Interventions outside the workplace for reducing sedentary behaviour in adults under 60 years of age.

BACKGROUND: Adults spend a majority of their time outside the workplace being sedentary. Large amounts of sedentary behaviour increase the risk of type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and both all-cause and cardiovascular disease mortality. OBJECTIVES: Primary • To assess effects on sedentary time of non-occupational interventions for reducing sedentary behaviour in adults under 60 years of age Secondary • To describe other health effects and adverse events or unintended consequences of these interventions • To determine whether specific components of interventions are associated with changes in sedentary behaviour • To identify if there are any differential effects of interventions based on health inequalities (e.g. age, sex, income, employment) SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, CINAHL, PsycINFO, SportDiscus, and ClinicalTrials.gov on 14 April 2020. We checked references of included studies, conducted forward citation searching, and contacted authors in the field to identify additional studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and cluster RCTs of interventions outside the workplace for community-dwelling adults aged 18 to 59 years. We included studies only when the intervention had a specific aim or component to change sedentary behaviour. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently screened titles/abstracts and full-text articles for study eligibility. Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias. We contacted trial authors for additional information or data when required. We examined the following primary outcomes: device-measured sedentary time, self-report sitting time, self-report TV viewing time, and breaks in sedentary time. MAIN RESULTS: We included 13 trials involving 1770 participants, all undertaken in high-income countries. Ten were RCTs and three were cluster RCTs. The mean age of study participants ranged from 20 to 41 years. A majority of participants were female. All interventions were delivered at the individual level. Intervention components included personal monitoring devices, information or education, counselling, and prompts to reduce sedentary behaviour. We judged no study to be at low risk of bias across all domains. Seven studies were at high risk of bias for blinding of outcome assessment due to use of self-report outcomes measures. Primary outcomes Interventions outside the workplace probably show little or no difference in device-measured sedentary time in the short term (mean difference (MD) -8.36 min/d, 95% confidence interval (CI) -27.12 to 10.40; 4 studies; I² = 0%; moderate-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether interventions reduce device-measured sedentary time in the medium term (MD -51.37 min/d, 95% CI -126.34 to 23.59; 3 studies; I² = 84%; very low-certainty evidence) We are uncertain whether interventions outside the workplace reduce self-report sitting time in the short term (MD -64.12 min/d, 95% CI -260.91 to 132.67; I² = 86%; very low-certainty evidence). Interventions outside the workplace may show little or no difference in self-report TV viewing time in the medium term (MD -12.45 min/d, 95% CI -50.40 to 25.49; 2 studies; I² = 86%; low-certainty evidence) or in the long term (MD 0.30 min/d, 95% CI -0.63 to 1.23; 2 studies; I² = 0%; low-certainty evidence). It was not possible to pool the five studies that reported breaks in sedentary time given the variation in definitions used. Secondary outcomes Interventions outside the workplace probably have little or no difference on body mass index in the medium term (MD -0.25 kg/m², 95% CI -0.48 to -0.01; 3 studies; I² = 0%; moderate-certainty evidence). Interventions may have little or no difference in waist circumference in the medium term (MD -2.04 cm, 95% CI -9.06 to 4.98; 2 studies; I² = 65%; low-certainty evidence). Interventions probably have little or no difference on glucose in the short term (MD -0.18 mmol/L, 95% CI -0.30 to -0.06; 2 studies; I² = 0%; moderate-certainty evidence) and medium term (MD -0.08 mmol/L, 95% CI -0.21 to 0.05; 2 studies, I² = 0%; moderate-certainty evidence) Interventions outside the workplace may have little or no difference in device-measured MVPA in the short term (MD 1.99 min/d, 95% CI -4.27 to 8.25; 4 studies; I² = 23%; low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether interventions improve device-measured MVPA in the medium term (MD 6.59 min/d, 95% CI -7.35 to 20.53; 3 studies; I² = 70%; very low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether interventions outside the workplace improve self-reported light-intensity PA in the short-term (MD 156.32 min/d, 95% CI 34.34 to 278.31; 2 studies; I² = 79%; very low-certainty evidence). Interventions may have little or no difference on step count in the short-term (MD 226.90 steps/day, 95% CI -519.78 to 973.59; 3 studies; I² = 0%; low-certainty evidence) No data on adverse events or symptoms were reported in the included studies. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Interventions outside the workplace to reduce sedentary behaviour probably lead to little or no difference in device-measured sedentary time in the short term, and we are uncertain if they reduce device-measured sedentary time in the medium term. We are uncertain whether interventions outside the workplace reduce self-reported sitting time in the short term. Interventions outside the workplace may result in little or no difference in self-report TV viewing time in the medium or long term. The certainty of evidence is moderate to very low, mainly due to concerns about risk of bias, inconsistent findings, and imprecise results. Future studies should be of longer duration; should recruit participants from varying age, socioeconomic, or ethnic groups; and should gather quality of life, cost-effectiveness, and adverse event data. We strongly recommend that standard methods of data preparation and analysis are adopted to allow comparison of the effects of interventions to reduce sedentary behaviour.

Psychosocial interventions to reduce alcohol consumption in concurrent problem alcohol and illicit drug users.

BACKGROUND: Problem alcohol use is common among people who use illicit drugs (PWID) and is associated with adverse health outcomes. It is also an important factor contributing to a poor prognosis among drug users with hepatitis C virus (HCV) as it impacts on progression to hepatic cirrhosis or opioid overdose in PWID. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of psychosocial interventions to reduce alcohol consumption in PWID (users of opioids and stimulants). SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Drugs and Alcohol Group trials register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and PsycINFO, from inception up to August 2017, and the reference lists of eligible articles. We also searched: 1) conference proceedings (online archives only) of the Society for the Study of Addiction, International Harm Reduction Association, International Conference on Alcohol Harm Reduction and American Association for the Treatment of Opioid Dependence; and 2) online registers of clinical trials: Current Controlled Trials, ClinicalTrials.gov, Center Watch and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials comparing psychosocial interventions with other psychosocial treatment, or treatment as usual, in adult PWIDs (aged at least 18 years) with concurrent problem alcohol use. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used the standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. MAIN RESULTS: We included seven trials (825 participants). We judged the majority of the trials to have a high or unclear risk of bias.The psychosocial interventions considered in the studies were: cognitive-behavioural coping skills training (one study), twelve-step programme (one study), brief intervention (three studies), motivational interviewing (two studies), and brief motivational interviewing (one study). Two studies were considered in two comparisons. There were no data for the secondary outcome, alcohol-related harm. The results were as follows.Comparison 1: cognitive-behavioural coping skills training versus twelve-step programme (one study, 41 participants)There was no significant difference between groups for either of the primary outcomes (alcohol abstinence assessed with Substance Abuse Calendar and breathalyser at one year: risk ratio (RR) 2.38 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.10 to 55.06); and retention in treatment, measured at end of treatment: RR 0.89 (95% CI 0.62 to 1.29), or for any of the secondary outcomes reported. The quality of evidence for the primary outcomes was very low.Comparison 2: brief intervention versus treatment as usual (three studies, 197 participants)There was no significant difference between groups for either of the primary outcomes (alcohol use, measured as scores on the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT) or Alcohol, Smoking and Substance Involvement Screening Test (ASSIST) at three months: standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.07 (95% CI -0.24 to 0.37); and retention in treatment, measured at three months: RR 0.94 (95% CI 0.78 to 1.13), or for any of the secondary outcomes reported. The quality of evidence for the primary outcomes was low.Comparison 3: motivational interviewing versus treatment as usual or educational intervention only (three studies, 462 participants)There was no significant difference between groups for either of the primary outcomes (alcohol use, measured as scores on the AUDIT or ASSIST at three months: SMD 0.04 (95% CI -0.29 to 0.37); and retention in treatment, measured at three months: RR 0.93 (95% CI 0.60 to 1.43), or for any of the secondary outcomes reported. The quality of evidence for the primary outcomes was low.Comparison 4: brief motivational intervention (BMI) versus assessment only (one study, 187 participants)More people reduced alcohol use (by seven or more days in the past month, measured at six months) in the BMI group than in the control group (RR 1.67; 95% CI 1.08 to 2.60). There was no difference between groups for the other primary outcome, retention in treatment, measured at end of treatment: RR 0.98 (95% CI 0.94 to 1.02), or for any of the secondary outcomes reported. The quality of evidence for the primary outcomes was moderate.Comparison 5: motivational interviewing (intensive) versus motivational interviewing (one study, 163 participants)There was no significant difference between groups for either of the primary outcomes (alcohol use, measured using the Addiction Severity Index-alcohol score (ASI) at two months: MD 0.03 (95% CI 0.02 to 0.08); and retention in treatment, measured at end of treatment: RR 17.63 (95% CI 1.03 to 300.48), or for any of the secondary outcomes reported. The quality of evidence for the primary outcomes was low. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found low to very low-quality evidence to suggest that there is no difference in effectiveness between different types of psychosocial interventions to reduce alcohol consumption among people who use illicit drugs, and that brief interventions are not superior to assessment-only or to treatment as usual. No firm conclusions can be made because of the paucity of the data and the low quality of the retrieved studies.

Psychosocial interventions for alcohol use among problem drug users: protocol for a feasibility study in primary care.

BACKGROUND: Alcohol use is an important issue among problem drug users. Although screening and brief intervention (SBI) are effective in reducing problem alcohol use in primary care, no research has examined this issue among problem drug users. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study is to determine if a complex intervention including SBI for problem alcohol use among problem drug users is feasible and acceptable in practice. This study also aims to evaluate the effectiveness of the intervention in reducing the proportion of patients with problem alcohol use. METHODS: Psychosocial intervention for alcohol use among problem drug users (PINTA) is a pilot feasibility study of a complex intervention comprising SBI for problem alcohol use among problem drug users with cluster randomization at the level of general practice, integrated qualitative process evaluation, and involving general practices in two socioeconomically deprived regions. Practices (N=16) will be eligible to participate if they are registered to prescribe methadone and/or at least 10 patients of the practice are currently receiving addiction treatment. Patient must meet the following inclusion criteria to participate in this study: 18 years of age or older, receiving addiction treatment/care (eg, methadone), or known to be a problem drug user. This study is based on a complex intervention supporting SBI for problem alcohol use among problem drug users (experimental group) compared to an "assessment-only" control group. Control practices will be provided with a delayed intervention after follow-up. Primary outcomes of the study are feasibility and acceptability of the intervention to patients and practitioners. Secondary outcome includes the effectiveness of the intervention on care process (documented rates of SBI) and outcome (proportion of patients with problem alcohol use at the follow-up). A stratified random sampling method will be used to select general practices based on the level of training for providing addiction-related care and geographical area. In this study, general practitioners and practice staff, researchers, and trainers will not be blinded to treatment, but patients and remote randomizers will be unaware of the treatment. RESULTS: This study is ongoing and a protocol system is being developed for the study. This study may inform future research among the high-risk population of problem drug users by providing initial indications as to whether psychosocial interventions for problem alcohol use are feasible, acceptable, and also effective among problem drug users attending primary care. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first study to examine the feasibility and acceptability of complex intervention in primary care to enhance alcohol SBI among problem drug users. Results of this study will inform future research among this high-risk population and guide policy and service development locally and internationally.

Psychosocial interventions to reduce alcohol consumption in concurrent problem alcohol and illicit drug users: Cochrane Review.

BACKGROUND: Problem alcohol use is common among illicit drug users and is associated with adverse health outcomes. It is also an important factor in poor prognosis among drug users with hepatitis C virus (HCV) as it impacts progression to hepatic cirrhosis or opiate overdose in opioid users. The aim of this systematic review was to assess the effects of psychosocial interventions for problem alcohol use in adult illicit drug users with concurrent problem alcohol use (principally, problem drug users of opiates and stimulants). METHODS: We searched the following databases (November 2011): Cochrane Library, PUBMED, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO and reference list of articles. We also searched conference proceedings and online registers of clinical trials. Two reviewers independently assessed risk of bias and extracted data from included randomized controlled trials. RESULTS: Four studies (594 participants) were included in this review. Half of the trials were rated as having a high or unclear risk of bias. The four studies considered six different psychosocial interventions grouped into four comparisons: 1) cognitive-behavioral coping skills training versus 12-step facilitation (N = 41), 2) brief intervention versus treatment as usual (N = 110), 3) hepatitis health promotion versus motivational interviewing (N = 256), and 4) brief motivational intervention versus assessment-only group (N = 187). Differences between studies precluded any pooling of data. Findings are described for each trial individually. Most findings were not statistically significant except for comparison 2: decreased alcohol use at three months (risk ratio (RR) 0.32; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.19 to 0.54) and nine months (RR 0.16; 95% CI 0.08 to 0.33) in the treatment-as-usual group and comparison 4: reduced alcohol use in the brief motivational intervention (RR 1.67; 95% CI 1.08 to 2.60). CONCLUSIONS: No conclusion can be made because of the paucity of the data and the low quality of the retrieved studies.