Digital Interventions for Problematic Cannabis Users in Non-Clinical Settings: Findings from a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background: Existing cannabis treatment programs reach only a very limited proportion of people with cannabis-related problems. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to assess the effectiveness of digital interventions applied outside the health care system in reducing problematic cannabis use. Methods: We systematically searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (2015), PubMed (2009-2015), Medline (2009-2015), Google Scholar (2015) and article reference lists for potentially eligible studies. Randomized controlled trials examining the effects of internet-or computer-based interventions were assessed. Study effects were estimated by calculating effect sizes (ESs) using Cohen's d and Hedges' g bias-corrected ES. The primary outcome assessed was self-reported cannabis use, measured by a questionnaire. Results: Fifty-two studies were identified. Four studies (including 1,928 participants) met inclusion criteria. They combined brief motivational interventions and cognitive behavioral therapy delivered on-line. All studies were of good quality. The pooled mean difference (Delta = 4.07) and overall ES (0.11) give evidence of small effects at 3-month follow-up in favor of digital interventions. Conclusions: Digital interventions can help to successfully reduce problematic cannabis use outside clinical settings. They have some potential to overcome treatment barriers and increase accessibility for at-risk cannabis users. (C) 2016 S. Karger AG, Base

Improving chronic disease prevention and screening in primary care: results of the BETTER pragmatic cluster randomized controlled trial.

BackgroundPrimary care provides most of the evidence-based chronic disease prevention and screening services offered by the healthcare system. However, there remains a gap between recommended preventive services and actual practice. This trial (the BETTER Trial) aimed to improve preventive care of heart disease, diabetes, colorectal, breast and cervical cancers, and relevant lifestyle factors through a practice facilitation intervention set in primary care.MethodsPragmatic two-way factorial cluster RCT with Primary Care Physicians' practices as the unit of allocation and individual patients as the unit of analysis. The setting was urban Primary Care Team practices in two Canadian provinces. Eight Primary Care Team practices were randomly assigned to receive the practice-level intervention or wait-list control; 4 physicians in each team (32 physicians) were randomly assigned to receive the patient-level intervention or wait-list control. Patients randomly selected from physicians' rosters were stratified into two groups: 1) general and 2) moderate mental illness. The interventions involved a multifaceted, evidence-based, tailored practice-level intervention with a Practice Facilitator, and a patient-level intervention involving a one-hour visit with a Prevention Practitioner where patients received a tailored 'prevention prescription'. The primary outcome was a composite Summary Quality Index of 28 evidence-based chronic disease prevention and screening actions with pre-defined targets, expressed as the ratio of eligible actions at baseline that were met at follow-up. A cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted.Results789 of 1,260 (63%) eligible patients participated. On average, patients were eligible for 8.96 (SD 3.2) actions at baseline. In the adjusted analysis, control patients met 23.1% (95% CI: 19.2% to 27.1%) of target actions, compared to 28.5% (95% CI: 20.9% to 36.0%) receiving the practice-level intervention, 55.6% (95% CI: 49.0% to 62.1%) receiving the patient-level intervention, and 58.9% (95% CI: 54.7% to 63.1%) receiving both practice- and patient-level interventions (patient-level intervention versus control, P < 0.001). The benefit of the patient-level intervention was seen in both strata. The extra cost of the intervention was $26.43CAN (95$16 to $44) per additional action met.ConclusionsA Prevention Practitioner can improve the implementation of clinically important prevention and screening for chronic diseases in a cost-effective manner

Aufhören ja – aber bitte nicht sofort! Ein Dilemma für die Allokationsforschung

Im Rahmen der Smoking and Nicotine Dependence Awareness and Screening (SNICAS) Studie wurde neben strukturellen Bedingungen und Variablen auf Ärzteseite (z.B. Qualifikation, Einstellungen zum Rauchen und zur Raucherentwöhnung, spezielle Vorerfahrungen und Therapiepräferenzen, perzipierte Barrieren) daher auch die Aufhörmotivation und die Erfahrungen mit Aufhörversuchen auf Seiten der Patienten untersucht

Psychosocial and pharmacological treatments for cannabis use disorder and mental health comorbidities:a narrative review

Cannabis is the most widely used illicit drug worldwide, and it is estimated that up to 30% of people who use cannabis will develop a cannabis use disorder (CUD). Demand for treatment of CUD is increasing in almost every region of the world and cannabis use is highly comorbid with mental disorders, where sustained use can reduce treatment compliance and increase risk of relapse. In this narrative review, we outline evidence for psychosocial and pharmacological treatment strategies for CUD, both alone and when comorbid with psychosis, anxiety or depression. Psychosocial treatments such as cognitive behavioural therapy, motivational enhancement therapy and contingency management are currently the most effective strategy for treating CUD but are of limited benefit when comorbid with psychosis. Pharmacological treatments targeting the endocannabinoid system have the potential to reduce cannabis withdrawal and cannabis use in CUD. Mental health comorbidities including anxiety, depression and psychosis hinder effective treatment and should be addressed in treatment provision and clinical decision making to reduce the global burden of CUDs. Antipsychotic medication may decrease cannabis use and cannabis craving as well as psychotic symptoms in patients with CUD and psychosis. Targeted treatments for anxiety and depression when comorbid with CUD are feasible

Classical blood biomarkers identify patients with higher risk for relapse 6 months after alcohol withdrawal treatment

This naturalistic study among patients with alcohol dependence examined whether routine blood biomarkers could help to identify patients with high risk for relapse after withdrawal treatment. In a longitudinal study with 6-month follow-up among 133 patients with alcohol dependence who received inpatient alcohol withdrawal treatment, we investigated the usefulness of routine blood biomarkers and clinical and sociodemographic factors for potential outcome prediction and risk stratification. Baseline routine blood biomarkers (gamma-glutamyl transferase GGT, alanine aminotransferase ALT/GPT, aspartate aminotransferase AST/GOT, mean cell volume of erythrocytes MCV), and clinical and sociodemographic characteristics were recorded at admission. Standardized 6~months' follow-up assessed outcome variables continuous abstinence, days of continuous abstinence, daily alcohol consumption and current abstinence. The combined threshold criterion of an AST:ALT ratio > 1.00 and MCV > 90.0 fl helped to identify high-risk patients. They had lower abstinence rates (P = 0.001), higher rates of daily alcohol consumption (P < 0.001) and shorter periods of continuous abstinence (P = 0.027) compared with low-risk patients who did not meet the threshold criterion. Regression analysis confirmed our hypothesis that the combination criterion is an individual baseline variable that significantly predicted parts of the respective outcome variances. Routinely assessed indirect alcohol biomarkers help to identify patients with high risk for relapse after alcohol withdrawal treatment. Clinical decision algorithms to identify patients with high risk for relapse after alcohol withdrawal treatment could include classical blood biomarkers in addition to clinical and sociodemographic items

Raucherentwöhnung in der primärärztlichen Versorgung – Chance oder Fiktion?: Ergebnisse der "Smoking and Nicotine Dependence Awareness and Screening (SNICAS)"-Studie

Durch eine stärkere Einbeziehung deutscher Hausärzte in die Raucherentwöhnung soll die Versorgung von Rauchern flächendeckend verbessert werden. Inwiefern dieser Anspruch realisierbar ist, wird im Rahmen der "Smoking and Nicotine Dependent Awareness and Screening" (SNICAS) Studie überprüft. SNICAS ist eine zweistufige epidemiologische Punktprävalenzstudie [Stufe I (Vorstudie): Charakterisierung einer repräsentativen, bundesweiten Stichprobe von n = 889 Hausärzten; Stufe II: Stichtagserhebung an n = 28 707 unselektierten konsekutiven Patienten], an die sich eine regionale klinische Interventionskomponente anschließt. In diesem Beitrag werden Prävalenzraten des Rauchens, Aufhörmotivation und bisherige Aufhörversuche von Primärarztpatienten berichtet. Dargestellt werden Erkennens- und Interventionsraten von Rauchern durch Hausärzte, das ärztliche Interventionsverhalten sowie deren Einschätzung der Chancen und Barrieren von Raucherentwöhnung im Praxisalltag. Die Ergebnisse der Studie belegen ein großes Interesse der Hausärzte am Thema Raucherentwöhnung. Dennoch weisen niedrige hausärztliche Interventionsraten bei gleichzeitig hohen Prävalenzraten von Rauchen und Nikotinabhängigkeit auf ein beträchtliches Versorgungsdefizit. Als Ursachen hierfür werden neben ambivalenter Aufhörmotivation der Patienten strukturelle Barrieren diskutiert. Die Autoren fordern neue klinische Versorgungsmodelle, die ein abgestimmtes Zusammenspiel von Hausärzten mit anderen, auf Raucherentwöhnung spezialisierte Berufsgruppen fokussieren.Through smoking cessation interventions, primary care physicians could play an important part in the treatment of smokers in Germany. In the "Smoking and Nicotine Dependent Awareness and Screening" (SNICAS) study, we examined whether this increased involvement of primary care physicians might be implemented. SNICAS is a two-stage epidemiological point prevalence study. In stage I (pre-study), a nationwide sample of 889 primary care doctors was characterized; in stage II, 28 707 unselected consecutive patients were assessed on the target day. The investigation was followed by regional clinical interventions. The present article contains our findings on the prevalence of smoking, the motivation to quit, and the history of quit attempts among primary care patients. Information will be provided on how frequently physicians recognize and treat smokers; what kind of interventions they offer; as well as how they judge the opportunities and obstacles for smoking cessation in routine care. Despite the high prevalence of smoking and nicotine dependence and the primary care doctors’ interest in treating smokers, insufficient interventions are provided. Reasons for this situation include, but are not limited to the patients’ ambivalent motivation to quit and structural barriers. Hence, new clinical models of health care with an improved cooperation between primary care physicians and other specialists in the field of smoking cessation seem necessary

Raucherentwöhnung in der primärärztlichen Versorgung: Ziele, Design und Methoden der "Smoking and Nicotine Dependence Awareness and Screening (SNICAS)"-Studie

In Deutschland fehlen bislang belastbare epidemiologische Daten über sowohl die Häufigkeit nikotinabhängiger Raucher im primärärztlichen Versorgungsbereich als auch das Ausmaß der von Hausärzten angebotenen Raucherentwöhnungsmaßnahmen. Die Ziele in der "Smoking and Nicotine Dependence Awareness and Screening (SNICAS)"-Studie waren/sind: (1) die Ermittlung repräsentativer Daten zur Prävalenz des Rauchens und der Nikotinabhängigkeit in Deutschland, (2) die Beschreibung des Rauchverhaltens und der Aufhörmotivation von Rauchern in der primärärztlichen Versorgung sowie (3) die Feststellung von Einstellungen, Fertigkeiten und Erfahrungen von Hausärzten im Zusammenhang mit der Raucherentwöhnung. SNICAS basierte auf einem zweistufigen epidemiologischen Studiendesign, woran sich eine derzeit noch laufende, klinische Interventionskomponente anschloss. In Stufe I (Vorstudien-Fragebogen) wurde eine repräsentative Auswahl von 889 Ärzten (Allgemeinärzte, praktische Ärzte, Internisten) hinsichtlich Erfahrungen und Einstellungen zu Raucherentwöhnungsmethoden charakterisiert. In Stufe II wurde an einem Stichtag (7. Mai 2002) in diesen Praxen n = 28 707 unausgelesene, konsekutive Patienten zunächst mittels eines Patientenfragebogens untersucht (konservative Ausschöpfungsrate: 52,8%). Daran schloss sich für jeden einzelnen Patienten eine unabhängige, standardisierte Arztbeurteilung (Erhebung des Rauchstatus, des Gesundheitszustands, vergangener und aktueller Interventionen u.ä.) an. Der Beitrag enthält eine Darstellung von Design und Methode der SNICAS-Studie und berichtet über die Gewinnung, Ausschöpfung und Repräsentativität der Arzt- und Patientenstichprobe. Auf der Grundlage ausgewählter Daten des Vorstudien- Fragebogens, aus denen eine geringe Anzahl (17,6%) an sich intensiv mit der Raucherentwöhnung befassenden Ärzten hervorgeht, werden ärztliche Interventionsstrategien, aber auch Einstellungs- und Strukturbarrieren vorgestellt.Aims, Design and Methods of the "Smoking and Nicotine Dependence Awareness and Screening" (SNICAS) Study Germany lacks robust epidemiological data on the prevalence of smoking and nicotine dependence in primary care patients as it does on smoking cessation interventions provided by primary care physicians. Objectives of the "Smoking and Nicotine Dependence Awareness and Screening" (SNICAS) study are (1) to provide nationally representative data on the frequency of smoking and nicotine dependence among primary care patients in Germany, (2) to describe their smoking behaviour and motivation to quit as well as (3) attitudes, skills and experiences of physicians regarding smoking cessation. SNICAS is based on a 2-stage epidemiological design, supplemented by a subsequently conducted clinical intervention trial still ongoing. Stage I consists of a prestudy characterization of a nationwide sample of 889 primary care doctors (general practitioners, family doctors and internists with primary care functions). Stage II consists of a target day assessment (May 7th 2002) of n=28,707 unselected consecutive patients by means of a patient questionnaire (conservative response rate: 52.8%). For each patient a structured clinical appraisal form (screening of the patients' smoking status, physical and mental health, current and past interventions etc. ) was accomplished by the doctor. This article presents design and methods of the SNICAS study and describes its sampling strategy, its response rates and the representativity of primary care doctors and patients. By means of selected pre-study data, showing that only a small proportion of physician is extensively involved in smoking cessation (17.6%), intervention strategies of the doctors are presented as well as obstacles for smoking cessation (e.g. structures, attitudes)

Tabakentwöhnungsmaßnahmen in der allgemeinärztlichen Versorgung: Implementierung, Effektivität und Wege einer optimierten Allokation

Hintergrund / Ziel der Studie: Im Bereich der Tabakentwöhnung existieren mittlerweile zahlreiche erprobte therapeutische Maßnahmen und Medikamente. Dennoch ist die Inanspruchnahme vorhandener Entwöhnungsangebote sehr dürftig. Es besteht die begründete Hoffnung, dass durch eine stärkere Einbeziehung der Hausärzte in den Bereich der Tabakentwöhnung eine Versorgungslücke geschlossen werden könnte. Die Studie soll Durchführbarkeit und Erfolg einer solchen Ausweitung des Anbieterkreises von Tabakentwöhnungsmaßnahmen im Hausarztbereich untersuchen. Unterschiedliche bereits vorhandene Therapieansätze werden hierbei hinsichtlich Effektivität und Effizienz in der allgemeinärztlichen Routineversorgung miteinander verglichen. Methoden: In Phase I der Studie werden bundesweit Patienten in mehr als 800 Arztpraxen an einem Stichtag per Fragebogen zu ihrer Gesundheit und ihrem Rauchverhalten befragt. In Phase II werden die in Phase I identifizierten entwöhnungswilligen Raucher in ausgewählten Arztpraxen für die Intervention rekrutiert und randomisiert vier Gruppen mit (idealerweise) jeweils 250 Personen zugeteilt: einer Bupropion SR (Zyban®)-Gruppe, einer Nikotinersatzmittel-Gruppe, einer Verhaltenstherapie-Gruppe und einer Kontrollgruppe. Die Behandlung erfolgt jeweils durch die Ärzte in ihren Praxen unter Supervision und mit Unterstützung durch Studienmonitore. Erwartete Ergebnisse: In Abhängigkeit von Merkmalen des Arztes und seiner Praxis auf der einen Seite sowie Merkmalen der betroffenen Patienten auf der anderen, sollte die Akzeptanz, Durchführbarkeit und Wirksamkeit der ausgewählten Therapieansätze unterschiedlich ausfallen. Insgesamt sollte jedoch jede Therapiebedingung gegenüber der Kontrollbedingung hinsichtlich ihrer Effektivität überlegen sein. Im 6-Monats Follow-up sollte die Zyban-Gruppe gegenüber allen anderen Gruppen die höchste Abstinenzquote aufweisen. Schlussfolgerung: Die Ergebnisse sollten Hinweise auf Möglichkeiten einer bedarfsgerechten, optimierten Allokation vorhandener Maßnahmen zur Tabakentwöhnung in der allgemeinärztlichen Versorgung liefern.Background / aim of the study: Although a number of efficacious smoking cessation measures and medications do exist, only a small number of smokers (tobacco users) make use of them. A stronger engagement of general practitioners (GPs) in the field of smoking cessation might help to improve health care in this important area. The study will investigate feasibility and effectiveness of different readily available smoking cessation measures under routine conditions in primary health care practices. Method: In phase I of the study patients' health status and tobacco consumption are assessed by means of questionnaires provided on a nationwide appointed date in more than 800 general practices in Germany. In phase II selected practices offer smoking cessation treatments to identified smokers. Participants recruited will be randomly assigned to four groups ideally consisting of 250 subjects each: A bupropion SR (Zyban©) condition, a nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) group, a cognitive-behavioural treatment (CBT) group and a control condition. Treatments will be conducted by GPs in their practices under supervision of study monitors offering therapeutical and organisational support. Expected results: Acceptance, feasibility, and effectiveness of smoking cessation treatments offered will differ depending on GP and patient characteristics. Overall, success-rates (while success is primarily defined as abstinence from tobacco use) should be higher in all therapeutic conditions as compared to controls. In the 6-month follow-up abstinence rates are expected to be highest in the bupropion SR group. Conclusion: Results should yield indications for an improved allocation of available smoking cessation measures in primary care