Screening and brief intervention for substance misuse: Does it reduce aggression and HIV-related risk behaviours?

A scoping review of substance use brief interventions in Africa

BACKGROUND

The burden of substance use in Africa is substantial. Brief interventions (BIs) are a recommended public health strategy for the prevention and early intervention for substance use problems. The objective of this scoping review was to map the literature on substance use BIs in Africa, identify gaps, and provide directions for future research.

METHODS

The scoping review was guided by the Arksey O'Malley Framework and the PRISMA-Scoping review (PRISMA-ScR) guidelines. A search of five bibliographic databases (PubMed, PsychINFO, Web of Science, Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Professionals (CINAHL) and Cochrane Library) was conducted from inception until 1st November 2023. BIs were defined as those targeting substance use and delivered over 1-4 sessions, or interventions delivered over more than four sessions if the authors referred to them as 'brief'. Results of the review have been summarized descriptively and organized by three broad outcomes: BI effect and feasibility; feasibility and effectiveness of training providers to deliver BIs; Other outcomes i.e. cost-effectiveness, BI adaptation and development, and knowledge attitude and practice of BIs by providers.

RESULTS

Of the 80 studies that were eligible for inclusion, 68 investigated the effect and feasibility of BIs, six studies investigated the feasibility and effectiveness of training providers to deliver BIs, and six explored other outcomes. Most of the available studies had been conducted in Eastern and Southern Africa. BIs were largely based on motivational interviewing and psychoeducational principles. Overall, the BIs were reported as feasible to implement from the perspective of policy makers, providers, and the intervention recipients. Findings on the effect of BIs on substance use were mixed. Key evidence gaps emerged. There was paucity of BI research focusing on substances other than alcohol, and there was limited literature on feasibility and efficacy of BIs among youth and adolescents.

CONCLUSION

The results of this scoping review provide important directions for future substance use BI research in Africa.

Motivational interviewing for substance use reduction

BACKGROUND

Substance use is a global issue, with around 30 to 35 million individuals estimated to have a substance-use disorder. Motivational interviewing (MI) is a client-centred method that aims to strengthen a person's motivation and commitment to a specific goal by exploring their reasons for change and resolving ambivalence, in an atmosphere of acceptance and compassion. This review updates the 2011 version by Smedslund and colleagues.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of motivational interviewing for substance use on the extent of substance use, readiness to change, and retention in treatment.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched 18 electronic databases, six websites, four mailing lists, and the reference lists of included studies and reviews. The last search dates were in February 2021 and November 2022.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials with individuals using drugs, alcohol, or both. Interventions were MI or motivational enhancement therapy (MET), delivered individually and face to face. Eligible control interventions were no intervention, treatment as usual, assessment and feedback, or other active intervention.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane, and assessed the certainty of evidence with GRADE. We conducted meta-analyses for the three outcomes (extent of substance use, readiness to change, retention in treatment) at four time points (post-intervention, short-, medium-, and long-term follow-up).

MAIN RESULTS

We included 93 studies with 22,776 participants. MI was delivered in one to nine sessions. Session durations varied, from as little as 10 minutes to as long as 148 minutes per session, across included studies. Study settings included inpatient and outpatient clinics, universities, army recruitment centres, veterans' health centres, and prisons. We judged 69 studies to be at high risk of bias in at least one domain and 24 studies to be at low or unclear risk. Comparing MI to no intervention revealed a small to moderate effect of MI in substance use post-intervention (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.48, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.07 to 0.89; I2 = 75%; 6 studies, 471 participants; low-certainty evidence). The effect was weaker at short-term follow-up (SMD 0.20, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.28; 19 studies, 3351 participants; very low-certainty evidence). This comparison revealed a difference in favour of MI at medium-term follow-up (SMD 0.12, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.20; 16 studies, 3137 participants; low-certainty evidence) and no difference at long-term follow-up (SMD 0.12, 95% CI -0.00 to 0.25; 9 studies, 1525 participants; very low-certainty evidence). There was no difference in readiness to change (SMD 0.05, 95% CI -0.11 to 0.22; 5 studies, 1495 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Retention in treatment was slightly higher with MI (SMD 0.26, 95% CI -0.00 to 0.52; 2 studies, 427 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Comparing MI to treatment as usual revealed a very small negative effect in substance use post-intervention (SMD -0.14, 95% CI -0.27 to -0.02; 5 studies, 976 participants; very low-certainty evidence). There was no difference at short-term follow-up (SMD 0.07, 95% CI -0.03 to 0.17; 14 studies, 3066 participants), a very small benefit of MI at medium-term follow-up (SMD 0.12, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.22; 9 studies, 1624 participants), and no difference at long-term follow-up (SMD 0.06, 95% CI -0.05 to 0.17; 8 studies, 1449 participants), all with low-certainty evidence. There was no difference in readiness to change (SMD 0.06, 95% CI -0.27 to 0.39; 2 studies, 150 participants) and retention in treatment (SMD -0.09, 95% CI -0.34 to 0.16; 5 studies, 1295 participants), both with very low-certainty evidence. Comparing MI to assessment and feedback revealed no difference in substance use at short-term follow-up (SMD 0.09, 95% CI -0.05 to 0.23; 7 studies, 854 participants; low-certainty evidence). A small benefit for MI was shown at medium-term (SMD 0.24, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.40; 6 studies, 688 participants) and long-term follow-up (SMD 0.24, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.41; 3 studies, 448 participants), both with moderate-certainty evidence. None of the studies in this comparison measured substance use at the post-intervention time point, readiness to change, and retention in treatment. Comparing MI to another active intervention revealed no difference in substance use at any follow-up time point, all with low-certainty evidence: post-intervention (SMD 0.07, 95% CI -0.15 to 0.29; 3 studies, 338 participants); short-term (SMD 0.05, 95% CI -0.03 to 0.13; 18 studies, 2795 participants); medium-term (SMD 0.08, 95% CI -0.01 to 0.17; 15 studies, 2352 participants); and long-term follow-up (SMD 0.03, 95% CI -0.07 to 0.13; 10 studies, 1908 participants). There was no difference in readiness to change (SMD 0.15, 95% CI -0.00 to 0.30; 5 studies, 988 participants; low-certainty evidence) and retention in treatment (SMD -0.04, 95% CI -0.23 to 0.14; 12 studies, 1945 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). We downgraded the certainty of evidence due to inconsistency, study limitations, publication bias, and imprecision.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Motivational interviewing may reduce substance use compared with no intervention up to a short follow-up period. MI probably reduces substance use slightly compared with assessment and feedback over medium- and long-term periods. MI may make little to no difference to substance use compared to treatment as usual and another active intervention. It is unclear if MI has an effect on readiness to change and retention in treatment. The studies included in this review were heterogeneous in many respects, including the characteristics of participants, substance(s) used, and interventions. Given the widespread use of MI and the many studies examining MI, it is very important that counsellors adhere to and report quality conditions so that only studies in which the intervention implemented was actually MI are included in evidence syntheses and systematic reviews. Overall, we have moderate to no confidence in the evidence, which forces us to be careful about our conclusions. Consequently, future studies are likely to change the findings and conclusions of this review.

Psychosocial and pharmacologic interventions to reduce harmful alcohol use in low- and middle-income countries

BACKGROUND

Harmful alcohol use is defined as unhealthy alcohol use that results in adverse physical, psychological, social, or societal consequences and is among the leading risk factors for disease, disability and premature mortality globally. The burden of harmful alcohol use is increasing in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) and there remains a large unmet need for indicated prevention and treatment interventions to reduce harmful alcohol use in these settings. Evidence regarding which interventions are effective and feasible for addressing harmful and other patterns of unhealthy alcohol use in LMICs is limited, which contributes to this gap in services.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy and safety of psychosocial and pharmacologic treatment and indicated prevention interventions compared with control conditions (wait list, placebo, no treatment, standard care, or active control condition) aimed at reducing harmful alcohol use in LMICs.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) indexed in the Cochrane Drugs and Alcohol Group (CDAG) Specialized Register, the Cochrane Clinical Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in the Cochrane Library, PubMed, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and the Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature (LILACS) through 12 December 2021. We searched clinicaltrials.gov, the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, Web of Science, and Opengrey database to identify unpublished or ongoing studies. We searched the reference lists of included studies and relevant review articles for eligible studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All RCTs comparing an indicated prevention or treatment intervention (pharmacologic or psychosocial) versus a control condition for people with harmful alcohol use in LMICs were included.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 66 RCTs with 17,626 participants. Sixty-two of these trials contributed to the meta-analysis. Sixty-three studies were conducted in middle-income countries (MICs), and the remaining three studies were conducted in low-income countries (LICs). Twenty-five trials exclusively enrolled participants with alcohol use disorder. The remaining 51 trials enrolled participants with harmful alcohol use, some of which included both cases of alcohol use disorder and people reporting hazardous alcohol use patterns that did not meet criteria for disorder. Fifty-two RCTs assessed the efficacy of psychosocial interventions; 27 were brief interventions primarily based on motivational interviewing and were compared to brief advice, information, or assessment only. We are uncertain whether a reduction in harmful alcohol use is attributable to brief interventions given the high levels of heterogeneity among included studies (Studies reporting continuous outcomes: Tau² = 0.15, Q =139.64, df =16, P<.001, I² = 89%, 3913 participants, 17 trials, very low certainty; Studies reporting dichotomous outcomes: Tau²=0.18, Q=58.26, df=3, P<.001, I² =95%, 1349 participants, 4 trials, very low certainty). The other types of psychosocial interventions included a range of therapeutic approaches such as behavioral risk reduction, cognitive-behavioral therapy, contingency management, rational emotive therapy, and relapse prevention. These interventions were most commonly compared to usual care involving varying combinations of psychoeducation, counseling, and pharmacotherapy. We are uncertain whether a reduction in harmful alcohol use is attributable to psychosocial treatments due to high levels of heterogeneity among included studies (Heterogeneity: Tau² = 1.15; Q = 444.32, df = 11, P<.001; I²=98%, 2106 participants, 12 trials, very low certainty). Eight trials compared combined pharmacologic and psychosocial interventions with placebo, psychosocial intervention alone, or another pharmacologic treatment. The active pharmacologic study conditions included disulfiram, naltrexone, ondansetron, or topiramate. The psychosocial components of these interventions included counseling, encouragement to attend Alcoholics Anonymous, motivational interviewing, brief cognitive-behavioral therapy, or other psychotherapy (not specified). Analysis of studies comparing a combined pharmacologic and psychosocial intervention to psychosocial intervention alone found that the combined approach may be associated with a greater reduction in harmful alcohol use (standardized mean difference (standardized mean difference (SMD))=-0.43, 95% confidence interval (CI): -0.61 to -0.24; 475 participants; 4 trials; low certainty). Four trials compared pharmacologic intervention alone with placebo and three with another pharmacotherapy. Drugs assessed were: acamprosate, amitriptyline, baclofen disulfiram, gabapentin, mirtazapine, and naltrexone. None of these trials evaluated the primary clinical outcome of interest, harmful alcohol use.   Thirty-one trials reported rates of retention in the intervention. Meta-analyses revealed that rates of retention between study conditions did not differ in any of the comparisons (pharmacologic risk ratio (RR) = 1.13, 95% CI: 0.89 to 1.44, 247 participants, 3 trials, low certainty; pharmacologic in addition to psychosocial intervention: RR = 1.15, 95% CI: 0.95 to 1.40, 363 participants, 3 trials, moderate certainty). Due to high levels of heterogeneity, we did not calculate pooled estimates comparing retention in brief (Heterogeneity: Tau² = 0.00; Q = 172.59, df = 11, P<.001; I2 = 94%; 5380 participants; 12 trials, very low certainty) or other psychosocial interventions (Heterogeneity: Tau² = 0.01; Q = 34.07, df = 8, P<.001; I2 = 77%; 1664 participants; 9 trials, very low certainty). Two pharmacologic trials and three combined pharmacologic and psychosocial trials reported on side effects. These studies found more side effects attributable to amitriptyline relative to mirtazapine, naltrexone and topiramate relative to placebo, yet no differences in side effects between placebo and either acamprosate or ondansetron. Across all intervention types there was substantial risk of bias. Primary threats to validity included lack of blinding and differential/high rates of attrition.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In LMICs there is low-certainty evidence supporting the efficacy of combined psychosocial and pharmacologic interventions on reducing harmful alcohol use relative to psychosocial interventions alone. There is insufficient evidence to determine the efficacy of pharmacologic or psychosocial interventions on reducing harmful alcohol use largely due to the substantial heterogeneity in outcomes, comparisons, and interventions that precluded pooling of these data in meta-analyses. The majority of studies are brief interventions, primarily among men, and using measures that have not been validated in the target population. Confidence in these results is reduced by the risk of bias and significant heterogeneity among studies as well as the heterogeneity of results on different outcome measures within studies. More evidence on the efficacy of pharmacologic interventions, specific types of psychosocial interventions are needed to increase the certainty of these results.

Closing the treatment gap for alcohol use disorders in low- and middle-income countries

The alcohol-attributable disease burden is greater in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) as compared to high-income countries. Despite the effectiveness of interventions such as health promotion and education, brief interventions, psychological treatments, family-focused interventions, and biomedical treatments, access to evidence-based care for alcohol use disorders (AUDs) in LMICs is limited. This can be explained by poor access to general health and mental health care, limited availability of relevant clinical skills among health care providers, lack of political will and/or financial resources, historical stigma and discrimination against people with AUDs, and poor planning and implementation of policies. Access to care for AUDs in LMICs could be improved through evidence-based strategies such as designing innovative, local and culturally acceptable solutions, health system strengthening by adopting a collaborative stepped care approach, horizontal integration of care into existing models of care (e.g., HIV care), task sharing to optimise limited human resources, working with families of individuals with AUD, and leveraging technology-enabled interventions. Moving ahead, research, policy and practice in LMICs need to focus on evidence-based decision-making, responsiveness to context and culture, working collaboratively with a range of stakeholders to design and implement interventions, identifying upstream social determinants of AUDs, developing and evaluating policy interventions such as increased taxation on alcohol, and developing services for special populations (e.g., adolescents) with AUDs.

Gender and Context Matter: Behavioral and Structural Interventions for People Who Use Alcohol and Other Drugs in Africa

Heavy alcohol consumption and other drug use are prominent across Africa and increase the risk of exposure to violence, HIV acquisition, and other life-threatening injuries. This review synthesizes evidence on alcohol and other drug (AOD) interventions in Africa; evaluates the differences between interventions that do and do not specifically target populations that use AODs; and highlights the impact of comprehensive vs. brief interventions and those that address syndemic issues from a gender and contextualized lens. Literature searches were conducted to identify research outcomes of randomized interventions published between January 2010 and May 2022 that address AOD use in Africa. Thirty-five full-text articles were included in this review. Most of the identified research studies were concentrated in a few countries. Most studies were conducted in South Africa. Many of the studies comprised brief interventions. However, the most comprehensive interventions were the most effective for AOD outcomes. Several studies indicated the importance of addressing AOD use alongside gender-based violence, mental health needs, gender roles, and other social determinants that affect health outcomes. Intervening on AOD use and addressing social determinants from a gender and contextually relevant perspective is essential to ensuring the long-term health and well-being of people in Africa.

Missed opportunity for alcohol use disorder screening and management in primary health care facilities in northern rural Tanzania: a cross-sectional survey

OBJECTIVE

The study aimed to identify the missed opportunity for detection and management of alcohol use disorder by primary health care workers.

DESIGN

A cross-sectional survey SETTING: Outpatient services in the six governmental primary health care facilities in Moshi district council in Tanzania.

PARTICIPANTS

A total of 1604 adults were screened for alcohol use disorder (AUD) using the Alcohol Use Disorder Identification Test (AUDIT). Participants scoring 8 or above then provided details about their help-seeking behavior and barriers to seeking care. Participants' records were reviewed to assess the screening and management of AUD.

RESULTS

In the last 12 months, 60.7% reported alcohol use, and heavy episodic drinking (HED) was reported by 37.3%. AUD (AUDIT ≥ 8) was present in 23.9%. Males were more likely to have HED (aPR = 1.43;95% CI:1.3 to 1.4) or AUD (aPR = 2.9; 95% CI 1.9 to 4.2). Both HED and AUD increased with age. Only one participant (0.3%) had documented AUD screening and management. Only 5% of participants screening positive for AUD had sought help. Reasons for not seeking care were thinking that the problem would get better by itself (55.0%), wanting to handle the problem alone (42.0%), or not being bothered by the problem (40.0%).

CONCLUSION

While reported alcohol use, HED, and AUD are common among patients presenting to primary healthcare facilities in northern Tanzania, help-seeking behavior and detection are very low. Not screening for AUD in primary health care is a missed opportunity for early detection and management. There is an urgent need to develop interventions to increase the detection of AUD by health care providers, while also addressing help-seeking behavior and barriers to seeking care.

Patient-level interventions to reduce alcohol-related harms in low- and middle-income countries: A systematic review and meta-summary

BACKGROUND

Disease and disability from alcohol use disproportionately impact people in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). While varied interventions have been shown to reduce alcohol use in high-income countries, their efficacy in LMICs has not been assessed. This systematic review describes current published literature on patient-level alcohol interventions in LMICs and specifically describes clinical trials evaluating interventions to reduce alcohol use in LMICs.

METHODS AND FINDINGS

In accordance with PRISMA, we performed a systematic review using an electronic search strategy from January 1, 1995 to December 1, 2020. Title, abstract, as well as full-text screening and extraction were performed in duplicate. A meta-summary was performed on randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated alcohol-related outcomes. We searched the following electronic databases: PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane, WHO Global Health Library, and PsycINFO. Articles that evaluated patient-level interventions targeting alcohol use and alcohol-related harm in LMICs were eligible for inclusion. No studies were excluded based on language. After screening 5,036 articles, 117 articles fit our inclusion criteria, 75 of which were RCTs. Of these RCTs, 93% were performed in 13 middle-income countries, while 7% were from 2 low-income countries. These RCTs evaluated brief interventions (24, defined as any intervention ranging from advice to counseling, lasting less than 1 hour per session up to 4 sessions), psychotherapy or counseling (15, defined as an interaction with a counselor longer than a brief intervention or that included a psychotherapeutic component), health promotion and education (20, defined as an intervention encouraged individuals' agency of taking care of their health), or biologic treatments (19, defined as interventions where the biological function of alcohol use disorder (AUD) as the main nexus of intervention) with 3 mixing categories of intervention types. Due to high heterogeneity of intervention types, outcome measures, and follow-up times, we did not conduct meta-analysis to compare and contrast studies, but created a meta-summary of all 75 RCT studies. The most commonly evaluated intervention with the most consistent positive effect was a brief intervention; similarly, motivational interviewing (MI) techniques were most commonly utilized among the diverse array of interventions evaluated.

CONCLUSIONS

Our review demonstrated numerous patient-level interventions that have the potential to be effective in LMICs, but further research to standardize interventions, populations, and outcome measures is necessary to accurately assess their effectiveness. Brief interventions and MI techniques were the most commonly evaluated and had the most consistent positive effect on alcohol-related outcomes.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Protocol Registry: PROSPERO CRD42017055549.

Integration of Alcohol Use Disorder Interventions in General Health Care Settings in Sub-Saharan Africa: A Scoping Review

Introduction

Alcohol use disorder (AUD) is among the leading cause of morbidity and mortality in sub-Saharan Africa. Despite this, AUD is often not detected in health care settings, which contributes to a wide treatment gap. Integrating services for mental, neurological, and substance use disorders in general health care settings is among the recommended strategies to narrow this treatment gap. This scoping review aimed to map the available evidence on integration of AUD interventions in general health care settings in sub-Saharan Africa.

Methods

We searched four databases (PubMed, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and Africa Wide Information) for publications up to December 2020. The search strategy focused on terms for alcohol use, alcohol interventions, and sub-Saharan African countries. Studies that reported AUD interventions in general health care settings in sub-Saharan Africa were eligible for inclusion. Over 3,817 potentially eligible articles were identified. After the removal of duplicates and screening of abstracts, 56 articles were included for full article review. Of these, 24 papers reporting on 22 studies were eligible and included in a narrative review.

Results

Of the 24 eligible articles, 19 (80%) described AUD interventions that were being delivered in general health care settings, 3 (12%) described plans or programs for integrating AUD interventions at different levels of care, including in health facilities, and 2 (8%) studies reported on AUD interventions integrated into general health care settings.

Conclusions

This review shows that there is limited evidence on the integration of AUD interventions in health care settings in sub-Saharan Africa. There is an urgent need for studies that report systematically on the development, adaptation, implementation, and evaluation of integrated AUD interventions in health care settings in sub-Saharan Africa.

Efficacy of brief intervention for harmful and hazardous alcohol use: a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies from low middle-income countries

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Low and middle-income countries (LMIC) have a disproportionately higher alcohol-attributable disease burden, in conjunction with a minimal focus on primary prevention. Screening and brief interventions can be a promising approach to address this problem. This systematic review aimed to perform a qualitative and quantitative synthesis of studies of brief interventions for harmful and hazardous alcohol use in LMIC.

METHODS

Systematic review of randomized controlled trials of brief interventions for harmful and hazardous alcohol identified from four electronic databases, conducted in any country identified as LMIC as per the World Bank. We measured differences in intervention and control groups on risk-scores using standard screening instruments, the frequency of heavy drinking, the drinking risk-level, or quality of life and other mental health-related outcomes.

RESULTS

A total of 14 studies were included, seven of them from South Africa. On standardized screening instruments, the brief intervention (BI) group had significantly lower scores than controls at 3 months (Hedges' g = - 0.34, P = 0.04), but the effects did not persist at 6- and 12-month follow-up (g = - 0.06, P = 0.68 and g = 0.15, P = 0.41, respectively). There was little evidence to suggest that BIs led to changes in the frequency of heavy drinking or change in the risk level of alcohol use. Surprisingly, a single session (g = -0.55, P < 0.001) fared better than multiple sessions (g = -0.03, P = 0.85). A nurse delivered brief intervention (g = -0.44, P = 0.02) showed better results than BIs delivered by others (g = -0.14, P = 0.66), whereas the outcomes were similar for young adults and middle-age people.

CONCLUSION

Brief interventions for alcohol use show some promise in low- and middle-income countries. Specifically, a single session, nurse-delivered brief intervention for harmful and hazardous alcohol use appears to show a small but significant positive effect in low- and middle-income countries.

Screening and brief intervention for substance use disorders in times of COVID-19: potential opportunities, adaptations, and challenges

The ongoing pandemic has led to a sudden disruption of routine treatment services. Consequently, the already existing treatment gap for substance use disorders is likely to widen. There is an opportunity to expand the scope of Screening and Brief Intervention (SBI) to meet this unprecedented challenge. Its brevity, flexibility, and generalizability have positioned SBI to deal with additional systemic, structural, and attitudinal barriers that pertain to the pandemic. The standard content of SBI could be modified to adapt to the current context. SBI could also be used as a vehicle to render strategies for infection risk minimization. In this Perspective, we anticipate the challenges of expanding and implementing SBI in the present circumstances and present potential solutions. SBI, with adaptations, could bridge the augmented treatment gap for substance use disorders during COVID-19.

How can adolescent aggression be reduced? A multi-level meta-analysis

Aggressive behaviour among adolescents has significant social and economic costs. Numerous attempts have been made to intervene to reduce aggression in adolescents. However, little is known about what factors enhance or diminish intervention effectiveness. The present systematic review and meta-analysis, therefore, seeks to quantify the effectiveness of interventions to reduce aggressive behaviour in adolescents and to identify when and for whom such interventions work best. Sixteen databases were searched for randomised controlled trials that assessed interventions to reduce aggression among adolescents. After screening 9795 records, 95 studies were included. A multi-level meta-analysis found a significant overall small-to-medium effect size (d = 0.28; 95% CI [0.17, 0.39]). More effective interventions were of shorter duration, were conducted in the Middle East, were targeted at adolescents with higher levels of risk, and were facilitated by intervention professionals. Potentially active ingredients were classified using the Behaviour Change Technique Taxonomy. Behavioural practice and problem solving were components of more effective interventions targeted at the general population. Overall the findings indicate that psychosocial interventions are effective in reducing adolescent aggression. Future trials need to assess the effect of individual techniques and their combination to identify the key components that can reduce aggression in adolescents.

Drug Use Disorders and Violence: Associations With Individual Drug Categories

We conducted a systematic review that examined the link between individual drug categories and violent outcomes. We searched for primary case-control and cohort investigations that reported risk of violence against others among individuals diagnosed with drug use disorders using validated clinical criteria, following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis guidelines. We identified 18 studies published during 1990–2019, reporting data from 591,411 individuals with drug use disorders. We reported odds ratios of the violence risk in different categories of drug use disorders compared with those without. We found odds ratios ranging from 0.8 to 25.0 for most individual drug categories, with generally higher odds ratios among individuals with polydrug use disorders. In addition, we explored sources of between-study heterogeneity by subgroup and meta-regression analyses. Cohort investigations reported a lower risk of violence than case-control reports (odds ratio =  2.7 (95% confidence interval (CI): 2.1, 3.5) vs. 6.6 (95% CI: 5.1, 8.6)), and associations were stronger when the outcome was any violence rather than intimate partner violence (odds ratio = 5.7 (95% CI: 3.8, 8.6) vs. 1.7 (95% CI: 1.4, 2.1)), which was consistent with results from the meta-regression. Overall, these findings highlight the potential impact of preventing and treating drug use disorders on reducing violence risk and associated morbidities.

Implementation of a screening, brief intervention and referral to treatment programme for risky substance use in South African emergency centres: A mixed methods evaluation study

BACKGROUND

Screening, brief intervention, and referral to treatment (SBIRT) for risky substance use is infrequently included in routine healthcare in low-resourced settings. A SBIRT programme, adopted by the Western Cape provincial government within an alcohol harm reduction strategy, employed various implementation strategies executed by a diverse team to translate an evidence-based intervention into services at three demonstration sites before broader programme scale-up. This paper evaluates the implementation of this programme delivered by facility-based counsellors in South African emergency centres.

METHOD

Guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research, this mixed methods study evaluated the feasibility, acceptability, appropriateness and adoption of this task-shared SBIRT programme. Quantitative data were extracted from routinely collected health information. Qualitative interviews were conducted with 40 stakeholders in the programme's second year.

RESULTS

In the first year, 13 136 patients were screened and 4 847 (37%) patients met criteria for risky substance use. Of these patients, 83% received the intervention, indicating programme feasibility. The programme was adopted into routine services and found to be acceptable and appropriate, particularly by stakeholders familiar with the emergency environment. These stakeholders highlighted the burden of substance-related harm in emergency centres and favourable patient responses to SBIRT. However, some stakeholders expressed scepticism of the behaviour change approach and programme compatibility with emergency centre operations. Furthermore, adoption was both facilitated and hampered by a top-down directive from provincial leadership to implement SBIRT, while rapid implementation limited effective engagement with a diverse stakeholder group.

CONCLUSION

This is one of the first studies to address SBIRT implementation in low-resourced settings. The results show that SBIRT implementation and adoption was largely successful, and provide valuable insights that should be considered prior to implementation scale-up. Recommendations include ensuring ongoing monitoring and evaluation, and early stakeholder engagement to improve implementation readiness and programme compatibility in the emergency setting.

The Role of Affect Management for HIV Risk Reduction for Youth in Alternative Schools

OBJECTIVE

Adolescents in alternative schools for behavioral and emotional problems have an earlier sexual onset and higher rates of sexual risk than their peers. They also often have difficulty managing strong emotions, which can impair sexual decision making. Human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) prevention programs for these adolescents may be most effective if skills for coping with strong emotions during sexual situations are included.

METHOD

This article reports the 6-month outcomes of a three-arm randomized controlled trial comparing an HIV prevention intervention with affect management (AM) to a standard, skills-based HIV prevention intervention (SB), and a general health promotion intervention (HP). HP was similar to a general health class, and SB was based on previous effective HIV prevention programs used with community adolescents, whereas AM included affect management skills in addition to effective HIV prevention skills. Youth (N = 377) in two US cities were 13 to 19 years of age and attending alternative schools for behavioral and emotional problems.

RESULTS

Multiple logistic regression analyses, adjusted for the baseline scores, age, and gender, found that adolescents in AM were significantly less likely to report being sexually active at follow-up (80% versus 91%, adjusted odds ratio = 0.28, 95% CI = 0.08-0.96) and more consistently using condoms than those in HP at follow-up (62%, versus 39%, adjusted odds ratio = 3.42, CI = 1.10-10.63).

CONCLUSION

Affect management techniques tested in this project, focused on sexual situations, are similar to those that are used in dialectical behavioral therapy (DBT) and in clinical practice. These data suggest that these techniques might decrease risk behaviors and improve the health of adolescents with emotional/behavioral problems. Clinical trial registration information-Therapeutic Schools: Affect Management and HIV Prevention; http://clinicaltrials.gov/; NCT00500487.