No abstract

No abstract

Objectives: This systematic review and meta-analysis examined the effects of exercise on individuals with alcohol use disorders (AUDs) across multiple health outcomes. Data Sources: PubMed, Medline, Web of Science, Scopus, Academic Search complete, Sport Discuss, and ERIC databases. Study Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria: Interventional studies published between 2000 and 2018 focused on evaluating the effectiveness of exercise interventions in adults with AUD. Data Extraction: This protocol was prepared using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses protocols standard and the Meta-Analyses and Systematic Reviews of Observational Studies guidelines. Data Synthesis: Physical activity levels/fitness [VO2 max (Oxygen Uptake) and HRmax (Maximum Heart Rate)], levels of depression, anxiety, self-efficacy, quality of life, and alcohol consumption (number of standard drinks consumed per day and per week). Results: The findings indicated that exercise significantly improved physical fitness as assessed by VO2 max (standardized mean difference [SMD]: 0.487, P < .05) and HRmax (SMD: 0.717, P < .05). Similarly, exercise significantly improved mental health as assessed by quality of life (SMD: 0.425, P < .05), but levels of depression, anxiety, self-efficacy, and alcohol consumption did not change significantly. Aerobic exercise alleviated depression and anxiety symptoms more than that of yoga and mixed types. Duration of exercise also had a similar effect on anxiety and depression. Conclusions: Exercise can be an effective and persistent adjunctive treatment for individuals with AUDs.

Exercise is constantly gaining attention as adjuvant treatment for alcohol use disorder (AUD), supplementing classical pharmacological and psychotherapeutic approaches. The aim of this study was to determine the effects of cognitive-behavioral model-based (CBM-based) intervention on the depression, anxiety, and self-efficacy levels in AUD. This quasi-experimental study was conducted using pre- and posttests and repeated measurements with a control group; it was completed between February 2015 and August 2015 in Turkey. Participants were 41 individuals with AUD, 20 in the experimental group and 21 in the control group. The individuals in the experimental group performed aerobic exercise 3 days a week as well as attended the psychoeducation provided 1 day a week. The difference between mean scores of the individuals in the experimental and control groups taken in posttest and 4-month follow-up test in the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI) as well as the difference between mean posttest scores in the Beck Anxiety Inventory (BAI) and Self-Efficacy Scale (SES) were found to be statistically significant ( p < .05). In the intragroup comparisons, a significant difference was found between the "BDI," "BAI," and "SES" measurement times ( p < .05). It was concluded that CBM-based intervention was effective in reducing depression and anxiety, increasing self-efficacy in individuals with AUD. Appropriate nurse-managed CBM-based intervention for individuals with AUD can promote their health.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

Background: Substance users are among the most highly stigmatized individuals by both the public and health care providers. However, no multidimensional scale for measuring substance use stigma for substance use disorders (SUDs) currently exists in Turkey. Aims: The aim of this study was to determine the validity and reliability of the Turkish version of the Substance Use Stigma Mechanism Scale (SU-SMS). Method: The study was conducted at the AMATEM (Alcohol and Substance Addiction Treatment Center Clinic). The sample group of this methodological study consisted of 156 participants with SUDs who met the inclusion criteria. “Social-demographics Questionnaire,” “The Substance Use Stigma Mechanism Scale,” and “Internalized Stigma of Mental Illness Scale” were used for data collection. In the validity–reliability analysis of the scale, language and content validity, explanatory and confirmatory factor analysis, criterion-concurrent validity, Cronbach’s alpha coefficient, item–total score correlation, split-half reliability analysis, and test–retest reliability methods were used. Results: Using exploratory factor analysis, it was found that the SU-SMS has five factors. Its five-factor structure was confirmed using confirmatory factor analysis. Its Cronbach’s alpha coefficient was .828, and factor loading was between .402 and .971. Analyses indicated that each of the factors of the Turkish version of the scale had high internal consistency. The test–retest correlation value was .752, p = .000. Conclusions: It was concluded that the Turkish version of the SU-SMS is a reliable and valid instrument for assessing substance use-related stigma in individuals with SUDs.