Both interventions led to significant reductions in long-term benzodiazepine use in patients without severe comorbidity. A structured intervention with a written individualised stepped-dose reduction is less time-consuming and as effective in primary care as a more complex intervention involving follow-up visits.

BackgroundPrimary care interventions that promote cessation of benzodiazepine (BZD) use in longterm users are effective at 1 year, but their efficacy at 3 years is uncertain.

ObjectivesPrimary: To compare the effectiveness of intensive group and individual interventions for smoking cessation in a primary health care setting; secondary: to identify the variables associated with smoking cessation.MethodsThree-pronged clinical trial with randomisation at the individual level. We performed the following: an intensive individual intervention (III), an intensive group intervention (IGI) and a minimal intervention (MI). Included in the study were smokers who were prepared to quit smoking. Excluded from the study were individuals aged less than 18 years or with severe mental conditions or terminal illnesses. The outcome measure was continued abstinence at 12 months confirmed through CO-oximetry (CO). The analysis was based on intention to treat.ResultsIn total, 287 smokers were recruited: 81 in the III, 111 in the IGI, and 95 in the MI. Continued abstinence at 12 months confirmed through CO was 7.4% in the III, 5.4% in the IGI, and 1% in the MI. No significant differences were noted between III and MI on the one hand, and between IGI and MI on the other [RR 7.04 (0.9-7.2) and RR 5.1 (0.6-41.9), respectively]. No differences were noted between IGI and III [RR 0.7 (0.2-2.2)]. In multivariate analysis, only overall visit length showed a statistically significant association with smoking cessation.ConclusionsThe effectiveness of intensive smoking interventions in this study was lower than expected. No statistically significant differences were found between the results of individual and group interventions.Trial registration numberISRCTN32323770

BackgroundAlthough benzodiazepines are effective, long-term use is not recommended because of potential adverse effects; the risks of tolerance and dependence; and an increased risk of hip fractures, motor vehicle accidents, and memory impairment. The estimated prevalence of long-term benzodiazepine use in the general population is about 2,2 to 2,6%, is higher in women and increases steadily with age. Interventions performed by General Practitioners may help patients to discontinue long-term benzodiazepine use. We have designed a trial to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of two brief general practitioner-provided interventions, based on gradual dose reduction, and will compare the effectiveness of these interventions with that of routine clinical practice.Methods/DesignIn a three-arm cluster randomized controlled trial, general practitioners will be randomly allocated to: a) a group in which the first patient visit will feature a structured interview, followed by visits every 2-3 weeks to the end of dose reduction; b) a group in which the first patient visit will feature a structured interview plus delivery of written instructions to self-reduce benzodiazepine dose, or c) routine care. Using a computerized pharmaceutical prescription database, 495 patients, aged 18-80 years, taking benzodiazepine for at least 6 months, will be recruited in primary care health districts of three regions of Spain (the Balearic Islands, Catalonia, and Valencia). The primary outcome will be benzodiazepine use at 12 months. The secondary outcomes will include measurements of anxiety and depression symptoms, benzodiazepine dependence, quality of sleep, and alcohol consumption.DiscussionAlthough some interventions have been shown to be effective in reducing benzodiazepine consumption by long-term users, the clinical relevance of such interventions is limited by their complexity. This randomized trial will compare the effectiveness and safety of two complex stepped care interventions with that of routine care in a study with sufficient statistical power to detect clinically relevant differences.Trial RegistrationCurrent Controlled Trials: ISRCTN13024375

IntroductionBenzodiazepines (BZDs) are mainly used to treat anxiety and sleep disorders, and are often prescribed for long durations, even though prescription guidelines recommend short-term use due to the risk of dependence, cognitive impairment, and falls and fractures. Education of general practitioners (GPs) regarding the prescription of BZDs may reduce the overuse and of these drugs.The aims of this study are to analyse the effectiveness of an intervention targeted to GPs to reduce BZD prescription and evaluate the implementation process.Methods and analysisThe healthcare centres in three regions of Spain (Balearic Islands, Catalonia and Community of Valencia) will be randomly allocated to receive a multifactorial intervention or usual care (control). GPs in the intervention group will receive a 2-hour workshop about best-practice regarding BZD prescription and BZD deprescribing, monthly feedback about their BZD prescribing practices and access to a support web page. Outcome measures for each GP are the defined daily dosage per 1000 inhabitants per day and the proportion of long-term BZD users at 12 months. Data will be collected from the electronic prescription database of the public health system, and will be subjected to intention-to-treat analysis. Implementation will be evaluated by mixed methods following the five domains of the Consolidated Framework For Implementation Research.Ethics and disseminationThis study was approved by the Balearic Islands Ethical Committee of Clinical Research (IB3065/15), l’IDIAP Jordi Gol Ethical Committee of Clinical Research (PI 15/0148) and Valencia Primary Care Ethical Committee of Clinical Research (P16/024). The results will be submitted for publication in peer-reviewed journals.Trial registration number ISRCTN28272199.

Background: General practitioners (GPs) in developed countries widely prescribe benzodiazepines (BZDs) for their anxiolytic, hypnotic, and muscle-relaxant effects. Treatment duration, however, is rarely limited, and this results in a significant number of chronic users. Long-term BZD use is associated with cognitive impairment, falls with hip fractures, traffic accidents, and increased mortality. The BENZORED IV trial was a hybrid type-1 trial conducted to evaluate the effectiveness and implementation of an intervention to reduce BZD prescription in primary care. The purpose of this qualitative study was to analyze the facilitators and barriers regarding the implementation of the intervention in primary care settings. Methods: A qualitative interview study with 40 GPs from three Spanish health districts. Focus group meetings with GPs from the intervention arm of the BENZORED IV trial were held at primary healthcare centers in the three districts. For sampling purposes, the GPs were classified as high or low implementers according to the success of the intervention measured at 12 months. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) was used to conduct the meetings and to code, rate, and analyze the data. Results: Three of the 41 CFIR constructs strongly distinguished between high and low implementers: the complexity of the intervention, the individual Stage of Change, and the key stakeholder’s engagement. Seven constructs weakly discriminated between the two groups: adaptability in the intervention, external policy and incentives, implementation climate, relative priority, self-efficacy, compatibility, and engaging a formally appointed implementation leader. Fourteen constructs did not discriminate between the two groups, six had insufficient data for evaluation, and eleven had no data for evaluation. Conclusions: We identified constructs that could explain differences in the efficacy in implementation of the intervention. This information is relevant for the design of successful strategies for implementation of the intervention.

Background Current benzodiazepine (BZD) prescription guidelines recommend short-term use to minimize the risk of dependence, cognitive impairment, and falls and fractures. However, many clinicians overprescribe BZDs and chronic use by patients is common. There is limited evidence on the effectiveness of interventions delivered by general practitioners (GPs) on reducing prescriptions and long-term use of BZDs. We aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of a multicomponent intervention for GPs that seeks to reduce BZD prescriptions and the prevalence of long-term users. Methods and findings We conducted a multicenter two-arm, cluster randomized controlled trial in 3 health districts in Spain (primary health centers [PHCs] in Balearic Islands, Catalonia, and Valencian Community) from September 2016 to May 2018. The 81 PHCs were randomly allocated to the intervention group (n = 41; 372 GPs) or the control group (n = 40; 377 GPs). GPs were not blinded to the allocation; however, pharmacists, researchers, and trial statisticians were blinded to the allocation arm. The intervention consisted of a workshop about the appropriate prescribing of BZDs and tapering-off long-term BZD use using a tailored stepped dose reduction with monthly BZD prescription feedback and access to a support web page. The primary outcome, based on 700 GPs (351 in the control group and 349 in the intervention group), compared changes in BZD prescriptions in defined daily doses (DDDs) per 1,000 inhabitants per day after 12 months. The 2 secondary outcomes were the proportion of long-term users (≥6 months) and the proportion of long-term users over age 65 years. Intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis was used to assess all clinical outcomes. Forty-nine GPs (21 intervention group and 28 control group) were lost to follow-up. However, all GPs were included in the ITT analysis. After 12 months, there were a statistically significant decline in total BZD prescription in the intervention group compared to the control group (mean difference: −3.24 DDDs per 1,000 inhabitants per day, 95% confidence interval (CI): −4.96, −1.53, p < 0.001). The intervention group also had a smaller number of long-term users. The adjusted absolute difference overall was −0.36 (95% CI: −0.55, −0.16, p > 0.001), and the adjusted absolute difference in long-term users over age 65 years was −0.87 (95% CI: −1.44, −0.30, p = 0.003). A key limitation of this clustered design clinical trial is the imbalance of some baseline characteristics. The control groups have a higher rate of baseline BZD prescription, and more GPs in the intervention group were women, GPs with a doctorate degree, and trainers of GP residents. Conclusions A multicomponent intervention that targeted GPs and included educational meeting, feedback about BZD prescriptions, and a support web page led to a statistically significant reduction of BZD prescriptions and fewer long-term users. Although the effect size was small, the high prevalence of BZD use in the general population suggests that large-scale implementation of this intervention could have positive effects on the health of many patients. Trial registration ISRCTN ISRCTN28272199.

Background: General practitioners (GPs) in developed countries widely prescribe benzodiazepines (BZDs) for their anxiolytic, hypnotic, and muscle-relaxant effects. Treatment duration, however, is rarely limited and this results in a significant number of chronic users. Long-term BZD use is associated with cognitive impairment, falls with hip fractures, traffic accidents, and increased mortality. The BENZORED IV trial was a hybrid type 1 trial conducted to evaluate the effectiveness and implementation of an intervention to reduce BZD prescription in primary care. The purpose of this qualitative study was to analyze facilitator and barriers to implement the intervention to primary care settings.Methods: Focus group meetings with GPs from the intervention arm of the BENZORED IV trial were held at primary healthcare centers in the three districts. For sampling purposes, the GPs were classified as high or low implementers according to the success of the intervention measured at 12 months. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) was used to conduct the meetings and to code, rate and analyze the dataResults: Three of the 41 CFIR constructs strongly distinguished between high and low implementers: The complexity in the intervention, the individual Stage of Change and the key stakeholder’s engagement. Seven constructs weakly discriminated between the two groups: the adaptability in the intervention, the external policy and incentives, the implementation climate, the relative priority, the self-efficacy and formally appointed implementation leader engaging. Fourteen constructs did not discriminate between the two groups, six had insufficient data for evaluation, and eleven had no data for evaluation.Conclusion: We identified constructs that could explain the variation in the implementation of the intervention, this information is relevant to design successful implementation strategies to implement the intervention.