Dataset Information

Implementation of evidence-based practice for alcohol and substance use disorders: protocol for systematic review.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Whilst effective treatments exist for substance use and alcohol use disorders, they are not commonly practised. Studies have shown that only a small percentage of services provide evidence-based treatments such as addiction medications or psychosocial therapies. Although there is a growing body of literature on evidence-based treatment, no synthesis of research on the implementation of evidence-based addiction treatment exists. This proposed systematic review will synthesise and evaluate the effectiveness of implementation programmes in the treatment of patients with drug and alcohol problems using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) framework.

Methods

We will search (from inception onwards) PubMed/MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, PsycINFO, Web of Science and CINAHL. Eligible studies will be clinical trials (e.g. randomised controlled trials, non-randomised controlled trials) and observational studies (e.g. before-and-after studies, interrupted time series) evaluating strategies used to implement evidence-based psychosocial treatments for alcohol and substance use disorders. The primary outcomes will be related to the implementation, service system, or clinical practice (e.g. acceptability, implementation costs, feasibility). Two researchers will independently screen all citations, full-text articles and abstract data. Risk of bias of individual studies will be appraised using appropriate tools. A narrative synthesis will be provided.

Discussion

This project aims to provide evidence to help guide the design of translational research programmes to improve implementation of evidence-based care in drug and alcohol settings. Findings from the study will specify effective strategies for domains of influence including (1) intervention characteristics (e.g. evidence strength and quality, adaptability), (2) outer setting (e.g. patient needs and resources, external policies and incentives), (3) inner setting (e.g. implementation climate, readiness for implementation), (4) individuals involved (e.g. self-efficacy, knowledge and beliefs about the intervention) and (5) the implementation process (e.g. engaging members of the organisation, executing the innovation). Identified gaps in knowledge will guide further study.

Systematic review registration

PROSPERO CRD42019123812.

SUBMITTER: Louie E

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7007686 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Feb

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Implementation of evidence-based practice for alcohol and substance use disorders: protocol for systematic review.

Louie Eva E Barrett Emma L EL Baillie Andrew A Haber Paul P Morley Kirsten C KC

Systematic reviews 20200207 1

<h4>Background</h4>Whilst effective treatments exist for substance use and alcohol use disorders, they are not commonly practised. Studies have shown that only a small percentage of services provide evidence-based treatments such as addiction medications or psychosocial therapies. Although there is a growing body of literature on evidence-based treatment, no synthesis of research on the implementation of evidence-based addiction treatment exists. This proposed systematic review will synthesise a ...[more]

PMID: 32033587

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:The present protocol was designed for a systematic review and meta-analysis aimed at determining the association of telomere length with substance use disorders with the exclusion of nicotine addiction, and to identify potential moderators of the effect of telomere length. Such methodological information may provide guidance to improve the quality of future research on this important topic. METHODS:Potential studies will be identified through electronic databases (PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, and Web of Science) up from inception onwards. The inclusion criteria will include published or unpublished observational studies (cohort, case-control, and cross-sectional studies) reporting telomere length in adult patients with substance use disorder compared with a control group. Non-human studies or other study designs such as reviews, case-only, family-based, and/or population studies with only healthy participants will be excluded, as well as those focused solely on nicotine addiction. The main outcome will be telomere length in adults with substance use disorder (primary) and, specifically, in those with alcohol use disorder (secondary). Two investigators will independently evaluate the preselected studies for possible inclusion and will extract data following a standardized protocol. Disagreements will be resolved by consensus. The risk of bias of all included studies will be assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale for non-randomized studies. Data will be converted into standardized mean differences as effect size index, and random-effects models will be used for the meta-analysis. Cochran's Q statistic, I2 index, and visual inspection of the forest plot will be used to verify study heterogeneity. Subgroup analyses and meta-regressions will be conducted to ascertain heterogeneity. Several sensitivity analyses will be conducted to address the influence of potential confounding factors. Publication bias will be examined using the "funnel plot" method with Duval and Tweedie's trim-and-fill method and Egger test. DISCUSSION:This systematic review will assess the association of telomere length with substance use disorders aside from nicotine addiction. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION:PROSPERO registration number CRD42019119785.

Project description:BackgroundThere is a paucity of translational research programmes to improve implementation of evidence-based care in drug and alcohol settings. This systematic review aimed to provide a synthesis and evaluation of the effectiveness of implementation programmes of treatment for patients with drug and alcohol problems using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR).MethodsA comprehensive systematic review was conducted using five online databases (from inception onwards). Eligible studies included clinical trials and observational studies evaluating strategies used to implement evidence-based psychosocial treatments for alcohol and substance use disorders. Extracted data were qualitatively synthesised for common themes according to the CFIR. Primary outcomes included the implementation, service system or clinical practice. Risk of bias of individual studies was appraised using appropriate tools. A protocol was registered with (PROSPERO) (CRD42019123812) and published previously (Louie et al. Systematic 9:2020).ResultsOf the 2965 references identified, twenty studies were included in this review. Implementation research has employed a wide range of strategies to train clinicians in a few key evidence-based approaches to treatment. Implementation strategies were informed by a range of theories, with only two studies using an implementation framework (Baer et al. J Substance Abuse Treatment 37:191-202, 2009) used Context-Tailored Training and Helseth et al. J Substance Abuse Treatment 95:26-34, 2018) used the CFIR). Thirty of the 36 subdomains of the CFIR were evaluated by included studies, but the majority were concerned with the Characteristics of Individuals domain (75%), with less than half measuring Intervention Characteristics (45%) and Inner Setting constructs (25%), and only one study measuring the Outer Setting and Process domains. The most common primary outcome was the effectiveness of implementation strategies on treatment fidelity. Although several studies found clinician characteristics influenced the implementation outcome (40%) and many obtained clinical outcomes (40%), only five studies measured service system outcomes and only four studies evaluated the implementation.ConclusionsWhile research has begun to accumulate in domains such as Characteristics of Individuals and Intervention Characteristics (e.g. education, beliefs and attitudes and organisational openness to new techniques), this review has identified significant gaps in the remaining CFIR domains including organisational factors, external forces and factors related to the process of the implementation itself. Findings of the review highlight important areas for future research and the utility of applying comprehensive implementation frameworks.

Project description:Importance:Substance use disorders (SUDs) represent a pressing public health concern. Combined behavioral and pharmacological interventions are considered best practices for addiction. Cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) is a first-line intervention, yet the superiority of CBT compared with other behavioral treatments when combined with pharmacotherapy remains unclear. An understanding of the effects of combined CBT and pharmacotherapy will inform best-practice guidelines for treatment of SUD. Objective:To conduct a meta-analysis of the published literature on combined CBT and pharmacotherapy for adult alcohol use disorder (AUD) or other SUDs. Data Sources:PubMed, Cochrane Register, MEDLINE, PsychINFO, and Embase databases from January 1, 1990, through July 31, 2019, were searched. Keywords were specified in 3 categories: treatment type, outcome type, and study design. Collected data were analyzed through September 30, 2019. Study Selection:Two independent raters reviewed abstracts and full-text articles. English language articles describing randomized clinical trials examining CBT in combination with pharmacotherapy for AUD and SUD were included. Data Extraction and Synthesis:Inverse-variance weighted, random-effects estimates of effect size were pooled into 3 clinically informative subgroups: (1) CBT plus pharmacotherapy compared with usual care plus pharmacotherapy, (2) CBT plus pharmacotherapy compared with another specific therapy plus pharmacotherapy, and (3) CBT added to usual care and pharmacotherapy compared with usual care and pharmacotherapy alone. Sensitivity analyses included assessment of study quality, pooled effect size heterogeneity, publication bias, and primary substance moderator effects. Main Outcomes and Measures:Substance use frequency and quantity outcomes after treatment and during follow-up were examined. Results:The sample included 62 effect sizes from 30 unique randomized clinical trials that examined CBT in combination with some form of pharmacotherapy for AUD and SUD. The primary substances targeted in the clinical trial sample were alcohol (15 [50%]), followed by cocaine (7 [23%]) and opioids (6 [20%]). The mean (SD) age of the patient sample was 39 (6) years, with a mean (SD) of 28% (12%) female participants per study. The following pharmacotherapies were used: naltrexone hydrochloride and/or acamprosate calcium (26 of 62 effect sizes [42%]), methadone hydrochloride or combined buprenorphine hydrochloride and naltrexone (11 of 62 [18%]), disulfiram (5 of 62 [8%]), and another pharmacotherapy or mixture of pharmacotherapies (20 of 62 [32%]). Random-effects pooled estimates showed a benefit associated with combined CBT and pharmacotherapy over usual care (g range,?0.18-0.28; k?=?9). However, CBT did not perform better than another specific therapy, and evidence for the addition of CBT as an add-on to combined usual care and pharmacotherapy was mixed. Moderator analysis showed variability in effect direction and magnitude by primary drug target. Conclusions and Relevance:The present study supports the efficacy of combined CBT and pharmacotherapy compared with usual care and pharmacotherapy. Cognitive behavioral therapy did not perform better than another evidence-based modality (eg, motivational enhancement therapy, contingency management) in this context or as an add-on to combined usual care and pharmacotherapy. These findings suggest that best practices in addiction treatment should include pharmacotherapy plus CBT or another evidence-based therapy, rather than usual clinical management or nonspecific counseling services.

Project description:Background and aimsThe ability to regulate emotions effectively has been associated with resilience to psychopathology. Individuals with substance use disorders (SUDs) have been shown to have higher levels of negative emotionality, with some evidence suggesting impairment in emotion regulation compared with individuals without SUDs. However, no previous attempt has been made to systematically review the literature to assess the magnitude of this difference. We aimed to assess the association between SUD diagnosis and emotion regulation as measured by the Difficulties in Emotion Regulation Scale (DERS) and Emotion Regulation Questionnaire (ERQ) through a systematic review and meta-analysis of existing findings.MethodsThe systematic review was conducted using PubMed, PsycINFO and Embase. We examined cross-sectional studies that compared a SUD group with a control group and measured emotion regulation using the DERS or the ERQ. The primary analysis focused on papers using the DERS, as this was the predominant instrument in the literature.ResultsTwenty-two studies met our primary analysis criteria, representing 1936 individuals with a SUD and 1567 controls. Individuals with SUDs relative to controls had significantly greater DERS scores, with a mean difference of 21.44 [95% confidence interval (CI) = 16.49-26.40, P < 0.001] and Hedges' g = 1.05 (95% CI = 0.86-1.24, P < 0.001). The difference was robust, remaining significant after removing outliers and studies with high risk of bias. Individuals with SUDs demonstrated poorer emotion regulation on each subscale of the DERS, with the largest deficits in the Strategies and Impulse subscales. The ERQ analysis revealed greater use of expressive suppression in those with SUDs relative to controls (Hedges' g = 0.76, 95% CI = 0.25-1.28, P = 0.004).ConclusionsPeople with substance use disorders appear to have greater difficulties in emotion regulation than people without substance use disorders.

Project description:INTRODUCTION:People with serious mental illness (SMI) and/or substance use disorders (SUDs) have an elevated risk of premature mortality compared with the general population. This has been attributed to higher rates of chronic illness among these individuals, but also to inequities in healthcare access and treatment. Integrated care has the potential to improve the health of people with SMI/SUDs. The aims of this scoping review are to: (1) identify empirical investigations of interventions designed to integrate care for people with SMI/SUDs; (2) describe the underlying theories, models and frameworks of integrated care that informed their development; and (3) determine the degree to which interventions address dimensions of a comprehensive and validated framework of integrated care. METHODS AND ANALYSIS:Guidelines for best practice and reporting of scoping reviews will be followed using the framework of Arksey and O'Malley and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses scoping review checklist. An iterative and systematic search of peer-reviewed publications reporting empirical research findings will be conducted. This literature will be identified by searching five databases: Medline (Ovid), PsycINFO, CINAHL, Embase (Ovid) and Scopus. The search will be restricted to articles published between January 2000 and April 2019. Two reviewers will independently screen publications in two successive stages of title and abstract screening, followed by full-text screening of eligible publications. A tabular summary and narrative synthesis will be completed using data extracted from each included study. A framework synthesis will also be conducted, with descriptions of interventions mapped against a theoretical framework of integrated care. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION:This review will identify the extent and nature of empirical investigations evaluating interventions to integrate care for people with SMI/SUDs. Ethical approval was not required. A team of relevant stakeholders, including people with lived experience of mental health conditions, has been established. This team will be engaged throughout the review and will ensure that the findings are widely disseminated. Dissemination will include publication of the review in a peer-reviewed journal. The review protocol has been registered through Open Science Framework and can be accessed at https://osf.io/njkph/.

Project description:INTRODUCTION:The aim of this paper is to provide a protocol for a systematic review assessing the effectiveness of evidence from randomised controlled trials comparing fetal alcohol spectrum disorders pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions with placebo/dummy interventions or usual standards of care in children and adolescents (<18 years old). METHODS AND ANALYSIS:The following electronic databases will be searched: Medline (Ovid), Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Plus with Full text (EBSCO), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (Cochrane Library-Wiley), PsycINFO (ProQuest) and Proquest DissertationsandTheses will be searched from inception to March 2017 for relevant citations of published trials using individualised search strategies prepared for database. We will also search the reference lists of relevant articles and conference proceedings. Two reviewers will independently assess each study against predetermined inclusion/exclusion criteria and extract data including population characteristics, types and duration of interventions and outcomes from included trials. Internal validity will be assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool. Primary outcome measures will be improvements in symptoms, including: hyperactivity, impulsivity and attention as measured by standard rating scales. Secondary outcome measures will include improvements in physical and mental health domains, as well as cognitive, behavioural, social and educational skills as measured by rating scales, standardised psychometric tests of IQ and memory, grade repetition, literacy tests and diagnosis of mental health disorder. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION:Ethical approval will not be obtained since it is not required for systematic reviews as there are no concerns regarding patient privacy. The results of this review will be disseminated through publication in a peer-review journal and presented at relevant conferences. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER:CRD42013005996.

Dataset Information

Implementation of evidence-based practice for alcohol and substance use disorders: protocol for systematic review.

Background

Methods

Discussion

Systematic review registration

Publications

Implementation of evidence-based practice for alcohol and substance use disorders: protocol for systematic review.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets