Characteristics of medication overdose presentations to the ED: how do they differ from illicit drug overdose and self-harm cases?

Background Medication overdose accounts for >80% of hospital presentations for self-harm. Previous research has identified typical characteristics of medication overdose cases; however, these cases have not been well differentiated from other similar presentations, namely (1) illicit drug overdose and (2) self-harm by means other than overdose. Method A 12-month audit of medication overdose cases (both intentional and unintentional) attending the emergency department (ED) of a major metropolitan public hospital in Melbourne, Australia was conducted. Comparison was made with patients attending for illicit drug overdose or for self-harm by means other than overdose.Results Medication overdose cases (n=453) showed a broadly comparable profile with those found in earlier studies (predominantly female gender, aged in their 30s and referred for psychosocial assessment). A similar though not identical profile was noted for self-harm cases (n=545). In contrast, patients attending for illicit drug overdose (n=409) could be characterised as male, in their 20s and not referred for psychosocial assessment. Illicit drug overdose cases were more likely than either the medication overdose or self-harm cases to be triaged in the most urgent category (19.3, 3.8 and 3.9% respectively), suggesting a high level of acuity in this group. However, the illicit drug overdose group on average spent less time in the ED than medication overdose patients, and were less likely to require hospital admission. Conclusion On both demographic and treatment variables, patients attending the ED following a medication overdose more closely resemble those attending for self-harm by means other than overdose than those attending for illicit drug overdose

Consultation liaison in primary care for people with mental disorders

BACKGROUND: Approximately 25% of people will be affected by a mental disorder at some stage in their life. Despite the prevalence and negative impacts of mental disorders, many people are not diagnosed or do not receive adequate treatment. Therefore primary health care has been identified as essential to improving the delivery of mental health care. Consultation liaison is a model of mental health care where the primary care provider maintains the central role in the delivery of mental health care with a mental health specialist providing consultative support. Consultation liaison has the potential to enhance the delivery of mental health care in the primary care setting and in turn improve outcomes for people with a mental disorder. OBJECTIVES: To identify whether consultation liaison can have beneficial effects for people with a mental disorder by improving the ability of primary care providers to provide mental health care. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the EPOC Specialised Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and bibliographic databases: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and PsycINFO, in March 2014. We also searched reference lists of relevant studies and reviews to identify any potentially relevant studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) which compared consultation liaison to standard care or other service models of mental health care in the primary setting. Included participants were people attending primary care practices who required mental health care or had a mental disorder, and primary care providers who had direct contact with people in need of mental health care. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently screened the titles and abstracts of identified studies against the inclusion criteria and extracted details including the study design, participants and setting, intervention, outcomes and any risk of bias. We resolved any disagreements by discussion or referral to a third author. We contacted trial authors to obtain any missing information.We collected and analysed data for all follow-up periods: up to and including three months following the start of treatment; between three and 12 months; and more than 12 months following the start of therapy.We used a random-effects model to calculate the risk difference (RD) for binary data and number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB), if differences between groups were significant. The mean difference (MD) or standardised mean difference (SMD) was calculated for continuous data. MAIN RESULTS: There were 8203 citations identified from database searches and reference lists. We included 12 trials with 2605 consumer participants and more than 905 primary care practitioner participants. Eleven trials compared consultation liaison to standard care and one compared consultation liaison to collaborative care, with a case manager co-ordinating mental health care. People with depression were included in eight trials; and one trial each included people with a variety of disorders: depression, anxiety and somatoform disorders; medically unexplained symptoms; and drinking problems. None of the included trials reported separate data for children or older people.There was some evidence that consultation liaison improved mental health up to three months following the start of treatment (two trials, n = 445, NNTB 8, 95% CI 5 to 25) but there was no evidence of its effectiveness between three and 12 months. Consultation liaison also appeared to improve consumer satisfaction (up to three months: one trial, n = 228, NNTB 3, 95% CI 3 to 5; 3 to 12 months: two trials, n = 445, NNTB 8, 95% CI 5 to 17) and adherence (3 to 12 months: seven trials, n = 1251, NNTB 6, 95% CI 4 to 13) up to 12 months. There was also an improvement in the primary care provider outcomes of providing adequate treatment between three to 12 months (three trials, n = 797, NNTB 7, 95% CI 4 to 17) and prescribing pharmacological treatment up to 12 months (four trials, n = 796, NNTB 13, 95% CI 7 to 50). There was also some evidence that consultation liaison may not be as effective as collaborative care in regards to symptoms of mental disorder, disability, general health status, and provision of treatment.The quality of these findings were low for all outcomes however, apart from consumer adherence from three to 12 months, which was of moderate quality. Eight trials were rated a high risk of performance bias because consumer participants were likely to have known whether or not they were allocated to the intervention group and most outcomes were self reported. Bias due to attrition was rated high in eight trials and reporting bias was rated high in six. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is evidence that consultation liaison improves mental health for up to three months; and satisfaction and adherence for up to 12 months in people with mental disorders, particularly those who are depressed. Primary care providers were also more likely to provide adequate treatment and prescribe pharmacological therapy for up to 12 months. There was also some evidence that consultation liaison may not be as effective as collaborative care in terms of mental disorder symptoms, disability, general health status, and provision of treatment. However, the overall quality of trials was low particularly in regards to performance and attrition bias and may have resulted in an overestimation of effectiveness. More evidence is needed to determine the effectiveness of consultation liaison for people with mental disorders particularly for those with mental disorders other than depression

Short-term effects of announcing revised lower risk national drinking guidelines on related awareness and knowledge: A trend analysis of monthly survey data in England.

Objectives: To evaluate short-term effects of publishing revised lower-risk national drinking guidelines on related awareness and knowledge. To examine where drinkers heard about guidelines over the same period. Design: Trend analysis of the Alcohol Toolkit Study, a monthly repeat cross-sectional national survey. Setting: England, November 2015 to May 2016. Participants: A total of 11,845 adults (18+) living in private households in England Intervention: Publication of revised national drinking guidelines in January 2016 which reduced the male guideline by approximately one-third to 14 units per week. Measurements: Whether drinkers (i) had heard of drinking guidelines (awareness), (ii) stated the guideline was above, exactly or below 14 units (knowledge), and (iii) reported seeing the stated guideline number of units in the last month in each of 11 locations (exposure). Sociodemographics: sex, age (18-34, 35-64, 65+), social grade (AB, C1C2, DE). Alcohol consumption derived from graduated frequency questions: low risk (<14 units/week), increasing/high risk (14+ units/week). Results: Following publication of the guidelines, the proportion of drinkers aware of guidelines did not increase from its baseline level of 85.1% (CI:82.7-87.1). However, the proportion of male drinkers saying the guideline was 14 units or less increased from 22.6% (CI:18.9-26.7) in December to 43.3% (CI:38.9-47.8) in January and was at 35.6% (CI:31.6-39.9) in May. Last month exposure to the guidelines was below 25% in all locations except television/radio where exposure increased from 33% (CI:28.8-36.2) in December to 65% (CI:61.2-68.3) in January. Awareness and knowledge of guidelines was lowest in social grade DE and this gap remained after publication. Conclusions: Publication of new or revised lower risk drinking guidelines can improve drinkers’ knowledge of these guidelines within all sociodemographic groups; however, in the absence of sustained promotional activity, positive effects may not be maintained and social inequalities in awareness and knowledge of guidelines are likely to persist

Options for modifying UK alcohol and tobacco tax: a rapid scoping review of the evidence over the period 1997–2018

Background Increased taxation is recognised worldwide as one of the most effective interventions for decreasing tobacco and harmful alcohol use, with many variations of policy options available. This rapid scoping review was part of a NIHR-funded project (‘SYNTAX’ 16/105/26) and was undertaken during 2018 to inform interviews to be conducted with UK public health stakeholders with expertise in alcohol and tobacco pricing policy. Methods Objectives: To synthesise evidence and debates on current and potential alcohol and tobacco taxation options for the UK, and report on the underlying objectives, evidence of effects and mediating factors. Eligibility criteria: Peer-reviewed and grey literature; published 1997–2018; English language; UK-focused; include taxation interventions for alcohol, tobacco, or both. Sources of evidence: PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane Library, Google, stakeholder and colleague recommendations. Charting methods Excel spreadsheet structured using PICO framework, recording source characteristics and content. Results Ninety-one sources qualified for inclusion: 49 alcohol, 36 tobacco, 6 both. Analysis identified four policy themes: changes to excise duty within existing tax structures, structural reforms, industry measures, and hypothecation of tax revenue for public benefits. For alcohol, policy options focused on raising the price of cheap, high-strength alcohol. For tobacco, policy options focused on raising the price of all tobacco products, especially the cheapest products, which are hand-rolling tobacco. For alcohol and tobacco, there were options such as levies that take money from the industries to help reduce the societal costs of their products. Due to the perceived social and economic importance of alcohol in contrast to tobacco, policy options also discussed supporting pubs and small breweries. Conclusions This review has identified a set of tax policy options for tobacco and alcohol, their objectives, evidence of effects and related mediating factors. The differences between alcohol and tobacco tax policy options and debates suggest an opportunity for cross-substance policy learning

Options for modifying UK alcohol and tobacco tax: A rapid scoping review of the evidence over the period 1997–2018 [version 1; peer review: awaiting peer review]

Background: Increased taxation is recognised worldwide as one of the most effective interventions for decreasing tobacco and harmful alcohol use, with many variations of policy options available. This rapid scoping review was part of a NIHR-funded project (‘SYNTAX’ 16/105/26) and was undertaken during 2018 to inform interviews to be conducted with UK public health stakeholders with expertise in alcohol and tobacco pricing policy. Methods: Objectives: To synthesise evidence and debates on current and potential alcohol and tobacco taxation options for the UK, and report on the underlying objectives, evidence of effects and mediating factors. Eligibility criteria: Peer-reviewed and grey literature; published 1997–2018; English language; UK-focused; include taxation interventions for alcohol, tobacco, or both. Sources of evidence: PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane Library, Google, stakeholder and colleague recommendations. Charting methods: Excel spreadsheet structured using PICO framework, recording source characteristics and content. Results: Ninety-one sources qualified for inclusion: 49 alcohol, 36 tobacco, 6 both. Analysis identified four policy themes: changes to excise duty within existing tax structures, structural reforms, industry measures, and hypothecation of tax revenue for public benefits. For alcohol, policy options focused on raising the price of cheap, high-strength alcohol. For tobacco, policy options focused on raising the price of all tobacco products, especially the cheapest products, which are hand-rolling tobacco. For alcohol and tobacco, there were options such as levies that take money from the industries to help reduce the societal costs of their products. Due to the perceived social and economic importance of alcohol in contrast to tobacco, policy options also discussed supporting pubs and small breweries. Conclusions: This review has identified a set of tax policy options for tobacco and alcohol, their objectives, evidence of effects and related mediating factors. The differences between alcohol and tobacco tax policy options and debates suggest an opportunity for cross-substance policy learning

Reweighting national survey data for small area behaviour estimates : modelling alcohol consumption in local authorities in England

Background There are likely to be differences in alcohol consumption levels and patterns across local areas within a country, yet survey data is often collected at the national or sub-national/regional level and is not representative for small geographic areas. Methods This paper presents a method for reweighting national survey data—the Health Survey for England—by combining survey and routine data to produce simulated locally representative survey data and provide statistics of alcohol consumption for each Local Authority in England. Results We find a 2-fold difference in estimated mean alcohol consumption between the lightest and heaviest drinking Local Authorities, a 4.5-fold difference in abstention rates, and a 3.5-fold difference in harmful drinking. The method compares well to direct estimates from the data at regional level. Conclusions The results have important policy implications in itself, but the reweighted data can also be used to model local policy effects. This method can also be used for other public health small area estimation where locally representative data are not available

The impact of promoting revised UK low-risk drinking guidelines on alcohol consumption: interrupted time series analysis

Background: The UK’s Chief Medical Officers revised the UK alcohol drinking guidelines in 2016 to ≤ 14 units per week (1 unit = 10 ml/8 g ethanol) for men and women. Previously, the guideline stated that men should not regularly consume more than 3–4 units per day and women should not regularly consume more than 2–3 units per day. Objective: To evaluate the impact of promoting revised UK drinking guidelines on alcohol consumption. Design: Interrupted time series analysis of observational data. Setting: England, March 2014 to October 2017. Participants: A total of 74,388 adults aged ≥ 16 years living in private households in England. Interventions: Promotion of revised UK low-risk drinking guidelines. Main outcome measures: Primary outcome – alcohol consumption measured by the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test – Consumption score. Secondary outcomes – average weekly consumption measured using graduated frequency, monthly alcohol consumption per capita adult (aged ≥ 16 years) derived from taxation data, monthly number of hospitalisations for alcohol poisoning (International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, Tenth Revision: T51.0, T51.1 and T51.9) and assault (International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, Tenth Revision: X85–Y09), and further measures of influences on behaviour change. Data sources: The Alcohol Toolkit Study, a monthly cross-sectional survey and NHS Digital’s Hospital Episode Statistics. Results: The revised drinking guidelines were not subject to large-scale promotion after the initial January 2016 announcement. An analysis of news reports found that mentions of the guidelines were mostly factual, and spiked during January 2016. In December 2015, the modelled average Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test – Consumption score was 2.719 out of 12.000 and was decreasing by 0.003 each month. After the January 2016 announcement, Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test – Consumption scores did not decrease significantly (β = 0.001, 95% confidence interval –0.079 to 0.099). However, the trend did change significantly such that scores subsequently increased by 0.005 each month (β = 0.008, 95% confidence interval 0.001 to 0.015). This change is equivalent to 0.5% of the population moving each month from drinking two or three times per week to drinking four or more times per week. Secondary analyses indicated that the change in trend began 6 months before the guideline announcement. The secondary outcome measures showed conflicting results, with no significant changes in consumption measures and no substantial changes in influences on behaviour change, but immediate reductions in hospitalisations of 7.3% for assaults and 15.4% for alcohol poisonings. Limitations: The pre-intervention data collection period was only 2 months for influences on behaviour change and the graduated frequency measure. Our conclusions may be generalisable only to scenarios in which guidelines are announced but not promoted. Conclusions: The announcement of revised UK low-risk drinking guidelines was not associated with clearly detectable changes in drinking behaviour. Observed reductions in alcohol-related hospitalisations are unlikely to be attributable to the revised guidelines. Promotion of the guidelines may have been prevented by opposition to the revised guidelines from the government's alcohol industry partners or because reduction in alcohol consumption was not a government priority or because practical obstacles prevented independent public health organisations from promoting the guidelines. Additional barriers to the effectiveness of guidelines may include low public understanding and a need for guidelines to engage more with how drinkers respond to and use them in practice. Trial registration: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN15189062. Funding: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Public Health Research programme and will be published in full in Public Health Research; Vol. 8, No. 14. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information

The impact of promoting revised UK low-risk drinking guidelines on alcohol consumption: interrupted time series analysis

Background The UK’s Chief Medical Officers revised the UK alcohol drinking guidelines in 2016 to ≤ 14 units per week (1 unit = 10 ml/8 g ethanol) for men and women. Previously, the guideline stated that men should not regularly consume more than 3–4 units per day and women should not regularly consume more than 2–3 units per day. Objective To evaluate the impact of promoting revised UK drinking guidelines on alcohol consumption. Design Interrupted time series analysis of observational data. Setting England, March 2014 to October 2017. Participants A total of 74,388 adults aged ≥ 16 years living in private households in England. Interventions Promotion of revised UK low-risk drinking guidelines. Main outcome measures Primary outcome – alcohol consumption measured by the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test – Consumption score. Secondary outcomes – average weekly consumption measured using graduated frequency, monthly alcohol consumption per capita adult (aged ≥ 16 years) derived from taxation data, monthly number of hospitalisations for alcohol poisoning (International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, Tenth Revision: T51.0, T51.1 and T51.9) and assault (International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, Tenth Revision: X85–Y09), and further measures of influences on behaviour change. Data sources The Alcohol Toolkit Study, a monthly cross-sectional survey and NHS Digital’s Hospital Episode Statistics. Results The revised drinking guidelines were not subject to large-scale promotion after the initial January 2016 announcement. An analysis of news reports found that mentions of the guidelines were mostly factual, and spiked during January 2016. In December 2015, the modelled average Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test – Consumption score was 2.719 out of 12.000 and was decreasing by 0.003 each month. After the January 2016 announcement, Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test – Consumption scores did not decrease significantly (β = 0.001, 95% confidence interval –0.079 to 0.099). However, the trend did change significantly such that scores subsequently increased by 0.005 each month (β = 0.008, 95% confidence interval 0.001 to 0.015). This change is equivalent to 0.5% of the population moving each month from drinking two or three times per week to drinking four or more times per week. Secondary analyses indicated that the change in trend began 6 months before the guideline announcement. The secondary outcome measures showed conflicting results, with no significant changes in consumption measures and no substantial changes in influences on behaviour change, but immediate reductions in hospitalisations of 7.3% for assaults and 15.4% for alcohol poisonings. Limitations The pre-intervention data collection period was only 2 months for influences on behaviour change and the graduated frequency measure. Our conclusions may be generalisable only to scenarios in which guidelines are announced but not promoted. Conclusions The announcement of revised UK low-risk drinking guidelines was not associated with clearly detectable changes in drinking behaviour. Observed reductions in alcohol-related hospitalisations are unlikely to be attributable to the revised guidelines. Promotion of the guidelines may have been prevented by opposition to the revised guidelines from the government's alcohol industry partners or because reduction in alcohol consumption was not a government priority or because practical obstacles prevented independent public health organisations from promoting the guidelines. Additional barriers to the effectiveness of guidelines may include low public understanding and a need for guidelines to engage more with how drinkers respond to and use them in practice. Trial registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN15189062. Funding This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Public Health Research programme and will be published in full in Public Health Research; Vol. 8, No. 14. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information

Is disinvestment from alcohol and drug treatment services associated with treatment access, completions and related harm? An analysis of English expenditure and outcomes data

Introduction The positive impact of substance use treatment is well-evidenced but there has been substantial disinvestment from publicly funded treatment services in England since 2013/2014. This paper examines whether this disinvestment from adult alcohol and drug treatment provision was associated with changes in treatment and health outcomes, including: treatment access, successful completions from treatment, alcohol-specific hospital admissions, alcohol-specific mortality and drug-related deaths. Methods Annual administrative data from 2013/2014 to 2018/2019 was matched at local government level and multi-level time series analysis using linear mixed-effect modelling conducted for 151 upper-tier local authorities in England. Results Between 2013/2014 and 2018/2019, £212.2 million was disinvested from alcohol and drug treatment services, representing a 27% decrease. Concurrently, 11% fewer people accessed, and 21% fewer successfully completed, treatment. On average, controlling for other potential explanatory factors, a £10 000 disinvestment from alcohol and drug treatment services was associated with reductions in all treatment outcomes, including 0.3 fewer adults in treatment (95% confidence interval 0.16–0.45) and 0.21 fewer adults successfully completing treatment (95% % confidence interval 0.12–0.29). A £10 000 disinvestment from alcohol treatment was not significantly associated with changes in alcohol-specific hospital admissions or mortality, nor was disinvestment from drug treatment associated with the rate of drug-related deaths. Discussion and Conclusions Local authority spending cuts to alcohol and drug treatment services in England were associated with fewer people accessing and successfully completing alcohol and drug treatment but were not associated with changes in related hospital admissions and deaths