Journal: Drug and Alcohol Dependence Reports, 2022, doi: 10.1016/j.dadr.2022.100108
Authors: Monica F. Tomlinson, Monica P. Thomas, Bruce Goldman, Jessica Bourdon & Nehal P. Vadhan
Abstract:
Background: The widespread shift from in-person to Telehealth services during the Covid-19 pandemic irreversibly shifted the landscape of outpatient substance use treatment. This shift was necessitated by health, rather than data-driven, reasons. As we reflect on whether to continue providing Telehealth services moving forward, we require empirical support on the effectiveness of Telehealth services (compared to in-person services) in terms of patient outcomes, such as Quality of Life (QOL), to support this decision.
Objective: To present data from a pilot project comparing changes in QOL across patients receiving outpatient in-person versus Telehealth substance use treatment in five clinics across New York State.
Method: To retrospectively compare total self-reported QOL scores from admission to 3-months later utilizing the Quality-of-Life Enjoyment and Satisfaction scale during in-person (pre-pandemic, n = 298) and Telehealth (pandemic, n = 316) services with a mixed repeated measures ANOVA.
Results: Self-reported QOL scores significantly improved across the first three months, regardless of treatment modality
Conclusion: Telehealth and in-person treatment appear comparable on QOL outcomes over the first 3 months of outpatient treatment. Both modalities are associated with improved QOL scores.
Scientific significance: These preliminary findings provide evidence that Telehealth services are associated with positive patient outcomes and appear comparable to QOL outcomes among patients receiving in-person services. Future directions include further assessment of additional clinical outcomes and investigation into causal mechanisms.
To read the full text of the article, please visit the publisher’s website.
Journal: JAMA Network Open, 2022, doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.36370
Authors: Seth M. Noar, Nisha C. Gottfredson, Talia Kieu, Jacob A. Rohde, Marissa G. Hall, Haijing Ma, … Noel T. Brewer
Abstract:
Importance: Understanding whether prevention advertisements reduce susceptibility to vaping is important owing to concerning levels of adolescent vaping.
Objective: To examine whether vaping prevention advertisements from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) national Real Cost campaign lead to lower susceptibility to vaping among adolescents.
Design, setting, and participants: For this 3-group randomized clinical trial with parallel assignment, participants were US adolescents aged 13 to 17 years who were susceptible to vaping or current e-cigarette users, recruited from online panels. Adolescents were randomized to 1 of 2 Real Cost vaping prevention trial groups (health harms- or addiction-themed advertisements) or to a control group (investigator-created neutral videos about vaping). Adolescents completed 4 weekly online surveys at visits 1 to 4 over a 3-week period. Data were analyzed from December 1, 2021, to August 25, 2022.
Interventions: Adolescents saw 3 randomly ordered 30-second video advertisements online at each of 3 weekly study visits (visits 1, 2, and 3).
Main outcomes and measures: The primary trial outcome was susceptibility to vaping. Surveys also assessed susceptibility to smoking cigarettes to examine any spillover effects of vaping prevention advertisements on smoking outcomes. Both susceptibility measures had 3 items and ranged from 1 (indicating not susceptible) to 4 (indicating highly susceptible). The primary analyses compared Real Cost groups (combined) with the control group, while exploratory analyses compared the Real Cost groups with each other.
Results: Participants were 1514 adolescents (1140 [75.3%] boys; mean [SD] age, 15.22 [1.18] years), including 504 randomized to the Real Cost health harms group, 506 randomized to the Real Cost addiction group, and 504 randomized to the control group. Adolescents in the Real Cost groups (combined) had lower susceptibility to vaping at visit 4 than those in the control group (b = -0.21; 95% CI, -0.32 to -0.10). The Real Cost groups did not differ from one another on susceptibility to vaping (visit 4: b = -0.05; 95% CI, -0.17 to 0.07). Adolescents in the Real Cost groups (combined) also had lower susceptibility to smoking cigarettes than those in the control group (b = -0.21; 95% CI, -0.32 to -0.10). For both vaping and smoking, Real Cost groups had less positive attitudes (vaping: b = -0.27; 95% CI, -0.40 to -0.14; smoking: b = -0.23; 95% CI, -0.39 to -0.08) compared with the control group.
Conclusions and relevance: These findings suggest that vaping prevention advertisements from the FDA Real Cost campaign led to lower adolescent susceptibility to vaping and had beneficial spillover effects on cigarette smoking outcomes. Tobacco prevention campaigns can help reduce youth tobacco use.
Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04836455.
To read the full text of the article, please visit the publisher’s website.
Journal: Systematic Reviews, 2022, doi: 10.1186/s13643-022-02073-5
Authors: Anders Wieghorst, Kirsten Kaya Roessler, Oliver Hendricks & Tonny Elmose Andersen
Abstract:
Background: Cannabis-based medicines are widely used in the treatment of a number of medical conditions. Unfortunately, cognitive disturbances are often reported as adverse events, although conversely, cognitive improvements have been reported. Hence, the objective of the present study was to identify, critically appraise and synthesise research findings on the potential impact of cannabis-based medicines on cognitive functioning.
Methods: Four databases (EMBASE, PsycINFO, PubMed and Scopus) were systematically searched. Studies were included if they provided findings on the impact of cannabis-based medicines in controlled settings on cognitive functioning measured by recognised cognitive tests in human adults. Study participants were required to be their own case-control, and neither studies on abuse, abstinences, patients with severe neurodegenerative diseases nor cancer-related pain conditions were included. Screening, risk of bias assessment and data extraction were conducted independently by two researchers. Findings were tabulated and synthesised by outcome.
Findings: Twenty-three studies were included, comprising a total of N = 917. Eight studies used Sativex as the cannabis-based medicine two used Epidiolex, two other studies used sprays, three studies used gelatine capsules, five smoked cannabis, two other and finally one studied cannabis withdrawal. Fifteen studies reported non-significant findings; six reported cognitive impairments; one study found cognitive improvement and a single study found improvement following withdrawal. Thirteen studies had cognitive or neuropsychological functioning as the primary outcome.
Conclusions: Due to a large heterogeneity and methodological limitations across studies, it is not possible to make any definite conclusions about the impact of cannabis-based medicines on cognitive functioning. However, the majority of high-quality evidence points in the direction that the negative impact of cannabis-based medicines on cognitive functioning is minor, provided that the doses of THC are low to moderate. On the other hand, long-term use of cannabis based medicines may still adversely affect cognitive functioning. In the studies that found impaired cognitive functioning to be significant, all of the test scores were either within the normal range or below what would be characterised as a neuropsychologically cognitive impairment.
To read the full text of the article, please visit the publisher’s website.
Journal: JAMA Health Forum, 2022, doi: 10.1001/jamahealthforum.2022.3285
Authors: Rosanna Smart, Sean Grant, Adam J. Gordon, Rosalie Liccardo Pacula & Bradley D. Stein
Abstract:
Importance: In the US, recent legislation and regulations have been considered, proposed, and implemented to improve the quality of treatment for opioid use disorder (OUD). However, insufficient empirical evidence exists to identify which policies are feasible to implement and successfully improve patient and population-level outcomes.
Objective: To examine expert consensus on the effectiveness and the ability to implement state-level OUD treatment policies.
Evidence review: This qualitative study used the ExpertLens online platform to conduct a 3-round modified Delphi process to convene 66 stakeholders (health care clinicians, social service practitioners, addiction researchers, health policy decision-makers, policy advocates, and persons with lived experience). Stakeholders participated in 1 of 2 expert panels on 14 hypothetical state-level policies targeting treatment engagement and linkage, evidence-based and integrated care, treatment flexibility, and monitoring or support services. Participants rated policies in round 1, discussed results in round 2, and provided final ratings in round 3. Participants used 4 criteria associated with either the effectiveness or implementability to rate and discuss each policy. The effectiveness panel (n = 29) considered policy effects on treatment engagement, treatment retention, OUD remission, and opioid overdose mortality. The implementation panel (n = 34) considered the acceptability, feasibility, affordability, and equitability of each policy. We measured consensus using the interpercentile range adjusted for symmetry analysis technique from the RAND/UCLA appropriateness method.
Findings: Both panels reached consensus on all items. Experts viewed 2 policies (facilitated access to medications for OUD and automatic Medicaid enrollment for citizens returning from correctional settings) as highly implementable and highly effective in improving patient and population-level outcomes. Participants rated hub-and-spoke-type policies and provision of financial incentives to emergency departments for treatment linkage as effective; however, they also rated these policies as facing implementation barriers associated with feasibility and affordability. Coercive policies and policies levying additional requirements on individuals with OUD receiving treatment (eg, drug toxicology testing, counseling requirements) were viewed as low-value policies (ie, decreasing treatment engagement and retention, increasing overdose mortality, and increasing health inequities).
Conclusions and relevance: The findings of this study may provide urgently needed consensus on policies for states to consider either adopting or deimplementing in their efforts to address the opioid overdose crisis.
To read the full text of the article, please visit the publisher’s website.
Journal: JAMA Health Forum, 2022, doi: 10.1001/jamahealthforum.2022.3285
Authors: Rosanna Smart, Sean Grant, Adam J. Gordon, Rosalie Liccardo Pacula & Bradley D. Stein
Abstract:
Importance: In the US, recent legislation and regulations have been considered, proposed, and implemented to improve the quality of treatment for opioid use disorder (OUD). However, insufficient empirical evidence exists to identify which policies are feasible to implement and successfully improve patient and population-level outcomes.
Objective: To examine expert consensus on the effectiveness and the ability to implement state-level OUD treatment policies.
Evidence review: This qualitative study used the ExpertLens online platform to conduct a 3-round modified Delphi process to convene 66 stakeholders (health care clinicians, social service practitioners, addiction researchers, health policy decision-makers, policy advocates, and persons with lived experience). Stakeholders participated in 1 of 2 expert panels on 14 hypothetical state-level policies targeting treatment engagement and linkage, evidence-based and integrated care, treatment flexibility, and monitoring or support services. Participants rated policies in round 1, discussed results in round 2, and provided final ratings in round 3. Participants used 4 criteria associated with either the effectiveness or implementability to rate and discuss each policy. The effectiveness panel (n = 29) considered policy effects on treatment engagement, treatment retention, OUD remission, and opioid overdose mortality. The implementation panel (n = 34) considered the acceptability, feasibility, affordability, and equitability of each policy. We measured consensus using the interpercentile range adjusted for symmetry analysis technique from the RAND/UCLA appropriateness method.
Findings: Both panels reached consensus on all items. Experts viewed 2 policies (facilitated access to medications for OUD and automatic Medicaid enrollment for citizens returning from correctional settings) as highly implementable and highly effective in improving patient and population-level outcomes. Participants rated hub-and-spoke-type policies and provision of financial incentives to emergency departments for treatment linkage as effective; however, they also rated these policies as facing implementation barriers associated with feasibility and affordability. Coercive policies and policies levying additional requirements on individuals with OUD receiving treatment (eg, drug toxicology testing, counseling requirements) were viewed as low-value policies (ie, decreasing treatment engagement and retention, increasing overdose mortality, and increasing health inequities).
Conclusions and relevance: The findings of this study may provide urgently needed consensus on policies for states to consider either adopting or deimplementing in their efforts to address the opioid overdose crisis.
To read the full text of the article, please visit the publisher’s website.