Co-design of digital public health substance use resources: A collaboration between young people and experts.

ISSUE ADDRESSED: Substance use and mental illness remain critical issues for young Australians, however, engagement with evidence-based health resources is challenging among this age group. This study aimed to develop engaging, useful digital health resources, underpinned by neuroscience principles, to build awareness of the harms of electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) and concurrent alcohol and antidepressant use. METHODS: A mixed-methods approach was adopted to co-design two evidence-based videos resources. The resources were co-designed with the Matilda Centre's Youth Advisory Board Centre's Youth Advisory Board through a series focus groups and individual feedback reviews. Young people residing in New South Wales were then invited to complete a survey to evaluate the usefulness, relatability and impact on perceived harms associated with each substance pre- and post-viewing resources. RESULTS: A total of 100 participants completed the survey (mean age = 21.5 years, SD = 2.77, 42% Female, 2% Non-binary). The animated videos were well received, with the large majority (91% and 87% respectively) of participants rating them 'excellent' or 'very good'. After viewing the videos, there was a significant increase in the perception of harm associated with e-cigarette use, monthly (t(99) = 2.76, p = .003), weekly (t(99) = 4.82, p < .001) and daily (t(99) = 4.92, p < .001), and consuming alcohol whilst taking antidepressants both weekly (t(100) = 2.93, p = .004) and daily (t(100) = 3.13, p = .002). CONCLUSIONS: This study describes a successful co-design process demonstrating how meaningful involvement of young people, alongside traditional research methods, can produce substance use prevention resources that are useful, engaging and increase knowledge of harms among young people. SO WHAT?: To achieve meaningful public health impact researchers, experts and digital creators can work together to co-create substance use educational materials that are engaging, well-liked, while imparting important health knowledge.

Alcohol initiation before age 15 predicts earlier hazardous drinking: A survival analysis of a 7-year prospective longitudinal cohort of Australian adolescents.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Early alcohol use may predict later alcohol problems, but the magnitude of this effect and impact of delayed onset remain uncertain. This study measured age-based differences in progression from first full alcoholic drink to hazardous drinking in one of the largest and most recent prospective cohorts of Australian adolescents. DESIGN, SETTINGS, PARTICIPANTS AND MEASUREMENT: A 7-year (2012-19) prospective longitudinal cohort of 2082 Australian adolescents was established from the Climate and Preventure (cohort 1) and Climate Schools Combined (cohort 2) studies. Participants completed surveys annually from ages 13 to 20 years. Interval censored survival analyses were conducted with first episode of hazardous drinking [three or more on proxy Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT-C)] as the survival end-point, controlling for age, sex and mental health symptomatology. Onset of hazardous drinking was expressed as hazard ratios (HRs), and median survival time (years) was used to model first onset of hazardous alcohol use in survival curves. FINDINGS: Compared with those aged 15 or older, those who had their first full drink at 12 or younger had significantly elevated risk of hazardous drinking onset during the study period [log (HR): 9.3; 95% confidence interval (CI) = 7.0-12.0, P < 0.001]. Compared with those who had their first full drink at ages 13-14, those who delayed until 15 or older had significantly later onset of hazardous drinking; 1.63 years for males (95% CI = 1.31-1.92, P < 0.001) and 1.50 for females (95% CI = 1.15-1.81, P < 0.001), resulting in a median age of onset of hazardous drinking of > 19 for both sexes (male: 19.05 years, 95% CI = 18.74-19.38; female: 19.47 years, 95% CI = 19.19-19.75). First drink at ages 13-14 was associated with the earliest onset of hazardous drinking (males: 17.43 years; females: 17.98 years). CONCLUSIONS: In Australia, alcohol initiation prior to age 15 appears to be associated with an earlier onset of hazardous drinking than initiation after age 15.

Vaping among young people-Our best defence is self-defence.

Use of electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes or 'vapes') has risen rapidly among young Australians in recent years. To combat this, on 2 May 2023, the Albanese Government announced a suite of reforms to reduce the desirability and accessibility of e-cigarettes to young people-including a ban on disposable e-cigarettes, restricting flavours, colours and nicotine content and requiring pharmaceutical-like packaging. While many have welcomed this announcement, the efficacy of such reforms in reducing the availability of e-cigarettes to young people remain to be seen, particularly given the current prescription-only model has done little to curb youth vaping. We argue that, in an uncertain landscape where e-cigarettes will likely remain accessible and desirable to young people, it is critical that we also upskill, empower and arm our young people with the skills, resilience, resources and knowledge to make informed and positive health decisions so that: (i) fewer young people opt to take up vaping (primary prevention); and (ii) among those who already do vape, more seek help earlier on to reduce or cease their use before dependency develops (secondary prevention). Schools are an ideal setting for the delivery of these programs, where they can be delivered en masse, integrated into existing alcohol and other drug programs and aligned with school curricula. Skills-based school prevention programs have demonstrated significant and sustained reductions in drug-related harms up to 7 years post-intervention. For as long as vapes remain widely available, desirable and purposefully marketed towards young people, we believe our best defence is self-defence.

Interventions to prevent or cease electronic cigarette use in children and adolescents.

BACKGROUND: The prevalence of e-cigarette use has increased globally amongst children and adolescents in recent years. In response to the increasing prevalence and emerging evidence about the potential harms of e-cigarettes in children and adolescents, leading public health organisations have called for approaches to address increasing e-cigarette use. Whilst evaluations of approaches to reduce uptake and use regularly appear in the literature, the collective long-term benefit of these is currently unclear. OBJECTIVES: The co-primary objectives of the review were to: (1) evaluate the effectiveness of interventions to prevent e-cigarette use in children and adolescents (aged 19 years and younger) with no prior use, relative to no intervention, waitlist control, usual practice, or an alternative intervention; and (2) evaluate the effectiveness of interventions to cease e-cigarette use in children and adolescents (aged 19 years and younger) reporting current use, relative to no intervention, waitlist control, usual practice, or an alternative intervention. Secondary objectives were to: (1) examine the effect of such interventions on child and adolescent use of other tobacco products (e.g. cigarettes, cigars types, and chewing tobacco); and (2) describe the unintended adverse effects of the intervention on individuals (e.g. physical or mental health of individuals), or on organisations (e.g. intervention displacement of key curricula or learning opportunities for school students) where such interventions are being implemented. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, Ovid PsycINFO, EBSCO CINAHL, and Clarivate Web of Science Core Collection from inception to 1 May 2023. Additionally, we searched two trial registry platforms (WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform; US National Institutes of Health Ongoing Trials Register ClinicalTrials.gov), Google Scholar, and the reference lists of relevant systematic reviews. We contacted corresponding authors of articles identified as ongoing studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), including cluster-RCTs, factorial RCTs, and stepped-wedge RCTs. To be eligible, the primary targets of the interventions must have been children and adolescents aged 19 years or younger. Interventions could have been conducted in any setting, including community, school, health services, or the home, and must have sought to influence children or adolescent (or both) e-cigarette use directly. Studies with a comparator of no intervention (i.e. control), waitlist control, usual practice, or an alternative intervention not targeting e-cigarette use were eligible. We included measures to assess the effectiveness of interventions to: prevent child and adolescent e-cigarette use (including measures of e-cigarette use amongst those who were never-users); and cease e-cigarette use (including measures of e-cigarette use amongst children and adolescents who were e-cigarette current-users). Measures of e-cigarette use included current-use (defined as use in the past 30 days) and ever-use (defined as any lifetime use). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently screened the titles and abstracts of references, with any discrepancies resolved through consensus. Pairs of review authors independently assessed the full-text articles for inclusion in the review. We planned for two review authors to independently extract information from the included studies and assess risk of bias using the Cochrane RoB 2 tool. We planned to conduct multiple meta-analyses using a random-effects model to align with the co-primary objectives of the review. First, we planned to pool interventions to prevent child and adolescent e-cigarette use and conduct two analyses using the outcome measures of 'ever-use' and 'current-use'. Second, we planned to pool interventions to cease child and adolescent e-cigarette use and conduct one analysis using the outcome measure of 'current-use'. Where data were unsuitable for pooling in meta-analyses, we planned to conduct a narrative synthesis using vote-counting approaches and to follow the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions and the Synthesis Without Meta-analysis (SWiM) guidelines. MAIN RESULTS: The search of electronic databases identified 7141 citations, with a further 287 records identified from the search of trial registries and Google Scholar. Of the 110 studies (116 records) evaluated in full text, we considered 88 to be ineligible for inclusion for the following reasons: inappropriate outcome (27 studies); intervention (12 studies); study design (31 studies); and participants (18 studies). The remaining 22 studies (28 records) were identified as ongoing studies that may be eligible for inclusion in a future review update. We identified no studies with published data that were eligible for inclusion in the review. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We identified no RCTs that met the inclusion criteria for the review, and as such, there is no evidence available from RCTs to assess the potential impact of interventions targeting children and adolescent e-cigarette use, tobacco use, or any unintended adverse effects. Evidence from studies employing other trial designs (e.g. non-randomised) may exist; however, such studies were not eligible for inclusion in the review. Evidence from studies using non-randomised designs should be examined to guide actions to prevent or cease e-cigarette use. This is a living systematic review. We search for new evidence every month and update the review when we identify relevant new evidence. Please refer to the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for the current status of this review.

The impact of supported accommodation on health and criminal justice outcomes of people released from prison: a systematic literature review.

BACKGROUND: Supported accommodation intends to address challenges arising following release from prison; however, impact of services, and of specific service components, is unclear. We describe key characteristics of supported accommodation, including program components and outcomes/impact; and distil best-evidence components. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review, searching relevant databases in November 2022. Data were synthesised via effect direction plots according to the Synthesis Without Meta-analysis guidelines. We assessed study quality using the McGill Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool, and certainty in evidence using the GRADE framework. RESULTS: Twenty-eight studies were included; predominantly cross-sectional. Program components which address life skills, vocational training, AOD use, and mental health appear to positively impact criminal justice outcomes. Criminal justice outcomes were the most commonly reported, and while we identified a reduction in parole revocations and reincarceration, outcomes were otherwise mixed. Variable design, often lacking rigour, and inconsistent outcome reporting limited assessment of these outcomes, and subsequently certainty in findings was low. CONCLUSION: Post-release supported accommodation may reduce parole revocations and reincarceration. Despite limitations in the literature, the findings presented herein represent current best evidence. Future studies should clearly define program components and measure their impact; use analyses which reflect the high risk of adverse outcomes, such as time-to-event analyses; and consider outcomes which reflect the range of challenges faced by people leaving prison. REGISTRATION: PROSPERO registration CRD42020189821.

Study protocol of the Our Futures Vaping Trial: a cluster randomised controlled trial of a school-based eHealth intervention to prevent e-cigarette use among adolescents.

BACKGROUND: Effective and scalable prevention approaches are urgently needed to address the rapidly increasing rates of e-cigarette use among adolescents. School-based eHealth interventions can be an efficient, effective, and economical approach, yet there are none targeting e-cigarettes within Australia. This paper describes the protocol of the OurFutures Vaping Trial which aims to evaluate the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of the first school-based eHealth intervention targeting e-cigarettes in Australia. METHODS: A two-arm cluster randomised controlled trial will be conducted among Year 7 and 8 students (aged 12-14 years) in 42 secondary schools across New South Wales, Western Australia and Queensland, Australia. Using stratified block randomisation, schools will be assigned to either the OurFutures Vaping Program intervention group or an active control group (health education as usual). The intervention consists of four web-based cartoon lessons and accompanying activities delivered during health education over a four-week period. Whilst primarily focused on e-cigarette use, the program simultaneously addresses tobacco cigarette use. Students will complete online self-report surveys at baseline, post-intervention, 6-, 12-, 24-, and 36-months after baseline. The primary outcome is the uptake of e-cigarette use at 12-month follow-up. Secondary outcomes include the uptake of tobacco smoking, frequency/quantity of e-cigarettes use and tobacco smoking, intentions to use e-cigarettes/tobacco cigarettes, knowledge about e-cigarettes/tobacco cigarettes, motives and attitudes relating to e-cigarettes, self-efficacy to resist peer pressure and refuse e-cigarettes, mental health, quality of life, and resource utilisation. Generalized mixed effects regression will investigate whether receiving the intervention reduces the likelihood of primary and secondary outcomes. Cost-effectiveness and the effect on primary and secondary outcomes will also be examined over the longer-term. DISCUSSION: If effective, the intervention will be readily accessible to schools via the OurFutures platform and has the potential to make substantial health and economic impact. Without such intervention, young Australians will be the first generation to use nicotine at higher rates than previous generations, thereby undoing decades of effective tobacco control. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The trial has been prospectively registered with the Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ACTRN12623000022662; date registered: 10/01/2023).

School-based preventive interventions targeting e-cigarette use among adolescents: a systematic review protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Electronic cigarette (e-cigarette) use has drastically increased in recent years, particularly among adolescents. This poses several acute and chronic harms to young people, including poisonings, burns, serious lung injury and-where nicotine e-liquid is used-the potential to impact healthy brain development and precipitate future nicotine addiction. School-based prevention programmes have the potential to address this growing public health concern by reaching large numbers of young people during a critical period for intervention; however, the efficacy of such interventions has not been systematically explored. This systematic review aims to determine the existence and efficacy of school-based preventive interventions targeting e-cigarette use. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A systematic search of MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, Scopus, CINAHL, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and international clinical trials registries will be conducted from 2000 to April 2022 to identify eligible studies (randomised controlled trials, cluster randomised controlled trials and quasiexperimental studies) evaluating school-based interventions to prevent e-cigarette use among adolescents. Two reviewers will independently screen title, abstract and full text of all studies for eligibility. Both reviewers will independently extract the data and assess the risk of bias. Any discrepancies will be resolved by a third reviewer. Results will be summarised in a narrative synthesis and data will be meta-analysed if appropriate. Heterogeneity in findings will be assessed narratively, and using the I2 statistic (where meta-analysis is feasible), meta-regression will be used to explore potential factors associated with programme efficacy, where data permit. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This research is conducted on published work and does not require ethics approval. The findings will be published in a peer-reviewed journal and used to guide the development of new school-based e-cigarette preventive interventions. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42022323352.

Association between electronic nicotine delivery systems and electronic non-nicotine delivery systems with initiation of tobacco use in individuals aged < 20 years. A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: This systematic review described the association between electronic nicotine delivery systems and electronic non-nicotine delivery systems (ENDS/ENNDS) use among non-smoking children and adolescents aged <20 years with subsequent tobacco use. METHODS: We searched five electronic databases and the grey literature up to end of September 2020. Prospective longitudinal studies that described the association between ENDS/ENNDS use, and subsequent tobacco use in those aged < 20 years who were non-smokers at baseline were included. The Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Checklist was used to assess risk of bias. Data were extracted by two reviewers and pooled using a random-effects meta-analysis. We generated unadjusted and adjusted risk ratios (ARRs) describing associations between ENDS/ENNDS and tobacco use. FINDINGS: A total of 36 publications met the eligibility criteria, of which 25 were included in the systematic review (23 in the meta-analysis) after exclusion of overlapping studies. Sixteen studies had high to moderate risk of bias. Ever users of ENDS/ENNDS had over three times the risk of ever cigarette use (ARR 3·01 (95% CI: 2·37, 3·82; p<0·001, I2: 82·3%), and current cigarette use had over two times the risk (ARR 2·56 (95% CI: 1·61, 4·07; p<0·001, I2: 77·3%) at follow up. Among current ENDS/ENNDS users, there was a significant association with ever (ARR 2·63 (95% CI: 1·94, 3·57; p<0·001, I2: 21·2%)), but not current cigarette use (ARR 1·88 (95% CI: 0·34, 10·30; p = 0·47, I2: 0%)) at follow up. For other tobacco use, ARR ranged between 1·55 (95% CI 1·07, 2·23) and 8·32 (95% CI: 1·20, 57·04) for waterpipe and pipes, respectively. Additionally, two studies examined the use of ENNDS (non-nicotine devices) and found a pooled adjusted RR of 2·56 (95% CI: 0·47, 13·94, p = 0.035). CONCLUSION: There is an urgent need for policies that regulate the availability, accessibility, and marketing of ENDS/ENNDS to children and adolescents. Governments should also consider adopting policies to prevent ENDS/ENNDS uptake and use in children and adolescents, up to and including a ban for this group.

Prevalence of electronic nicotine delivery systems and electronic non-nicotine delivery systems in children and adolescents: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: There are concerns that the use of electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS) and electronic non-nicotine delivery systems (ENNDS) in children and adolescents could potentially be harmful to health. Understanding the extent of use of these devices is crucial to informing public health policy. We aimed to synthesise the prevalence of ENDS or ENNDS use in children and adolescents younger than 20 years. METHODS: In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we undertook an electronic search in five databases (MEDLINE, Web of Science, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Embase, and Wiley Cochrane Library) from Jan 1, 2016, to Aug 31, 2020, and a grey literature search. Included studies reported on the prevalence of ENDS or ENNDS use in nationally representative samples in populations younger than 20 years and collected data between the years 2016 and 2020. Studies were excluded if they were done in those aged 20 years or older, used data from specialist panels that did not apply appropriate weighting, or did not use methods that ensured recruitment of a nationally representative sample. We included the most recent data for each country. We combined multiple national estimates for a country if they were done in the same year. We undertook risk of bias assessment for all surveys included in the review using the Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Checklist (by two reviewers in the author list). A random effects meta-analysis was used to pool overall prevalence estimates for ever, current, occasional, and daily use. This study was prospectively registered with PROSPERO, CRD42020199485. FINDINGS: The most recent prevalence data from 26 national surveys representing 69 countries and territories, with a median sample size of 3925 (IQR 1=2266, IQR 3=10 593) children and adolescents was included. In children and adolescents aged between 8 years and younger than 20 years, the pooled prevalence for ever (defined as any lifetime use) ENDS or ENNDS use was 17·2% (95% CI 15-20, I2=99·9%), whereas for current use (defined as use in past 30 days) the pooled prevalence estimate was 7·8% (6-9, I2=99·8%). The pooled estimate for occasional use was 0·8% (0·5-1·2, I2=99·4%) for daily use and 7·5% (6·1-9·1, I2=99·4%) for occasional use. Prevalence of ENDS or ENNDS use was highest in high-income geographical regions. In terms of study quality, all surveys scored had a low risk of bias for the sampling frame used, due to the nationally representative nature of the studies. The most poorly conducted methodological feature of the included studies was subjects and setting described in detail. Few surveys reported on the use of flavours or types of ENDS or ENNDS. INTERPRETATION: There is significant variability in the prevalence of ENDS and ENNDS use in children and adolescents globally by country income status. These findings are possibly due to differences in regulatory context, market availability, and differences in surveillance systems. FUNDING: World Health Organization and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

All-cause and cause-specific mortality among people with regular or problematic cocaine use: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

AIMS: To estimate pooled all-cause and cause-specific mortality risk for people with regular or problematic cocaine use. METHODS: Systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective or retrospective cohort studies or clinical trials (n ≥30) of people with regular or problematic cocaine use with data on all-cause or cause-specific mortality. Of 2808 papers, 28 were eligible and reported on 21 cohorts, with a total 170 019 individuals. Cohorts identified based on acute care for drug poisoning or other severe health presentation were excluded. Title/abstract screening was conducted by one reviewer; a second reviewer independently checked 10% of excluded studies. Two reviewers conducted full-text screening. Data were extracted by one reviewer and checked by a second. A customized review-specific study reporting quality/risk of bias tool was used. Data on crude mortality rates (CMR) and standardized mortality ratios were extracted for both all-cause and cause-specific mortality. Standardized mortality ratios were imputed where not provided by the author using extracted data and information from the Global Burden of Disease Study 2017. Data were pooled using a random-effects model. RESULTS: The pooled all-cause crude mortality rate was 1.24 per 100 person-years [95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.86, 1.78; n = 16 cohorts], but with considerable heterogeneity (I2  = 98.8%). The pooled all-cause standardized mortality ratio (SMR) was 6.13 (95% CI = 4.15, 9.05; n = 16 cohorts). Suicide (SMR = 6.26, 95% CI = 2.84, 13.80), accidental injury (SMR = 6.36, 95% CI = 4.18, 9.68), homicide (SMR = 9.38, 95% CI 3.45-25.48) and AIDS-related mortality (SMR = 23.12, 95% CI = 11.30, 47.31) were all elevated compared with age and sex peers in the general population. CONCLUSIONS: There are elevated rates of mortality among people with regular or problematic cocaine use for traumatic deaths and deaths attributable to infectious disease.

A randomised controlled trial of motivational interview for relapse prevention after release from smoke-free prisons in Australia.

PURPOSE: This paper aims to determine whether a single session of a motivational interview (MI) reduces smoking relapse amongst people released from smoke-free prisons. DESIGN/METHODOLOGY/APPROACH: This study sought to recruit 824 ex-smokers from 2 smoke-free prisons in the Northern Territory, Australia. Participants were randomised to receive either one session (45-60 min) face-to-face MI intervention 4-6 weeks prior to release or usual care (UC) without smoking advice. The primary outcome was continuous smoking abstinence verified by exhaled carbon monoxide test (<5 ppm) at three months post-release. Secondary outcomes included seven-day point-prevalence, time to the first cigarette and the daily number of cigarettes smoked after release. FINDINGS: From April 2017 to March 2018, a total of 557 participants were randomised to receive the MI (n = 266) or UC (n = 291), with 75% and 77% being followed up, respectively. There was no significant between-group difference in continuous abstinence (MI 8.6% vs UC 7.4%, risk ratio = 1.16, 95%CI 0.67∼2.03). Of all participants, 66.9% relapsed on the day of release and 90.2% relapsed within three months. On average, participants in the MI group smoked one less cigarette daily than those in the UC within the three months after release (p < 0.01). RESEARCH LIMITATIONS/IMPLICATIONS: A single-session of MI is insufficient to reduce relapse after release from a smoke-free prison. However, prison release remains an appealing time window to build on the public health benefit of smoke-free prisons. Further research is needed to develop both pre- and post-release interventions that provide continuity of care for relapse prevention. ORIGINALITY/VALUE: This study is the first Australian randomised controlled trial to evaluate a pre-release MI intervention on smoking relapse prevention amongst people released from smoke-free prisons.

All-Cause and Overdose Mortality Risk Among People Prescribed Opioids: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate all-cause and overdose crude mortality rates and standardized mortality ratios among people prescribed opioids for chronic noncancer pain and risk of overdose death in this population relative to people with similar clinical profiles but not prescribed opioids. DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis. METHODS: Medline, Embase, and PsycINFO were searched in February 2018 and October 2019 for articles published beginning 2009. Due to limitations in published studies, we revised our inclusion criteria to include cohort studies of people prescribed opioids, excluding those studies where people were explicitly prescribed opioids for the treatment of opioid use disorder or acute cancer or palliative pain. We estimated pooled all-cause and overdose crude mortality rates using random effects meta-analysis models. No studies reported standardized mortality ratios or relative risks. RESULTS: We included 13 cohorts with 6,029,810 participants. The pooled all-cause crude mortality rate, based on 10 cohorts, was 28.8 per 1000 person-years (95% CI = 17.9-46.4), with substantial heterogeneity (I2 = 99.9%). The pooled overdose crude mortality rate, based on six cohorts, was 1.1 per 1000 person-years (95% CI = 0.4-3.4), with substantial heterogeneity (I2 = 99.5%), but indications for opioid prescribing and opioid exposure were poorly ascertained. We were unable to estimate mortality in this population relative to clinically similar populations not prescribed opioids. CONCLUSIONS: Methodological limitations in the identified literature complicate efforts to determine the overdose mortality risk of people prescribed opioids. There is a need for large-scale clinical trials to assess adverse outcomes in opioid prescribing, especially for chronic noncancer pain.

The effectiveness of interventions to increase preventive care provision for chronic disease risk behaviours in mental health settings: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Clinical practice guidelines direct mental health services to provide preventive care to address client chronic disease risk behaviours, however, this care is not routinely provided. The aim of this systematic review was to synthesise evidence regarding the effectiveness of interventions to increase provision of preventive care by mental health services; by care element (ask, assess, advice, assist, arrange) and risk behaviour (tobacco smoking, poor nutrition, harmful alcohol consumption, physical inactivity). Electronic bibliographic databases, Google Scholar, relevant journals, and included study reference lists were searched. Eligible studies were of any design with a comparison group that reported the effectiveness of an intervention to increase the provision of at least one element of preventive care for at least one risk behaviour in a mental health setting. Twenty studies were included, most commonly examining smoking (n = 20) and 'ask' (n = 12). Meta-analysis found interventions involving task shifting were effective in increasing smoking 'advice' (n = 2 RCTs; p = 0.009) and physical activity 'advice' (n = 2 RCTs; p = 0.002). Overall, meta-analysis and narrative synthesis indicated that effective intervention strategies (categorised according to the Effective Practice and Organisation of Care taxonomy) were: task shifting, educational meetings, health information systems, local consensus processes, authority and accountability, and reminders. The most consistent findings across studies were with regard to preventive care for smoking, while conflicting or limited evidence was found regarding other risk behaviours. While further rigorous research examining key risk behaviours is recommended, the findings may inform the selection of strategies for future interventions and service delivery initiatives.

The health of adolescents in detention: a global scoping review.

Adolescents detained within the criminal justice system are affected by complex health problems, health-risk behaviours, and high rates of premature death. We did a global synthesis of the evidence regarding the health of this population. We searched Embase, PsycINFO, Education Resources Information Center, PubMed, Web of Science, CINCH, Global Health, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, the Campbell Library, the National Criminal Justice Reference System Abstract Database, and Google Scholar for peer-reviewed journal articles, including reviews, that reported the prevalence of at least one health outcome (physical, mental, sexual, infectious, and neurocognitive) in adolescents (aged <20 years) in detention, and were published between Jan 1, 1980, and June 30, 2018. The reference lists of published review articles were scrutinised for additional relevant publications. Two reviewers independently screened titles and abstracts, and three reviewed full texts of relevant articles. The protocol for this Review was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42016041392). 245 articles (204 primary research articles and 41 reviews) were included, with most primary research (183 [90%]) done in high-income countries. A high lifetime prevalence of health problems, risks, and conditions was reported in detained adolescents, including mental disorders (0-95%), substance use disorders (22-96%), self-harm (12-65%), neurodevelopmental disabilities (2-47%), infectious diseases (0-34%), and sexual and reproductive conditions (pregnant by age 19 years 20-37%; abnormal cervical screening test result 16%). Various physical and mental health problems and health-risk behaviours are more common among adolescents in detention than among their peers who have not been detained. As the social and structural drivers of poor health overlap somewhat with factors associated with exposure to the criminal justice system, strategies to address these factors could help to reduce both rates of adolescent detention and adolescent health inequalities. Improving the detection of mental and physical disorders, providing appropriate interventions during detention, and optimising transitional health care after release from detention could improve the health outcomes of these vulnerable young people.

All-Cause and Cause-Specific Mortality Among People Using Extramedical Opioids: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Importance: Extramedical opioid use has escalated in recent years. A better understanding of cause-specific mortality in this population is needed to inform comprehensive responses. Objective: To estimate all-cause and cause-specific crude mortality rates (CMRs) and standardized mortality ratios (SMRs) among people using extramedical opioids, including age- and sex-specific estimates when possible. Data Sources: For this systematic review and meta-analysis, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and Embase were searched for studies published from January 1, 2009, to October 3, 2019, and an earlier systematic review on this topic published in 2011. Study Selection: Cohort studies of people using extramedical opioids and reporting mortality outcomes were screened for inclusion independently by 2 team members. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Data were extracted by a team member and checked by another team member. Study quality was assessed using a custom set of items that examined risk of bias and quality of reporting. Data were pooled using random-effects meta-analysis models. Heterogeneity was assessed using stratified meta-analyses and meta-regression. Main Outcomes and Measures: Outcome measures were all-cause and cause-specific CMRs and SMRs among people using extramedical opioids compared with the general population of the same age and sex. Results: Of 8683 identified studies, 124 were included in this analysis (100 primary studies and 24 studies providing additional data for primary studies). The pooled all-cause CMR, based on 99 cohorts of 1 262 592 people, was 1.6 per 100 person-years (95% CI, 1.4-1.8 per 100 person-years), with substantial heterogeneity (I2 = 99.7%). Heterogeneity was associated with the proportion of the study sample that injected opioids or was living with HIV infection or hepatitis C. The pooled all-cause SMR, based on 43 cohorts, was 10.0 (95% CI, 7.6-13.2). Excess mortality was observed across a range of causes, including overdose, injuries, and infectious and noncommunicable diseases. Conclusions and Relevance: The findings suggest that people using extramedical opioids experience significant excess mortality, much of which is preventable. The range of causes for which excess mortality was observed highlights the multiplicity of risk exposures experienced by this population and the need for comprehensive responses to address these. Better data on cause-specific mortality in this population in several world regions appear to be needed.

Mental health outcomes associated with of the use of amphetamines: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The use of amphetamines is a global public health concern. We summarise global data on use of amphetamines and mental health outcomes. METHODS: A systematic review and meta-analysis (CRD 42017081893). We searched Medline, EMBASE, PsycInfo for methamphetamine or amphetamine combined with psychosis, violence, suicidality, depression or anxiety. Included studies were human empirical cross-sectional surveys, case-control studies, cohort studies and randomised controlled trials that assessed the association between methamphetamine and one of the mental health outcomes. Random effects meta-analysis was used to pool results for any use of amphetamines and amphetamine use disorders. FINDINGS: 149 studies were eligible and 59 were included in meta-analyses. There was significant heterogeneity in effects. Evidence came mostly from cross-sectional studies. Any use of amphetamines was associated with higher odds of psychosis (odds ratio [OR] = 2.0, 95%CI 1.3-3.3), violence (OR = 2.2, 95%CI 1.2-4.1; adjusted OR [AOR] = 1.4, 95%CI 0.8-2.4), suicidality OR = 4.4, 95%CI 2.4-8.2; AOR = 1.7, 95%CI 1.0-2.9) and depression (OR = 1.6, 95%CI 1.1-2.2; AOR = 1.3, 95%CI 1.2-1.4). Having an amphetamine use disorder was associated with higher odds of psychosis (OR = 3.0, 95%CI 1.9-4.8; AOR = 2.4, 95%CI 1.6-3.5), violence (OR = 6.2, 95%CI 3.1-12.3), and suicidality (OR = 2.3, 95%CI 1.8-2.9; AOR = 1.5, 95%CI 1.3-1.8). INTERPRETATION: Methamphetamine use is an important risk factor for poor mental health. High quality population-level studies are needed to more accurately quantify this risk. Clinical responses to methamphetamine use need to address mental health harms.

Cannabinoids for the treatment of mental disorders and symptoms of mental disorders: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Medicinal cannabinoids, including medicinal cannabis and pharmaceutical cannabinoids and their synthetic derivatives, such as tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and cannabidiol (CBD), have been suggested to have a therapeutic role in certain mental disorders. We analysed the available evidence to ascertain the effectiveness and safety of all types of medicinal cannabinoids in treating symptoms of various mental disorders. METHODS: For this systematic review and meta-analysis we searched MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Clinical Trials, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for studies published between Jan 1, 1980, and April 30, 2018. We also searched for unpublished or ongoing studies on ClinicalTrials.gov, the EU Clinical Trials Register, and the Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry. We considered all studies examining any type and formulation of a medicinal cannabinoid in adults (≥18 years) for treating depression, anxiety, attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), Tourette syndrome, post-traumatic stress disorder, or psychosis, either as the primary condition or secondary to other medical conditions. We placed no restrictions on language, publication status, or study type (ie, both experimental and observational study designs were included). Primary outcomes were remission from and changes in symptoms of these mental disorders. The safety of medicinal cannabinoids for these mental disorders was also examined. Evidence from randomised controlled trials was synthesised as odds ratios (ORs) for disorder remission, adverse events, and withdrawals and as standardised mean differences (SMDs) for change in symptoms, via random-effects meta-analyses. The quality of the evidence was assessed with the Cochrane risk of bias tool and Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. This study is registered with PROSPERO (CRD42017059372, CRD42017059373, CRD42017059376, CRD42017064996, and CRD42018102977). FINDINGS: 83 eligible studies (40 randomised controlled trials, n=3067) were included: 42 for depression (23 randomised controlled trials; n=2551), 31 for anxiety (17 randomised controlled trials; n=605), eight for Tourette syndrome (two randomised controlled trials; n=36), three for ADHD (one randomised controlled trial; n=30), 12 for post-traumatic stress disorder (one randomised controlled trial; n=10), and 11 for psychosis (six randomised controlled trials; n=281). Pharmaceutical THC (with or without CBD) improved anxiety symptoms among individuals with other medical conditions (primarily chronic non-cancer pain and multiple sclerosis; SMD -0·25 [95% CI -0·49 to -0·01]; seven studies; n=252), although the evidence GRADE was very low. Pharmaceutical THC (with or without CBD) worsened negative symptoms of psychosis in a single study (SMD 0·36 [95% CI 0·10 to 0·62]; n=24). Pharmaceutical THC (with or without CBD) did not significantly affect any other primary outcomes for the mental disorders examined but did increase the number of people who had adverse events (OR 1·99 [95% CI 1·20 to 3·29]; ten studies; n=1495) and withdrawals due to adverse events (2·78 [1·59 to 4·86]; 11 studies; n=1621) compared with placebo across all mental disorders examined. Few randomised controlled trials examined the role of pharmaceutical CBD or medicinal cannabis. INTERPRETATION: There is scarce evidence to suggest that cannabinoids improve depressive disorders and symptoms, anxiety disorders, attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder, Tourette syndrome, post-traumatic stress disorder, or psychosis. There is very low quality evidence that pharmaceutical THC (with or without CBD) leads to a small improvement in symptoms of anxiety among individuals with other medical conditions. There remains insufficient evidence to provide guidance on the use of cannabinoids for treating mental disorders within a regulatory framework. Further high-quality studies directly examining the effect of cannabinoids on treating mental disorders are needed. FUNDING: Therapeutic Goods Administration, Australia; Commonwealth Department of Health, Australia; Australian National Health and Medical Research Council; and US National Institutes of Health.

School-based interventions to prevent anxiety and depression in children and young people: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Rates of anxiety and depression are increasing among children and young people. Recent policies have focused on primary prevention of mental disorders in children and young people, with schools at the forefront of implementation. There is limited information for the comparative effectiveness of the multiple interventions available. METHODS: We did a systematic review and network meta-analysis, searching MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled trials for published and unpublished, passive and active-controlled randomised and quasi-randomised trials. We included educational setting-based, universal, or targeted interventions in which the primary aim was the prevention of anxiety and depression in children and young people aged 4-18 years. Primary outcomes were post-intervention self-report anxiety and depression, wellbeing, suicidal ideation, or self-harm. We assessed risk of bias following the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. We estimated standardised mean differences (SMD) using random effects network meta-analysis in a Bayesian framework. The study is registered with PROPSERO, number CRD42016048184. FINDINGS: 1512 full-text articles were independently screened for inclusion by two reviewers, from which 137 studies of 56 620 participants were included. 20 studies were assessed as being at low risk of bias for both random sequence generation and allocation concealment. There was weak evidence to suggest that cognitive behavioural interventions might reduce anxiety in primary and secondary settings. In universal secondary settings, mindfulness and relaxation-based interventions showed a reduction in anxiety symptoms relative to usual curriculum (SMD -0·65, 95% credible interval -1·14 to -0·19). There was a lack of evidence to support any one type of intervention being effective to prevent depression in universal or targeted primary or secondary settings. Comparison-adjusted funnel plots suggest the presence of small-study effects for the universal secondary anxiety analysis. Network meta-analysis was not feasible for wellbeing or suicidal ideation or self-harm outcomes, and results are reported narratively. INTERPRETATION: Considering unclear risk of bias and probable small study effects for anxiety, we conclude there is little evidence that educational setting-based interventions focused solely on the prevention of depression or anxiety are effective. Future research could consider multilevel, systems-based interventions as an alternative to the downstream interventions considered here. FUNDING: UK National Institute for Health Research.