Heterogeneity of definitions and measurements of binge drinking in research on adolescents and young adults.

INTRODUCTION: Binge drinking is a widespread health compromising behaviour among adolescents and young adults and is one of the leading causes of mortality and injuries among this population. The definitions and measurement methods of binge drinking are heterogeneous but constitute a crucial component in the literature on associated factors related to binge drinking. This study focused on how binge drinking is defined and measured in the literature exploring its associated risk factors among adolescents and young adults. METHODS: The databases PubMed, Embase, PsycINFO and Social Care were searched for articles published between 1 January 2006 and 30 April 2020 using 3 concepts: binge drinking; risk or protective factors; and adolescents/young adults with respective key words. Data were extracted on the main characteristics of studies and the parameters of binge drinking measurements. RESULTS: 173 studies were included, mostly cross-sectional (61 %) and longitudinal (38 %). Only 23 % of the studies explicitly referred to a standardised definition of binge drinking even though 76 % of the studies used a consensual threshold of 5 drinks or more for men. A lower threshold for women was applied in 26 % of the studies. Recall periods ranged between 2 weeks and 1 year in 85 % of the studies and only 16 % presented binge drinking in terms of frequency and/or quantity of drinks. CONCLUSION: Our results highlight the heterogeneity in the definitions and measurements of binge drinking, raising concerns for meaningful comparisons between studies focused on factors associated with the behaviour. The scientific community needs to be aware of these variations and address the gap of poor stratification and inconsistencies in binge drinking reporting.

[Latest developments in the non-pharmacological treatment of depression - A more integrative approach]. / Nouveautés dans les traitements non pharmacologiques de la dépression - Place à une approche plus intégrative.

Non-pharmacological treatments of depression have become more widespread recently, especially for mild to moderate forms of depression. These complementary approaches are particularly interesting for patients who are reluctant to start an antidepressant. Novel approaches are found in psychotherapy, alternative treatments, plant-based treatments as well as the prevention of relapse through the use of digital tools. Some are even reimbursed by health insurance. However, these approaches are currently only applicable in combination with usual treatment, pharmacological or psychotherapy, as studies have shown that their efficiency in monotherapy is still limited.

L'intérêt pour les approches non pharmacologiques a augmenté ces dernières années dans la prise en charge des dépressions légères à modérées. Ces nouvelles approches sont intéressantes, notamment pour les patients qui peuvent être réticents à la prise d'un antidépresseur seul. Les nouveautés se trouvent dans les méthodes de psychothérapie, les traitements alternatifs, la phytothérapie ainsi que dans la prévention des rechutes par des outils digitaux. Certaines de ces approches sont remboursées par l'assurance-maladie obligatoire ou complémentaire. Néanmoins, elles restent des traitements complémentaires aux thérapies usuelles, soit pharmacologique et psychothérapeutique, car les preuves de leur efficacité en monothérapie sont encore limitées dans les études.

General practitioners' perspectives on barriers to depression care: development and validation of a questionnaire.

BACKGROUND: General practitioners (GPs) regularly feel challenged by the care of depressed patients and may encounter several barriers in providing best management. GPs' perspectives on barriers to depression care are a subject of growing interest but there is a lack of validated assessment tools. The aim of this study was to develop and validate a questionnaire assessing barriers to depression care (BDC-Q) encountered by GPs in France and the French-speaking part of Switzerland. METHODS: The BDC-Q was constructed in five steps: Item development, content validation, pretesting, testing phase and test-retest reliability. The questionnaire items were generated through a literature search. An expert panel of GPs (n = 16) and psychiatrists (n = 3) validated the content and 20 GPs pretested the questionnaire to provide response process validity evidence. We then tested the questionnaire among 116 GPs and used principal component analysis and internal consistency testing (Cronbach's alpha) to structure it into consistent dimensions. Test-retest reliability using Pearson correlation coefficient was assessed with 30 GPs who completed the questionnaire twice after an interval of at least 2 weeks. RESULTS: The 25 items BDC-Q was structured in five dimensions: (i) provision of care by the general practitioner, (ii) considering patients' attitudes towards depression, (iii) guidance for care, (iv) collaboration with mental health specialists and (v) access to mental health care. CONCLUSIONS: The BDC-Q displays evidence of validity and reliability to meaningfully assess GPs' perspectives on barriers to depression care. It can be used both at a practice level within a quality improvement strategy, and at a broader level, to inform health planners and tailor appropriate strategies to improve depression care in the community.