RESUMO
Aims: Online interventions reduce the treatment gap between the number of people with alcohol misuse and people who actually receive help. This study investigated the effectiveness and predictors of success of a Belgian online help programme. Methods: A real-life retrospective open cohort study evaluating the guided and unguided internet intervention on the Belgian online platform alcoholhulp.be. The intervention consisted of a 12-week programme based upon cognitive behaviour therapy, motivational interviewing and acceptance and commitment therapy. Inclusion criteria are age above 18 years, recording of alcohol consumption in the daily journal for at least 2 weeks, and minimum 2 chat sessions in the guided group.Outcomes were weekly alcohol consumption after 6 and 12 weeks and treatment response (drinking less than 10 or 20 standard units (SU) per week). Additional analysis was done on predictors of success. Results: A total of 460 participants in the guided group and 968 in the self-help group met the inclusion criteria. Average baseline alcohol consumption in the two groups was 40 SU per week. Alcohol consumption decreased by 31 SU (Cohen's d 1.17, p < 0.001) after 12 weeks in the guided group and 23 SU (Cohen's d 0.83, p < 0.001) in the self-help group. The treatment response below 20 SU per week was 88% for the guided group and 73% for the self-help group. Significantly better results were obtained in the guided group compared to the self-help group (p < 0.005). Participants with a higher baseline alcohol consumption had a higher decrease in alcohol consumption in both groups. The personal goal to quit, the absence of drug use, a lower baseline alcohol consumption and a higher number of completed assignments predict a higher chance of treatment response. Attrition at 6 weeks was 26% in the guided group and 63% in the self-help group and increased to 59% and 82% respectively at 12 weeks. Conclusions: Both guided and unguided internet interventions are effective in reducing alcohol consumption and achieving the guideline for participants motivated to use the platform on a regular base, with better results in guided intervention.
RESUMO
OBJECTIVE: To find out if there is evidence on interventions to prevent aggression against doctors. DESIGN: This systematic review searched the literature and reported in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. DATA SOURCES: Pubmed, Embase, Turning Research into Practice (TRIP), Cochrane and Psycharticle, GoogleScholar and www.guideline.gov were consulted. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Abstracts published in English between January 2000 and January 2018 were screened. Eligible studies focused on prevention and risk factors of type II workplace violence in general healthcare, psychiatric departments, emergency departments, emergency primary care, general practice. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: The selected intervention studies were grouped into quantitative and qualitative studies. Systematic reviews were reported separately. For each study, the design, type of intervention and key findings were analysed. Quality rating was based on Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) and GRADE-Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative Research (CERQUAL). RESULTS: 44 studies are included. One randomised controlled trial (RCT) provided moderate evidence that a violence prevention programme was effective in decreasing risks of violence. Major risk factors are long waiting times, discrepancy between patients' expectations and services, substance abuse by the patient and psychiatric conditions. Appropriate workplace design and policies aim to reduce risk factors but there is no hard evidence on the effectiveness. One RCT provided evidence that a patient risk assessment combined with tailored actions decreased severe aggression events in psychiatric wards. Applying de-escalation techniques during an aggressive event is highly recommended. Postincident reporting followed by root cause analysis of the incident provides the basic input for review and optimisation of violence prevention programmes. CONCLUSIONS: This review documented interventions to prevent and de-escalate aggression against doctors. Aggression against physicians is a serious occupational hazard. There is moderate evidence that an integrated violence prevention programme decreases the risks of patient-to-worker violence. The review failed to gather sufficient numerical data to perform a meta-analysis. A large-scale cohort study would add to a better understanding of the effectiveness of interventions.
