Dataset Information

Design and outcome measures for the AB InBev Global Smart Drinking Goals evaluation.

ABSTRACT: We describe the rationale for and design of an independent evaluation of the Global Smart Drinking Goals (GSDG) program. The primary purpose of this program, supported by the AB InBev Foundation, is to reduce harms associated with alcohol use by 10%. Our evaluation focuses on the effects of prevention strategies sponsored by the Foundation that are being implemented in six city pilots located in as many countries. These strategies are designed to reduce heavy episodic drinking, underage drinking, drink driving, and alcohol-related violence. Each city pilot has been matched with a comparison city in which the GSDG program will not be implemented. In this quasi-experimental community trial, we will assess each city pilot's progress toward reaching its harm reduction goals, relative to its comparison city, by means of annual adult and youth surveys. We will then supplement these analyses with the use of pertinent local archival data, where available. We discuss several challenges related to this evaluation and its quasi-experimental design. These include operating in a fluid and unpredictable environment in regard to the implementation, adaptation, and (on occasion) abandonment of the prevention strategies selected by each city pilot. We also discuss issues concerning our decision to accept funding from the alcohol industry and the measures we have taken to ensure the independence of our evaluation.

SUBMITTER: Miller TR

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6804502 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Design and outcome measures for the AB InBev Global Smart Drinking Goals evaluation.

Miller Ted R TR Ringwalt Christopher L CL Grube Joel W JW Paschall Mallie J MJ Fisher Deborah A DA Gordon Mary V MV

Contemporary clinical trials communications 20190930

We describe the rationale for and design of an independent evaluation of the Global Smart Drinking Goals (GSDG) program. The primary purpose of this program, supported by the AB InBev Foundation, is to reduce harms associated with alcohol use by 10%. Our evaluation focuses on the effects of prevention strategies sponsored by the Foundation that are being implemented in six city pilots located in as many countries. These strategies are designed to reduce heavy episodic drinking, underage drinking ...[more]

PMID: 31650076

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundGoal setting is linked to person-centred care and is a core component in physiotherapy, but the associations between goal classes, patient characteristics and outcome measures for musculoskeletal disorders has not been investigated. The study's purpose was to examine 1) how goals used in clinical practice for patients with musculoskeletal disorders (MSD) are distributed in classes based on ICF, 2) if goal classes were associated with patient characteristics and 3) whether goal classes were associated with treatment outcome.MethodsData analysis from a longitudinal observational study (N?=?2591). Goals were classified in symptom, function/structure, activity/participation and non-classifiable. Associations between patient characteristics and goal classes were examined using x2 and one-way ANOVA. Association between goal classes and outcomes were examined using multiple logistic and linear regression models. Outcomes are reported at 3?months or end of treatment if prior to 3?months.ResultsThere was a high variability in goals used for patients with MSD. 17% had symptom goals, 32.3% function/structure, 43.4% activity/participation and 7.4% non-classifiable goals. We found significant associations between goal classes and age, gender, severity, region of pain/diagnosis and emotional distress (all p?<?.001). Activity/participation goals were associated with better outcomes on GPE (OR 1.80, 95% CI 1.23-2.66). Non-classifiable goal was associated with poorer outcomes on pain intensity (B .87, 95% CI .32-1.43).ConclusionThere is an association between goal classes and patient characteristics. Including activity/participation in the main goal was associated with better outcomes for GPE and having a non-classifiable goal was associated with poorer outcomes for pain intensity.Trial registrationThe project is approved by the Regional committee for Medical and Health Research Ethics in Norway (REC no. 2013/2030). https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03626389 .

Project description:BackgroundWith the rise of digital health technologies and telemedicine, the need for evidence-based evaluation is growing. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) and patient-reported experience measures (PREMs) are recommended as an essential part of the evaluation of telemedicine. For the first time, a systematic review has been conducted to investigate the use of PROMs and PREMs in the evaluation studies of telemedicine covering all application types and medical purposes.ObjectiveThis study investigates the following research questions: in which scenarios are PROMs and PREMs collected for evaluation purposes, which PROM and PREM outcome domains have been covered and how often, which outcome measurement instruments have been used and how often, does the selection and quantity of PROMs and PREMs differ between study types and application types, and has the use of PROMs and PREMs changed over time.MethodsWe conducted a systematic literature search of the MEDLINE and Embase databases and included studies published from inception until April 2, 2020. We included studies evaluating telemedicine with patients as the main users; these studies reported PROMs and PREMs within randomized controlled trials, controlled trials, noncontrolled trials, and feasibility trials in English and German.ResultsOf the identified 2671 studies, 303 (11.34%) were included; of the 303 studies, 67 (22.1%) were feasibility studies, 70 (23.1%) were noncontrolled trials, 20 (6.6%) were controlled trials, and 146 (48.2%) were randomized controlled trials. Health-related quality of life (n=310; mean 1.02, SD 1.05), emotional function (n=244; mean 0.81, SD 1.18), and adherence (n=103; mean 0.34, SD 0.53) were the most frequently assessed outcome domains. Self-developed PROMs were used in 21.4% (65/303) of the studies, and self-developed PREMs were used in 22.3% (68/303). PROMs (n=884) were assessed more frequently than PREMs (n=234). As the evidence level of the studies increased, the number of PROMs also increased (τ=-0.45), and the number of PREMs decreased (τ=0.35). Since 2000, not only has the number of studies using PROMs and PREMs increased, but the level of evidence and the number of outcome measurement instruments used have also increased, with the number of PREMs permanently remaining at a lower level.ConclusionsThere have been increasingly more studies, particularly high-evidence studies, which use PROMs and PREMs to evaluate telemedicine. PROMs have been used more frequently than PREMs. With the increasing maturity stage of telemedicine applications and higher evidence level, the use of PROMs increased in line with the recommendations of evaluation guidelines. Health-related quality of life and emotional function were measured in almost all the studies. Simultaneously, health literacy as a precondition for using the application adequately, alongside proper training and guidance, has rarely been reported. Further efforts should be pursued to standardize PROM and PREM collection in evaluation studies of telemedicine.

Dataset Information

Design and outcome measures for the AB InBev Global Smart Drinking Goals evaluation.

Publications

Design and outcome measures for the AB InBev Global Smart Drinking Goals evaluation.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure