NCT02163707.

Background and aims Brief alcohol interventions in medical settings are efficacious in improving self-reported alcohol consumption among those with low-severity alcohol problems. Screening, Brief Intervention, and Referral to Treatment initiatives in the United States presume that brief interventions are efficacious in linking patients to higher levels of care, but pertinent evidence has not been evaluated. We estimated main and subgroup effects of brief alcohol interventions, regardless of their inclusion of a referral-specific component, in increasing the utilization of alcohol-related care. Methods A systematic review of English language articles published in electronic databases through 2013. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of brief alcohol interventions in general healthcare settings with adult and adolescent samples. We excluded studies that lacked alcohol services utilization data. Extractions of study characteristics and outcomes were standardized and independently conducted. The primary outcome was post-treatment alcohol services utilization assessed by self-report or administrative data, which we compared across intervention and control groups. Results Thirteen RCTs met inclusion criteria and nine were meta-analyzed (n = 993 and n = 937 intervention and control group participants, respectively). In our main analyses the pooled risk ratio was RR=1.08 (95% CI=0.92–1.28). Five studies compared referral-specific interventions with a control condition without such interventions (pooled RR=1.08, 95% CI=0.81–1.43). Other subgroup analyses of studies with common characteristics (e.g., age, setting, severity, risk of bias) yielded non-statistically significant results. Conclusions There is a lack of evidence that brief alcohol interventions have any efficacy for increasing the receipt of alcohol-related services.

The U.S. correctional system is overburdened by individuals suffering from substance use disorders. These illnesses also exact a heavy toll in individual and public health and well-being. Effective methods for reducing the negative impact of substance use disorders comprise critical concerns for policy makers. Drug court treatment programs (DTCs) are present in over 1800 county, tribal, and territorial jurisdictions in the United States, as an alternative to incarceration for offenders with substance use disorders. This review article summarizes available descriptive information on representative drug treatment court populations, summarizes observational studies of drug court participants, and specifically reviews available experimental effectiveness literature on drug treatment courts. The review concludes by examining limitations of the current literature, challenges to conducting research in drug court samples, and potential future directions for research on drug treatment court interventions. Review of non-experimental and quasi-experimental literature regarding the impact of drug treatment courts point toward benefit vs. traditional adjudication in averting future criminal behavior and in reducing future substance use, at least in the short term. Randomized effectiveness studies of drug treatment courts are scant (three identified in the literature on U.S. adult drug courts), and methodological issues arise in combining their findings. These randomized trials failed to demonstrate consistent effect upon re-arrest rates for drug-involved offenders participating in drug treatment court vs. typical adjudication. The two studies examining reconviction and reincarceration, however, demonstrated reductions for the drug treatment court group vs. those typically adjudicated.

Subjects in the study included all participants (N = 573) in drug treatment court in a mid-sized U.S. city from 1996 through 2004. Administrative data from the drug court included measures of demographics and socioeconomics, substance use, and criminal justice history. Stepwise multivariate logistic regression yielded a final model of failure to complete drug treatment. Unemployment, lower educational attainment, and cocaine use disorders were associated with failure to complete treatment. The limitations of administrative data should be considered in the interpretation of results. Funding was provided by the National Institutes of Health, National Institute on Drug Abuse (1 K23 DA017283-01).

BackgroundExternal change agents can play an essential role in healthcare organizational change efforts. This systematic review examines the role that external change agents have played within the context of multifaceted interventions designed to promote organizational change in healthcare—specifically, in primary care settings.MethodsWe searched PubMed, CINAHL, Cochrane, Web of Science, and Academic Search Premier Databases in July 2016 for randomized trials published (in English) between January 1, 2005 and June 30, 2016 in which external agents were part of multifaceted organizational change strategies. The review was conducted according to PRISMA guidelines. A total of 477 abstracts were identified and screened by 2 authors. Full text articles of 113 studies were reviewed. Twenty-one of these studies were selected for inclusion.ResultsAcademic detailing (AD) is the most prevalently used organizational change strategy employed as part of multi-component implementation strategies. Out of 21 studies, nearly all studies integrate some form of audit and feedback into their interventions. Eleven studies that included practice facilitation into their intervention reported significant effects in one or more primary outcomes.ConclusionsOur results demonstrate that practice facilitation with regular, tailored follow up is a powerful component of a successful organizational change strategy. Academic detailing alone or combined with audit and feedback alone is ineffective without intensive follow up. Provision of educational materials and use of audit and feedback are often integral components of multifaceted implementation strategies. However, we didn’t find examples where those relatively limited strategies were effective as standalone interventions. System-level support through technology (such as automated reminders or alerts) is potentially helpful, but must be carefully tailored to clinic needs.