMARY: We examined public knowledge and use of UK drinking guidelines just before new guidelines were released (2016). Despite previous guidelines being in place for two decades, only one in four drinkers accurately estimated these, with even fewer using guidelines to monitor drinking. Approximately 8% of drinkers overestimated maximum daily limits

Irish general practitioner attitudes toward decriminalisation and medical use of cannabis: results from a national survey.

BACKGROUND: Governmental debate in Ireland on the de facto decriminalisation of cannabis and legalisation for medical use is ongoing. A cannabis-based medicinal product (Sativex®) has recently been granted market authorisation in Ireland. This unique study aimed to investigate Irish general practitioner (GP) attitudes toward decriminalisation of cannabis and assess levels of support for use of cannabis for therapeutic purposes (CTP). METHODS: General practitioners in the Irish College of General Practitioner (ICGP) database were invited to complete an online survey. Anonymous data yielded descriptive statistics (frequencies, percentages) to summarise participant demographic information and agreement with attitudinal statements. Chi-square tests and multi-nominal logistic regression were included. RESULTS: The response rate was 15% (n = 565) which is similar to other Irish national GP attitudinal surveys. Over half of Irish GPs did not support the decriminalisation of cannabis (56.8%). In terms of gender, a significantly higher proportion of males compared with females (40.6 vs. 15%; p < 0.0001) agreed or strongly agreed with this drug policy approach. A higher percentage of GPs with advanced addiction specialist training (level 2) agreed/strongly agreed that cannabis should be decriminalised (54.1 vs. 31.5%; p = 0.021). Over 80% of both genders supported the view that cannabis use has a significant effect on patients' mental health and increases the risk of schizophrenia (77.3%). Over half of Irish GPs supported the legalisation of cannabis for medical use (58.6%). A higher percentage of those who were level 1-trained (trained in addiction treatment but not to an advanced level) agreed/strongly agreed cannabis should be legalised for medical use (p = 0.003). Over 60% agreed that cannabis can have a role in palliative care, pain management and treatment of multiple sclerosis (MS). In the regression response predicator analysis, females were 66.2% less likely to agree that cannabis should be decriminalised, 42.5% less likely to agree that cannabis should be legalised for medical use and 59.8 and 37.6% less likely to agree that cannabis has a role in palliative care and in the treatment of multiple sclerosis (respectively) than males. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of Irish GPs do not support the present Irish governmental drug policy of decriminalisation of cannabis but do support the legalisation of cannabis for therapeutic purposes. Male GPs and those with higher levels of addiction training are more likely to support a more liberal drug policy approach to cannabis for personal use. A clear majority of GPs expressed significant concerns regarding both the mental and physical health risks of cannabis use. Ongoing research into the health and other effects of drug policy changes on cannabis use is required

Research utilisation and knowledge mobilisation in the commissioning and joint planning of public health interventions to reduce alcohol-related harms: a qualitative case design using a cocreation approach

Background: Considerable resources are spent on research to establish what works to improve the nation’s health. If the findings from this research are used, better health outcomes can follow, but we know that these findings are not always used. In public health, evidence of what works may not ‘fit’ everywhere, making it difficult to know what to do locally. Research suggests that evidence use is a social and dynamic process, not a simple application of research findings. It is unclear whether it is easier to get evidence used via a legal contracting process or within unified organisational arrangements with shared responsibilities. Objective: To work in cocreation with research participants to investigate how research is utilised and knowledge mobilised in the commissioning and planning of public health services to reduce alcohol-related harms. Design, setting and participants: Two in-depth, largely qualitative, cross-comparison case studies were undertaken to compare real-time research utilisation in commissioning across a purchaser–provider split (England) and in joint planning under unified organisational arrangements (Scotland) to reduce alcohol-related harms. Using an overarching realist approach and working in cocreation, case study partners (stakeholders in the process) picked the topic and helped to interpret the findings. In Scotland, the topic picked was licensing; in England, it was reducing maternal alcohol consumption. Methods: Sixty-nine interviews, two focus groups, 14 observations of decision-making meetings, two local feedback workshops (n = 23 and n = 15) and one national workshop (n = 10) were undertaken. A questionnaire (n = 73) using a Behaviourally Anchored Rating Scale was issued to test the transferability of the 10 main findings. Given the small numbers, care must be taken in interpreting the findings. Findings: Not all practitioners have the time, skills or interest to work in cocreation, but when there was collaboration, much was learned. Evidence included professional and tacit knowledge, and anecdotes, as well as findings from rigorous research designs. It was difficult to identify evidence in use and decisions were sometimes progressed in informal ways and in places we did not get to see. There are few formal evidence entry points. Evidence (prevalence and trends in public health issues) enters the process and is embedded in strategic documents to set priorities, but local data were collected in both sites to provide actionable messages (sometimes replicating the evidence base). Conclusions: Two mid-range theories explain the findings. If evidence has saliency (relates to ‘here and now’ as opposed to ‘there and then’) and immediacy (short, presented verbally or visually and with emotional appeal) it is more likely to be used in both settings. A second mid-range theory explains how differing tensions pull and compete as feasible and acceptable local solutions are pursued across stakeholders. Answering what works depends on answering for whom and where simultaneously to find workable (if temporary) ‘blends’. Gaining this agreement across stakeholders appeared more difficult across the purchaser–provider split, because opportunities to interact were curtailed; however, more research is needed. Funding: This study was funded by the Health Services and Delivery Research programme of the National Institute for Health Research

Home-based health promotion for older people with mild frailty: the HomeHealth intervention development and feasibility RCT.

BACKGROUND: Mild frailty or pre-frailty is common and yet is potentially reversible. Preventing progression to worsening frailty may benefit individuals and lower health/social care costs. However, we know little about effective approaches to preventing frailty progression. OBJECTIVES: (1) To develop an evidence- and theory-based home-based health promotion intervention for older people with mild frailty. (2) To assess feasibility, costs and acceptability of (i) the intervention and (ii) a full-scale clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness randomised controlled trial (RCT). DESIGN: Evidence reviews, qualitative studies, intervention development and a feasibility RCT with process evaluation. INTERVENTION DEVELOPMENT: Two systematic reviews (including systematic searches of 14 databases and registries, 1990-2016 and 1980-2014), a state-of-the-art review (from inception to 2015) and policy review identified effective components for our intervention. We collected data on health priorities and potential intervention components from semistructured interviews and focus groups with older people (aged 65-94 years) (n = 44), carers (n = 12) and health/social care professionals (n = 27). These data, and our evidence reviews, fed into development of the 'HomeHealth' intervention in collaboration with older people and multidisciplinary stakeholders. 'HomeHealth' comprised 3-6 sessions with a support worker trained in behaviour change techniques, communication skills, exercise, nutrition and mood. Participants addressed self-directed independence and well-being goals, supported through education, skills training, enabling individuals to overcome barriers, providing feedback, maximising motivation and promoting habit formation. FEASIBILITY RCT: Single-blind RCT, individually randomised to 'HomeHealth' or treatment as usual (TAU). SETTING: Community settings in London and Hertfordshire, UK. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 51 community-dwelling adults aged ≥ 65 years with mild frailty. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Feasibility - recruitment, retention, acceptability and intervention costs. Clinical and health economic outcome data at 6 months included functioning, frailty status, well-being, psychological distress, quality of life, capability and NHS and societal service utilisation/costs. RESULTS: We successfully recruited to target, with good 6-month retention (94%). Trial procedures were acceptable with minimal missing data. Individual randomisation was feasible. The intervention was acceptable, with good fidelity and modest delivery costs (£307 per patient). A total of 96% of participants identified at least one goal, which were mostly exercise related (73%). We found significantly better functioning (Barthel Index +1.68; p = 0.004), better grip strength (+6.48 kg; p = 0.02), reduced psychological distress (12-item General Health Questionnaire -3.92; p = 0.01) and increased capability-adjusted life-years [+0.017; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.001 to 0.031] at 6 months in the intervention arm than the TAU arm, with no differences in other outcomes. NHS and carer support costs were variable but, overall, were lower in the intervention arm than the TAU arm. The main limitation was difficulty maintaining outcome assessor blinding. CONCLUSIONS: Evidence is lacking to inform frailty prevention service design, with no large-scale trials of multidomain interventions. From stakeholder/public perspectives, new frailty prevention services should be personalised and encompass multiple domains, particularly socialising and mobility, and can be delivered by trained non-specialists. Our multicomponent health promotion intervention was acceptable and delivered at modest cost. Our small study shows promise for improving clinical outcomes, including functioning and independence. A full-scale individually RCT is feasible. FUTURE WORK: A large, definitive RCT of the HomeHealth service is warranted. STUDY REGISTRATION: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42014010370 and Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN11986672. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 21, No. 73. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information