The goal of evidence-based medicine is ultimately to improve patient outcomes and quality of care. Systematic reviews of the available published evidence are required to identify interventions that lead to improvements in behavior, health, and well-being. Authoritative literature reviews depend on the quality of published research and research reports. The Consolidated Standards for Reporting Trials (CONSORT) Statement (www.consort-statement.org) was developed to improve the design and reporting of interventions involving randomized clinical trials (RCTs) in medical journals. We describe the 22 CONSORT guidelines and explain their application to behavioral medicine research and to evidence-based practice. Additional behavioral medicine-specific guidelines (e.g., treatment adherence) are also presented. Use of these guidelines by clinicians, educators, policymakers, and researchers who design, report, and evaluate or review RCTs will strengthen the research itself and accelerate efforts to apply behavioral medicine research to improve the processes and outcomes of behavioral medicine practice.

Background The World Health Organization (WHO) estimates that the number of obese or overweight individuals worldwide will increase to 1.5 billion by 2015. Chronic diseases associated with overweight or obesity include diabetes, heart disease, hypertension and stroke. Objectives To assess the effects of interactive computer-based interventions for weight loss or weight maintenance in overweight or obese people. Search methods We searched several electronic databases, including CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, LILACS and PsycINFO, through 25 May 2011. We also searched clinical trials registries to identify studies. We scanned reference lists of included studies and relevant systematic reviews. Selection criteria Studies were included if they were randomized controlled trials or quasi-randomized controlled trials that evaluated interactive computer-based weight loss or weight maintenance programs in adults with overweight or obesity. We excluded trials if the duration of the intervention was less than four weeks or the loss to follow-up was greater than 20% overall. Data collection and analysis Two authors independently extracted study data and assessed risk of bias. Where interventions, control conditions, outcomes and time frames were similar between studies, we combined study data using meta-analysis. Main results We included 14 weight loss studies with a total of 2537 participants, and four weight maintenance studies with a total of 1603 participants. Treatment duration was between four weeks and 30 months. At six months, computer-based interventions led to greater weight loss than minimal interventions (mean difference (MD) −1.5 kg; 95% confidence interval (CI) −2.1 to −0.9; two trials) but less weight loss than in-person treatment (MD 2.1 kg; 95% CI 0.8 to 3.4; one trial). At six months, computer-based interventions were superior to a minimal control intervention in limiting weight regain (MD −0.7 kg; 95% CI −1.2 to −0.2; two trials), but not superior to infrequent in-person treatment (MD 0.5 kg; 95% −0.5 to 1.6; two trials). We did not observe consistent differences in dietary or physical activity behaviors between intervention and control groups in either weight loss or weight maintenance trials. Three weight loss studies estimated the costs of computer-based interventions compared to usual care, however two of the studies were 11 and 28 years old, and recent advances in technology render these estimates unlikely to be applicable to current or future interventions, while the third study was conducted in active duty military personnel, and it is unclear whether the costs are relevant to other settings. One weight loss study reported the cost-effectiveness ratio for a weekly in-person weight loss intervention relative to a computer-based intervention as USD 7177 (EUR 5678) per life year gained (80% CI USD 3055 to USD 60,291 (EUR 2417 to EUR 47,702)). It is unclear whether this could be extrapolated to other studies. No data were identified on adverse events, morbidity, complications or health-rel...

Although the motivation to quit using substances is an important prognostic and treatment-matching factor in substance abuse treatment, there is limited information on motivation to quit among individuals with schizophrenia. This study used the five-stages-of-change model to evaluate the motivational levels of 497 individuals with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder in an outpatient mental health clinic. Rates of substance abuse, motivation levels to quit each specific substance, and correlates to motivational levels were evaluated. At least one substance use disorder was diagnosed in 224 of the subjects (45%); however, there was significant variability among the caseloads of the outpatient division teams. The patients in the triage/acute services and community outreach teams had substance abuse rates of about 70 percent. Most subjects had low motivation to quit substances, and the rates varied according to substance (range of 41% for opiates to 60% for cocaine). Treatment-matching strategies are suggested in the motivation-based treatment model.

No abstract