Nurse-Led Body-Mind-Spirit Based Relapse Prevention Intervention for People With Diagnosis of Alcohol Use Disorder at a Mental Health Care Setting, India: A Pilot Study

A study of attitudes and experiences relating to alcohol use in a community of family farmers from Southern India

Problematic drinking is found to be common among Indian farmers. This study aims to improve our understanding of the causes, consequences, and culture surrounding drinking in Indian farming communities. 36 semi-structured interviews with male and female farmers were thematically analyzed. Problematic drinking in male farmers was found to significantly impact farmer's relationships, work, finances, and health, and to be related to spousal abuse and neglect. Drinking to cope with mental and physical pain was common, and stigma around drinking appears to be a barrier to social support. Implications for future research and treatment efforts for Indian farmers are discussed.

Alcohol use disorder research in India: An update

Background

Despite alcohol use being a risk factor for numerous health-related conditions and alcohol use disorder (AUD) recognized as a disease, there was limited research in India until 2010. This narrative review aims to evaluate AUD-related research in India from 2010 to July 2023.

Methods

A PubMed search used key terms for AUD in India after 2010. Indian and international journals with regional significance that publish alcohol-related research were searched by each author individually. These were then collated, and duplicates were removed. In addition, we also conducted a gray literature search on focused areas related to AUD.

Results

The alcohol-related research in India after 2010 focused on diverse areas associated with alcohol use. Some areas of research have received more attention than others. Two major epidemiological surveys conducted in the past decade reveal that around 5% have a problematic alcohol use pattern. Factors associated with alcohol use, like genetic, neurobiological, psychological, and sociocultural, were studied. The studies focused on the clinical profile of AUD, including their correlates, such as craving, withdrawal, alcohol-related harm, and comorbid psychiatric and medical illnesses. During this period, minimal research was conducted to understand AUD's laboratory biomarkers, course, and prognosis. While there was a focus on generating evidence for different psychological interventions for alcohol dependence in management-related research, pharmacological studies centered on anticraving agents like baclofen. Research on noninvasive brain stimulation, such as rTMS, has shown preliminary usefulness in treating alcohol dependence. Very little research has been conducted regarding alcohol policy.

Conclusion

In the past decade, Indian research on alcohol has focused on diverse areas. Epidemiological and psychological management-related research received maximum attention. Considering the magnitude of the alcohol-related burden, it is essential to prioritize research to other less studied areas like pharmacological management of alcohol dependence and alcohol policy.

A systematic review of task-sharing interventions for substance use and substance use disorder in low- and middle-income countries

INTRODUCTION

Substance use (SU) and substance use disorders (SUDs) are associated with adverse health and socio-economic consequences. Due to the shortage of specialist healthcare providers, people with SUDs in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) have limited access to adequate treatment. Task-sharing with non-specialist health workers (NSHWs) has the potential to improve treatment accessibility for these individuals. This review synthesizes the evidence on the effectiveness of task-sharing interventions for SU and SUDs outcomes in LMICs.

METHODS

PsycINFO, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Global Health and CENTRAL databases were searched to identify eligible studies. Quality assessment was conducted using the Cochrane risk of bias (RoB2) and Risk of Bias in Non-randomized Studies of Interventions (ROBINS-I) tool. A narrative synthesis was undertaken to analyze the data.

RESULTS

Nineteen RCTs and two quasi-experimental studies met the eligibility criteria, and the majority had a low risk of bias rating. NSHW-delivered interventions significantly impact SU and SUDs outcomes, particularly in reducing alcohol and other substance use, cessation of smoking, and use of opioids. Multiple sessions delivered via face-to-face interactions was the most utilized method for intervention delivery. There were variations in terms of components of the intervention across studies; however, the most common intervention strategies used were a) personalized feedback, b) psychoeducation, c) motivational enhancement, d) problem-solving, and e) coping skills.

CONCLUSION

Our review highlights the growing interests in leveraging NSHWs to provide interventions to people with SU and SUDs in LMICs where access to treatment is limited. However, additional research is necessary to explore the effectiveness of these interventions and identify the specific active components linked to enhancing treatment outcomes on a broader scale.

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.

Reporting and Interpreting Effect Sizes in Applied Health-Related Settings: The Case of Spirituality and Substance Abuse

Inferential analysis using null hypothesis significance testing (NHST) allows accepting or rejecting a null hypothesis. Nevertheless, rejecting a null hypothesis and concluding there is a statistical effect does not provide a clue as to its practical relevance or magnitude. This process is key to assessing the effect size (ES) of significant results, be it using context (comparing the magnitude of the effect to similar studies or day-to-day effects) or statistical estimators, which also should be sufficiently interpreted. This is especially true in clinical settings, where decision-making affects patients' lives. We carried out a systematic review for the years 2015 to 2020 utilizing Scopus, PubMed, and various ProQuest databases, searching for empirical research articles with inferential results linking spirituality to substance abuse outcomes. Out of the 19 studies selected, 11 (57.9%) reported no ES index, and 9 (47.4%) reported no interpretation of the magnitude or relevance of their findings. The results of this review, although limited to the area of substance abuse and spiritual interventions, are a cautionary tale for other research topics. Gauging and interpreting effect sizes contributes to a better understanding of the subject under scrutiny in any discipline.

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.