The effectiveness of social marketing in global health: a systematic review.

Social marketing is a commonly used strategy in global health. Social marketing programmes may sell subsidized products through commercial sector outlets, distribute appropriately priced products, deliver health services through social franchises and promote behaviours not dependent upon a product or service. We aimed to review evidence of the effectiveness of social marketing in low- and middle-income countries, focusing on major areas of investment in global health: HIV, reproductive health, child survival, malaria and tuberculosis. We searched PubMed, PsycInfo and ProQuest, using search terms linking social marketing and health outcomes for studies published from 1995 to 2013. Eligible studies used experimental or quasi-experimental designs to measure outcomes of behavioural factors, health behaviours and/or health outcomes in each health area. Studies were analysed by effect estimates and for application of social marketing benchmark criteria. After reviewing 18 974 records, 125 studies met inclusion criteria. Across health areas, 81 studies reported on changes in behavioural factors, 97 studies reported on changes in behaviour and 42 studies reported on health outcomes. The greatest number of studies focused on HIV outcomes (n = 45) and took place in sub-Saharan Africa (n = 67). Most studies used quasi-experimental designs and reported mixed results. Child survival had proportionately the greatest number of studies using experimental designs, reporting health outcomes, and reporting positive, statistically significant results. Most programmes used a range of methods to promote behaviour change. Programmes with positive, statistically significant findings were more likely to apply audience insights and cost-benefit analyses to motivate behaviour change. Key evidence gaps were found in voluntary medical male circumcision and childhood pneumonia. Social marketing can influence health behaviours and health outcomes in global health; however evaluations assessing health outcomes remain comparatively limited. Global health investments are needed to (i) fill evidence gaps, (ii) strengthen evaluation rigour and (iii) expand effective social marketing approaches.

Genetic polymorphisms and response to medications for alcohol use disorders: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

AIM: To assess whether response to medications for alcohol use disorders varies by genotype. METHODS: Systematic review and meta-analysis. RESULTS: We found no studies that assessed the clinical utility of genotype-guided dosing strategies or genotype-guided medication selection, and none randomized by genotype. All included studies assessed the association between genotype and response to medication. Of 15 included studies, eight (n = 1365 participants) assessed variation in naltrexone response and polymorphisms of OPRM1. Our meta-analyses for return to heavy drinking found no significant difference between A allele homozygotes and those with at least one G allele, both without (risk difference: 0.26; 95% CI: -0.01-0.53; n = 174) and with inclusion of studies rated as high or unclear risk of bias (risk difference: 0.14; 95% CI: -0.03-0.3; n = 382). For all other polymorphism-medication pairs, we found just one eligible study. CONCLUSION: Estimates of effect for return to heavy drinking suggest it is possible that patients with at least one G allele of A118G polymorphism of OPRM1 might be more likely to respond to naltrexone, but confidence intervals were wide; additional studies are needed to improve confidence in the estimates.

Screening for asymptomatic carotid artery stenosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force.

BACKGROUND: Approximately 10% of ischemic strokes are caused by carotid artery stenosis (CAS). Estimated prevalence of asymptomatic CAS is 1%. PURPOSE: To evaluate evidence on screening and treating asymptomatic adults for CAS. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, the Cochrane Library, EMBASE, and trial registries through September 2013; MEDLINE through March 2014 for trials. STUDY SELECTION: Good- or fair-quality trials of screening, carotid endarterectomy (CEA), or stenting compared with medical therapy or of intensification of medical therapy; systematic reviews; multi-institution studies reporting harms; and externally validated risk-stratification tools. DATA EXTRACTION: Dual extraction and quality assessment. DATA SYNTHESIS: No trials compared screening with no screening or stenting with medical therapy or assessed intensification of medical therapy, and no externally validated, reliable risk-stratification tools were found. Given the specificity of ultrasonography (range, 88% to 94% for CAS ≥ 50% to ≥ 70%), its use in low-prevalence populations would yield many false-positive results. Absolute reduction of nonperioperative strokes was 5.5% (95% CI, 3.9% to 7.0%; 3 trials; 5223 participants) over approximately 5 years for CEA compared with medical therapy. The 30-day rates of stroke or death after CEA in trials and cohort studies were 2.4% (CI, 1.7% to 3.1%; 6 trials; 3435 participants) and 3.3% (CI, 2.7% to 3.9%; 7 studies; 17474 participants), respectively. Other harms of interventions included myocardial infarction, nerve injury, and hematoma. LIMITATIONS: Trials may have overestimated benefits and used highly selected surgeons. Medical therapy used in trials was outdated, and stroke rates have declined in recent decades. Harms may have been underreported. CONCLUSION: Current evidence does not establish incremental overall benefit of CEA, stenting, or intensification of medical therapy. Potential for overall benefit is limited by low prevalence and harms. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.

Pharmacotherapy for adults with alcohol use disorders in outpatient settings: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

IMPORTANCE: Alcohol use disorders cause substantial morbidity and early mortality yet remain greatly undertreated. Medications are considerably underused. OBJECTIVE: To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of the benefits and harms of medications (US FDA-approved and others) for adults with alcohol use disorders. DATA SOURCES: PubMed, Cochrane Library, PsycINFO, CINAHL, EMBASE, FDA website, and clinical trials registries (January 1, 1970, to March 1, 2014). STUDY SELECTION: Two reviewers selected randomized clinical trials (RCTs) with at least 12 weeks' duration that reported eligible outcomes and head-to-head prospective cohort studies reporting health outcomes or harms. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: We conducted meta-analyses using random-effects models and calculated numbers needed to treat for benefit (NNTs) or harm (NNHs). MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Alcohol consumption, motor vehicle crashes, injuries, quality of life, function, mortality, and harms. RESULTS: We included 122 RCTs and 1 cohort study (total 22,803 participants). Most assessed acamprosate (27 studies, n = 7519), naltrexone (53 studies, n = 9140), or both. The NNT to prevent return to any drinking for acamprosate was 12 (95% CI, 8 to 26; risk difference [RD], -0.09; 95% CI, -0.14 to -0.04) and was 20 (95% CI, 11 to 500; RD, -0.05; 95% CI, -0.10 to -0.002) for oral naltrexone (50 mg/d). The NNT to prevent return to heavy drinking was 12 (95% CI, 8 to 26; RD -0.09; 95% CI, -0.13 to -0.04) for oral naltrexone (50 mg/d). Meta-analyses of trials comparing acamprosate to naltrexone found no statistically significant difference between them for return to any drinking (RD, 0.02; 95% CI, -0.03 to 0.08) or heavy drinking (RD, 0.01; 95% CI, -0.05 to 0.06). For injectable naltrexone, meta-analyses found no association with return to any drinking (RD, -0.04; 95% CI, -0.10 to 0.03) or heavy drinking (RD, -0.01; 95% CI, -0.14 to 0.13) but found an association with reduction in heavy drinking days (weighted mean difference [WMD], -4.6%; 95% CI, -8.5% to -0.56%). Among medications used off-label, moderate evidence supports an association with improvement in some consumption outcomes for nalmefene (heavy drinking days per month: WMD, -2.0; 95% CI, -3.0 to -1.0; drinks per drinking day: WMD, -1.02; 95% CI, -1.77 to -0.28) and topiramate (% heavy drinking days: WMD, -9.0%; 95% CI, -15.3% to -2.7%; drinks per drinking day: WMD, -1.0; 95% CI, -1.6 to -0.48). For naltrexone and nalmefene, NNHs for withdrawal from trials due to adverse events were 48 (95% CI, 30 to 112) and 12 (95% CI, 7 to 50), respectively; risk was not significantly increased for acamprosate or topiramate. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Both acamprosate and oral naltrexone were associated with reduction in return to drinking. When directly compared with one another, no significant differences were found between acamprosate and naltrexone for controlling alcohol consumption. Factors such as dosing frequency, potential adverse events, and availability of treatments may guide medication choice.