Effectiveness of non-interruptive nudge interventions in electronic health records to improve the delivery of care in hospitals: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVES: To describe the application of nudges within electronic health records (EHRs) and their effects on inpatient care delivery, and identify design features that support effective decision-making without the use of interruptive alerts. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We searched Medline, Embase, and PsychInfo (in January 2022) for randomized controlled trials, interrupted time-series and before-after studies reporting effects of nudge interventions embedded in hospital EHRs to improve care. Nudge interventions were identified at full-text review, using a pre-existing classification. Interventions using interruptive alerts were excluded. Risk of bias was assessed using the ROBINS-I tool (Risk of Bias in Non-randomized Studies of Interventions) for non-randomized studies or the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organization of Care Group methodology for randomized trials. Study results were summarized narratively. RESULTS: We included 18 studies evaluating 24 EHR nudges. An improvement in care delivery was reported for 79.2% (n = 19; 95% CI, 59.5-90.8) of nudges. Nudges applied were from 5 of 9 possible nudge categories: change choice defaults (n = 9), make information visible (n = 6), change range or composition of options (n = 5), provide reminders (n = 2), and change option-related effort (n = 2). Only one study had a low risk of bias. Nudges targeted ordering of medications, laboratory tests, imaging, and appropriateness of care. Few studies evaluated long-term effects. DISCUSSION: Nudges in EHRs can improve care delivery. Future work could explore a wider range of nudges and evaluate long-term effects. CONCLUSION: Nudges can be implemented in EHRs to improve care delivery within current system capabilities; however, as with all digital interventions, careful consideration of the sociotechnical system is crucial to enhance their effectiveness.

Temporal and regional trends of antibiotic use in long-term aged care facilities across 39 countries, 1985-2019: Systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Antibiotic misuse is a key contributor to antimicrobial resistance and a concern in long-term aged care facilities (LTCFs). Our objectives were to: i) summarise key indicators of systemic antibiotic use and appropriateness of use, and ii) examine temporal and regional variations in antibiotic use, in LTCFs (PROSPERO registration CRD42018107125). METHODS & FINDINGS: Medline and EMBASE were searched for studies published between 1990-2021 reporting antibiotic use rates in LTCFs. Random effects meta-analysis provided pooled estimates of antibiotic use rates (percentage of residents on an antibiotic on a single day [point prevalence] and over 12 months [period prevalence]; percentage of appropriate prescriptions). Meta-regression examined associations between antibiotic use, year of measurement and region. A total of 90 articles representing 78 studies from 39 countries with data between 1985-2019 were included. Pooled estimates of point prevalence and 12-month period prevalence were 5.2% (95% CI: 3.3-7.9; n = 523,171) and 62.0% (95% CI: 54.0-69.3; n = 946,127), respectively. Point prevalence varied significantly between regions (Q = 224.1, df = 7, p<0.001), and ranged from 2.4% (95% CI: 1.9-2.7) in Eastern Europe to 9.0% in the British Isles (95% CI: 7.6-10.5) and Northern Europe (95% CI: 7.7-10.5). Twelve-month period prevalence varied significantly between regions (Q = 15.1, df = 3, p = 0.002) and ranged from 53.9% (95% CI: 48.3-59.4) in the British Isles to 68.3% (95% CI: 63.6-72.7) in Australia. Meta-regression found no association between year of measurement and antibiotic use prevalence. The pooled estimate of the percentage of appropriate antibiotic prescriptions was 28.5% (95% CI: 10.3-58.0; n = 17,245) as assessed by the McGeer criteria. Year of measurement was associated with decreasing appropriateness of antibiotic use over time (OR:0.78, 95% CI: 0.67-0.91). The most frequently used antibiotic classes were penicillins (n = 44 studies), cephalosporins (n = 36), sulphonamides/trimethoprim (n = 31), and quinolones (n = 28). CONCLUSIONS: Coordinated efforts focusing on LTCFs are required to address antibiotic misuse in LTCFs. Our analysis provides overall baseline and regional estimates for future monitoring of antibiotic use in LTCFs.

Associations between double-checking and medication administration errors: a direct observational study of paediatric inpatients.

BACKGROUND: Double-checking the administration of medications has been standard practice in paediatric hospitals around the world for decades. While the practice is widespread, evidence of its effectiveness in reducing errors or harm is scarce. OBJECTIVES: To measure the association between double-checking, and the occurrence and potential severity of medication administration errors (MAEs); check duration; and factors associated with double-checking adherence. METHODS: Direct observational study of 298 nurses, administering 5140 medication doses to 1523 patients, across nine wards, in a paediatric hospital. Independent observers recorded details of administrations and double-checking (independent; primed-one nurse shares information which may influence the checking nurse; incomplete; or none) in real time during weekdays and weekends between 07:00 and 22:00. Observational medication data were compared with patients' medical records by a reviewer (blinded to checking-status), to identify MAEs. MAEs were rated for potential severity. Observations included administrations where double-checking was mandated, or optional. Multivariable regression examined the association between double-checking, MAEs and potential severity; and factors associated with policy adherence. RESULTS: For 3563 administrations double-checking was mandated. Of these, 36 (1·0%) received independent double-checks, 3296 (92·5%) primed and 231 (6·5%) no/incomplete double-checks. For 1577 administrations double-checking was not mandatory, but in 26·3% (n=416) nurses chose to double-check. Where double-checking was mandated there was no significant association between double-checking and MAEs (OR 0·89 (0·65-1·21); p=0·44), or potential MAE severity (OR 0·86 (0·65-1·15); p=0·31). Where double-checking was not mandated, but performed, MAEs were less likely to occur (OR 0·71 (0·54-0·95); p=0·02) and had lower potential severity (OR 0·75 (0·57-0·99); p=0·04). Each double-check took an average of 6·4 min (107 hours/1000 administrations). CONCLUSIONS: Compliance with mandated double-checking was very high, but rarely independent. Primed double-checking was highly prevalent but compared with single-checking conferred no benefit in terms of reduced errors or severity. Our findings raise questions about if, when and how double-checking policies deliver safety benefits and warrant the considerable resource investments required in modern clinical settings.

How effective are electronic medication systems in reducing medication error rates and associated harm among hospital inpatients? A systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess: 1) changes in medication error rates and associated patient harm following electronic medication system (EMS) implementation; and 2) evidence of system-related medication errors facilitated by the use of an EMS. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We searched Medline, Scopus, Embase, and CINAHL for studies published between January 2005 and March 2019, comparing medication errors rates with or without assessments of related harm (actual or potential) before and after EMS implementation. EMS was defined as a computer-based system enabling the prescribing, supply, and/or administration of medicines. Study quality was assessed. RESULTS: There was substantial heterogeneity in outcomes of the 18 included studies. Only 2 were strong quality. Meta-analysis of 5 studies reporting change in actual harm post-EMS showed no reduced risk (RR: 1.22, 95% CI: 0.18-8.38, P = .8) and meta-analysis of 3 studies reporting change in administration errors found a significant reduction in error rates (RR: 0.77, 95% CI: 0.72-0.83, P = .004). Of 10 studies of prescribing error rates, 9 reported a reduction but variable denominators precluded meta-analysis. Twelve studies provided specific examples of system-related medication errors; 5 quantified their occurrence. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: Despite the wide-scale adoption of EMS in hospitals around the world, the quality of evidence about their effectiveness in medication error and associated harm reduction is variable. Some confidence can be placed in the ability of systems to reduce prescribing error rates. However, much is still unknown about mechanisms which may be most effective in improving medication safety and design features which facilitate new error risks.

Prevalence of Medication Errors Among Paediatric Inpatients: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

INTRODUCTION: The risk of medication errors is high in paediatric inpatient settings. However, estimates of the prevalence of medication errors have not accounted for heterogeneity across studies in error identification methods and definitions, nor contextual differences across wards and the use of electronic or paper medication charts. OBJECTIVE: Our aim was to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to provide separate estimates of the prevalence of medication errors among paediatric inpatients, depending on hospital ward and the use of electronic or paper medication charts, that address differences in error identification methods and definitions. METHODS: We systematically searched five databases to identify studies published between January 2000 and December 2018 that assessed medication error rates by medication chart audit, direct observation or a combination of methods. RESULTS: We identified 71 studies, 19 involved paediatric wards using electronic charts. Most studies assessed prescribing errors with few studies assessing administration errors. Estimates varied by ward type. Studies of paediatric wards using electronic charts generally reported a reduced error prevalence compared to those using paper, although there were some inconsistencies. Error detection methods impacted the rate of administration errors in studies of multiple wards, however, no other difference was found. Definition of medication error did not have a consistent impact on reported error rates. CONCLUSIONS: Medication errors are a frequent occurrence in paediatric inpatient settings, particularly in intensive care wards and emergency departments. Hospitals using electronic charts tended to have a lower rate of medication errors compared to those using paper charts. Future research employing controlled designs is needed to determine the true impact of electronic charts and other interventions on medication errors and associated harm among hospitalized children.

Standardising the Classification of Harm Associated with Medication Errors: The Harm Associated with Medication Error Classification (HAMEC).

Classifying harm associated with a medication error can be time consuming and labour intensive and limited studies undertake this step. There is no standardised process, and few studies that report harm assessment provide adequate methods to allow for study replication. Studies typically mention that a clinical review panel classified patient harm and provide a reference to a classification tool. Moreover, in many studies it is unclear whether potential or actual harm was classified as studies refer only to 'error severity'. The tools used to categorise the severity of patient harm vary widely across studies and few have been assessed for inter-rater reliability and criterion validity. In this paper, we describe the systematic process we undertook to synthesise the defining elements and strengths, while mitigating the limitations, of existing harm classification tools to derive the Harm Associated with Medication Error Classification (HAMEC). This new tool provides a harm classification for use across clinical and research settings. The provision of an explicit process for its application and guiding category descriptors are designed to reduce the risk of misclassification and produce results that are comparable across studies. As the World Health Organisation embarks on its international safety challenge of reducing medication-related harm by 50%, accompanying methodological advances are required to measure progress.

The Prevalence of Dose Errors Among Paediatric Patients in Hospital Wards with and without Health Information Technology: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

INTRODUCTION: The risk of dose errors is high in paediatric inpatient settings. Computerized provider order entry (CPOE) systems with clinical decision support (CDS) may assist in reducing the risk of dosing errors. Although a frequent type of medication error, the prevalence of dose errors is not well described. Dosing error rates in hospitals with or without CPOE have not been compared. OBJECTIVE: Our aim was to conduct a systematic review assessing the prevalence and impact of dose errors in paediatric wards with and without CPOE and/or CDS. METHODS: We systematically searched five databases to identify studies published between January 2000 and December 2017 that assessed dose error rates by medication chart audit or direct observation. RESULTS: We identified 39 studies, nine of which involved paediatric wards using CPOE with or without CDS. Studies of paediatric wards using paper medication charts reported approximately 8-25% of patients experiencing a dose error, and approximately 2-6% of medication orders and approximately 3-8% of dose administrations contained a dose error, with estimates varying by ward type. The nine studies of paediatric wards using CPOE reported approximately 22% of patients experiencing a dose error, and approximately 1-6% of medication orders and approximately 3-8% of dose administrations contained a dose error. Few studies provided data for individual wards. The severity and prevalence of harm associated with dose errors was rarely assessed and showed inconsistent results. CONCLUSIONS: Dose errors occur in approximately 1 in 20 medication orders. Hospitals using CPOE with or without CDS had a lower rate of dose errors compared with those using paper charts. However, few pre/post studies have been conducted and none reported a significant reduction in dose error rates associated with the introduction of CPOE. Future research employing controlled designs is needed to determine the true impact of CPOE on dosing errors among children, and any associated patient harm.

Preventable Adverse Drug Events Among Inpatients: A Systematic Review.

: media-1vid110.1542/5799876436001PEDS-VA_2018-0805Video Abstract CONTEXT: Patient harm resulting from medication errors drives prevention efforts, yet harm associated with medication errors in children has not been systematically reviewed. OBJECTIVE: To review the incidence and severity of preventable adverse drug events (pADEs) resulting from medication errors in pediatric inpatient settings. DATA SOURCES: Data sources included Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Medline, Scopus, the Cochrane Library, and Embase. STUDY SELECTION: Selected studies were published between January 2000 and December 2017, written in the English language, and measured pADEs among pediatric hospital inpatients by chart review or direct observation. DATA EXTRACTION: Data extracted were medication error and harm definitions, pADE incidence and severity rates, items required for quality assessment, and sample details. RESULTS: Twenty-two studies were included. For children in general pediatric wards, incidence was at 0 to 17 pADEs per 1000 patient days or 1.3% of medication errors (of any type) compared with 0 to 29 pADEs per 1000 patient days or 1.5% of medication errors in ICUs. Hospital-wide studies contained reports of up to 74 pADEs per 1000 patient days or 2.6% of medication errors. The severity of pADEs was mainly minor. LIMITATIONS: Limited literature on the severity of pADEs is available. Additional study will better illuminate differences among hospital wards and among those with or without health information technology. CONCLUSIONS: Medication errors in pediatric settings seldom result in patient harm, and if they do, harm is predominantly of minor severity. Implementing health information technologies was associated with reduced incidence of harm.

The Cannabis Information Helpline: Assessing Interest in the Medicinal Use of Cannabis in Australia.

BACKGROUND: The majority of Australians support a change in legislation to allow the use of cannabis for medical purposes. Despite strong public support, very little is known about the patterns of medicinal cannabis use among Australians. OBJECTIVES: This study aims to gain a better understanding of Australian medicinal cannabis users and their patterns of use. METHODS: The nature of calls to the Cannabis Information and Helpline (N = 15701), a free national service for Australians with concerns regarding cannabis use, were investigated to determine the number of calls made by those who inquired about the medicinal use of cannabis (N = 275) and the implied reasons for use among those who identify using cannabis in this way. RESULTS: The majority of medicinal cannabis inquirers mentioned cannabis to alleviate pain. Further, compared to other callers, medicinal cannabis inquirers were more likely to be male, unemployed, older, and have recently started using cannabis. CONCLUSIONS: These findings highlight the need for future research to better understand the issues faced by Australians regarding the use of cannabis for medicinal purposes and how they may be meaningfully addressed. Particular focus should be placed toward older, unemployed males.

Psychosocial interventions for cannabis use disorder.

BACKGROUND: Cannabis use disorder is the most commonly reported illegal substance use disorder in the general population; although demand for assistance from health services is increasing internationally, only a minority of those with the disorder seek professional assistance. Treatment studies have been published, but pressure to establish public policy requires an updated systematic review of cannabis-specific treatments for adults. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the efficacy of psychosocial interventions for cannabis use disorder (compared with inactive control and/or alternative treatment) delivered to adults in an out-patient or community setting. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2015, Issue 6), MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, the Cumulaive Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) and reference lists of articles. Searched literature included all articles published before July 2015. SELECTION CRITERIA: All randomised controlled studies examining a psychosocial intervention for cannabis use disorder (without pharmacological intervention) in comparison with a minimal or inactive treatment control or alternative combinations of psychosocial interventions. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures as expected by The Cochrane Collaboration. MAIN RESULTS: We included 23 randomised controlled trials involving 4045 participants. A total of 15 studies took place in the United States, two in Australia, two in Germany and one each in Switzerland, Canada, Brazil and Ireland. Investigators delivered treatments over approximately seven sessions (range, one to 14) for approximately 12 weeks (range, one to 56).Overall, risk of bias across studies was moderate, that is, no trial was at high risk of selection bias, attrition bias or reporting bias. Further, trials included a large total number of participants, and each trial ensured the fidelity of treatments provided. In contrast, because of the nature of the interventions provided, participant blinding was not possible, and reports of researcher blinding often were unclear or were not provided. Half of the reviewed studies included collateral verification or urinalysis to confirm self report data, leading to concern about performance and detection bias. Finally, concerns of other bias were based on relatively consistent lack of assessment of non-cannabis substance use or use of additional treatments before or during the trial period.A subset of studies provided sufficient detail for comparison of effects of any intervention versus inactive control on primary outcomes of interest at early follow-up (median, four months). Results showed moderate-quality evidence that approximately seven out of 10 intervention participants completed treatment as intended (effect size (ES) 0.71, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.63 to 0.78, 11 studies, 1424 participants), and that those receiving psychosocial intervention used cannabis on fewer days compared with those given inactive control (mean difference (MD) 5.67, 95% CI 3.08 to 8.26, six studies, 1144 participants). In addition, low-quality evidence revealed that those receiving intervention were more likely to report point-prevalence abstinence (risk ratio (RR) 2.55, 95% CI 1.34 to 4.83, six studies, 1166 participants) and reported fewer symptoms of dependence (standardised mean difference (SMD) 4.15, 95% CI 1.67 to 6.63, four studies, 889 participants) and cannabis-related problems compared with those given inactive control (SMD 3.34, 95% CI 1.26 to 5.42, six studies, 2202 participants). Finally, very low-quality evidence indicated that those receiving intervention reported using fewer joints per day compared with those given inactive control (SMD 3.55, 95% CI 2.51 to 4.59, eight studies, 1600 participants). Notably, subgroup analyses found that interventions of more than four sessions delivered over longer than one month (high intensity) produced consistently improved outcomes (particularly in terms of cannabis use frequency and severity of dependence) in the short term as compared with low-intensity interventions.The most consistent evidence supports the use of cognitive-behavioural therapy (CBT), motivational enhancement therapy (MET) and particularly their combination for assisting with reduction of cannabis use frequency at early follow-up (MET: MD 4.45, 95% CI 1.90 to 7.00, four studies, 612 participants; CBT: MD 10.94, 95% CI 7.44 to 14.44, one study, 134 participants; MET + CBT: MD 7.38, 95% CI 3.18 to 11.57, three studies, 398 participants) and severity of dependence (MET: SMD 4.07, 95% CI 1.97 to 6.17, two studies, 316 participants; MET + CBT: SMD 7.89, 95% CI 0.93 to 14.85, three studies, 573 participants), although no particular intervention was consistently effective at nine-month follow-up or later. In addition, data from five out of six studies supported the utility of adding voucher-based incentives for cannabis-negative urines to enhance treatment effect on cannabis use frequency. A single study found contrasting results throughout a 12-month follow-up period, as post-treatment outcomes related to overall reduction in cannabis use frequency favoured CBT alone without the addition of abstinence-based or treatment adherence-based contingency management. In contrast, evidence of drug counselling, social support, relapse prevention and mindfulness meditation was weak because identified studies were few, information on treatment outcomes insufficient and rates of treatment adherence low. In line with treatments for other substance use, abstinence rates were relatively low overall, with approximately one-quarter of participants abstinent at final follow-up. Finally, three studies found that intervention was comparable with treatment as usual among participants in psychiatric clinics and reported no between-group differences in any of the included outcomes. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Included studies were heterogeneous in many aspects, and important questions regarding the most effective duration, intensity and type of intervention were raised and partially resolved. Generalisability of findings was unclear, most notably because of the limited number of localities and homogeneous samples of treatment seekers. The rate of abstinence was low and unstable although comparable with treatments for other substance use. Psychosocial intervention was shown, in comparison with minimal treatment controls, to reduce frequency of use and severity of dependence in a fairly durable manner, at least in the short term. Among the included intervention types, an intensive intervention provided over more than four sessions based on the combination of MET and CBT with abstinence-based incentives was most consistently supported for treatment of cannabis use disorder.

The effects of cannabinoid administration on sleep: a systematic review of human studies.

This paper reviews the literature regarding the effects of cannabinoid administration on sleep in humans. A literature search using a set of cannabinoid and sleep-related terms was conducted across eight electronic databases. Human studies that involved the administration of cannabinoids and at least one quantitative sleep-related measure were included. Review papers, opinion pieces, letters or editorials, case studies (final N < 7), published abstracts, posters, and non-English papers were excluded. Thirty-nine publications were included in the review. Findings were mixed and showed various effects of cannabinoid administration on several aspects of sleep. Methodological issues in the majority of studies to date, however, preclude any definitive conclusion.

Applying technology to the treatment of cannabis use disorder: comparing telephone versus Internet delivery using data from two completed trials.

Technology-based interventions such as those delivered by telephone or online may assist in removing significant barriers to treatment seeking for cannabis use disorder. Little research, however, has addressed differing technology-based treatments regarding their comparative effectiveness, and how user profiles may affect compliance and treatment satisfaction. This study addressed this issue by examining these factors in online (N=225) versus telephone (N=160) delivered interventions for cannabis use, using data obtained from two previously published randomized controlled trials conducted by the current authors. Several differences emerged including stronger treatment effects (medium to large effect sizes in the telephone study versus small effect sizes in the Web study) and lower dropout in the telephone intervention (38% vs. 46%). Additionally, around half of the telephone study participants sought concurrent treatment, compared with 2% of participants in the Web study. Demographics and predictors of treatment engagement, retention and satisfaction also varied between the studies. Findings indicate that both telephone and Web-based treatments can be effective in assisting cannabis users to quit or reduce their use; however, participant characteristics may have important implications for treatment preference and outcome, with those who elect telephone-based treatment experiencing stronger outcomes. Thus, participant preference may shape study populations, adherence, and outcome.

Experiences of Australian school staff in addressing student cannabis use.

Cannabis is the most frequently used illicit drug by Australian secondary school students yet there is scant research investigating school staff responses to student cannabis use. As such, this study surveyed 1,692 school staff who attended Generation Next seminars throughout Australia. The self-complete survey identified that the majority of school staff had discussed cannabis use at least once in the past year, although teachers were less likely to report having cannabis-related discussions compared to other school staff. Staff drug education training was consistently associated with an increased prevalence of cannabis-related discussion and assistance. These findings highlight a need for drug education among school staff and particularly among teachers.

Perceived role legitimacy and role importance of Australian school staff in addressing student cannabis use.

The high prevalence of cannabis use by Australian secondary school students makes schools an ideal setting for the delivery of substance use prevention programs. Although efficacious school-based cannabis prevention programs exist, there is scant research investigating the perceived role legitimacy and role importance of school staff. As such, this study surveyed a sample of 1691 Australian school staff by utilizing Generation Next seminars which are attended by professionals working with young people. The self-completed survey identified that, despite elevated contact with students relative to other school staff, teachers reported the least role importance and legitimacy of all school staff. Further, teachers reported the lowest level of staff drug education training, which was an important predictor of an increased feeling of role importance and legitimacy among school staff.

An evaluation of web-based clinical practice guidelines for managing problems associated with cannabis use.

BACKGROUND: Cannabis is the most widely used illicit substance, and multiple treatment options and avenues exist for managing its use. There has been an increase in the development of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) to improve standards of care in this area, many of which are disseminated online. However, little is known about the quality and accessibility of these online CPGs. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of study 1 was to determine the extent to which cannabis-related CPGs disseminated online adhere to established methodological standards. The purpose of study 2 was to determine if treatment providers are familiar with these guidelines and to assess their perceived quality of these guidelines. METHODS: Study 1 involved a systematic search using the Google Scholar search engine and the National Drugs Sector Information Service (NDSIS) website of the Alcohol and Other Drugs Council of Australia (ADCA) to identify CPGs disseminated online. To be included in the current study, CPGs needed to be free of charge and provide guidance on psychological interventions for reducing cannabis use. Four trained reviewers independently assessed the quality of the 7 identified guidelines using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE II) tool. Study 2 assessed 166 Australian cannabis-use treatment providers' (mean age = 45.47 years, SD 12.14) familiarity with and opinions of these 7 guidelines using an online survey. Treatment providers were recruited using online advertisements that directed volunteers to a link to complete the survey, which was posted online for 6 months (January to June 2012). Primary study outcomes included quality scores and rates of guideline familiarity, guideline use, and discovery methods. RESULTS: Based on the AGREE II, the quality of CPGs varied considerably. Across different reporting domains, adherence to methodological standards ranged from 0% to 92%. Quality was lowest in the domains of rigor of development (50%), applicability (46%), and editorial independence (30%). Although examination of AGREE II domain scores demonstrated that the quality of the 7 guidelines could be divided into 3 categories (high quality, acceptable to low quality, and very low quality), review of treatment providers' quality perceptions indicated all guidelines fell into 1 category (acceptable quality). Based on treatment providers' familiarity with and usage rates of the CPGs, a combination of peer/colleagues, senior professionals, workshops, and Internet dissemination was deemed to be most effective for promoting cannabis use CPGs. Lack of time, guideline length, conflicts with theoretical orientation, and prior content knowledge were identified as barriers to guideline uptake. CONCLUSIONS: Developers of CPGs should improve their reporting of development processes, conflicts of interest, and CPGs' applicability to practice, while remaining cognizant that long guidelines may deter implementation. Treatment providers need to be aware that the quality of cannabis-related CPGs varies substantially.

Randomized controlled trial of a novel cannabis use intervention delivered by telephone.

AIMS: To evaluate the efficacy of a telephone-based intervention consisting of four sessions of motivational interviewing (MI) and cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) designed to assist individuals to reduce their cannabis use and related problems. DESIGN: Random allocation to intervention or delayed treatment control with 4- and 12-week follow-up assessments. SETTING: Counsellors from the Cannabis Information and Helpline (CIH), an Australian reactive telephone service, delivered the intervention to callers seeking treatment. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 160 participants were recruited by the CIH, with 110 participants completing the final follow-up assessment (69% retention). MEASUREMENTS: Cannabis use, dependence and related problems and other substance use were assessed at baseline and follow-up. FINDINGS: Intervention participants reported greater reductions in dependence symptoms [P < 0.001, d = 0.9 (0.5-1.3)] and related problems [P < 0.001, d = 0.5 (0.1-0.9)] compared with control participants at both follow-up assessments. Compared with control, intervention participants reported greater confidence to reduce cannabis use at 4 weeks [P = 0.002, d = 0.5 (0.1-0.9)], and in turn reported a greater percentage of abstinent days at 12 weeks [P = 0.019, d = 0.6 (0.2-1.0)]. CONCLUSIONS: A brief course of motivational interviewing plus cognitive behavioural therapy delivered by telephone can help to reduce cannabis dependence and promote abstinence in the short term.