SummaryBackgroundAlthough structured psychological treatments are recommended as first-line interventions for depression, only a small fraction of people globally receive these treatments because of poor access in routine primary care. We assessed the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a brief psychological treatment (Healthy Activity Program [HAP]) for delivery by lay counsellors to patients with moderately severe to severe depression in primary health-care settings.MethodsIn this randomised controlled trial, we recruited participants aged 18–65 years scoring more than 14 on the Patient Health Questionnaire 9 (PHQ-9) indicating moderately severe to severe depression from ten primary health centres in Goa, India. Pregnant women or patients who needed urgent medical attention or were unable to communicate clearly were not eligible. Participants were randomly allocated (1:1) to enhanced usual care (EUC) alone or EUC combined with HAP in randomly sized blocks (block size four to six [two to four for men]), stratified by primary health centre and sex, and allocation was concealed with use of sequential numbered opaque envelopes. Physicians providing EUC were masked. Primary outcomes were depression symptom severity on the Beck Depression Inventory version II and remission from depression (PHQ-9 score of <10) at 3 months in the intention-to-treat population, assessed by masked field researchers. Secondary outcomes were disability, days unable to work, behavioural activation, suicidal thoughts or attempts, intimate partner violence, and resource use and costs of illness. We assessed serious adverse events in the per-protocol population. This trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry, number ISRCTN95149997.FindingsBetween Oct 28, 2013, and July 29, 2015, we enrolled and randomly allocated 495 participants (247 [50%] to the EUC plus HAP group [two of whom were subsequently excluded because of protocol violations] and 248 [50%] to the EUC alone group), of whom 466 (95%) completed the 3 month primary outcome assessment (230 [49%] in the EUC plus HAP group and 236 [51%] in the EUC alone group). Participants in the EUC plus HAP group had significantly lower symptom severity (Beck Depression Inventory version II in EUC plus HAP group 19·99 [SD 15·70] vs 27·52 [13·26] in EUC alone group; adjusted mean difference −7·57 [95% CI −10·27 to −4·86]; p<0·0001) and higher remission (147 [64%] of 230 had a PHQ-9 score of <10 in the HAP plus EUC group vs 91 [39%] of 236 in the EUC alone group; adjusted prevalence ratio 1·61 [1·34–1·93]) than did those in the EUC alone group. EUC plus HAP showed better results than did EUC alone for the secondary outcomes of disability (adjusted mean difference −2·73 [–4·39 to −1·06]; p=0·001), days out of work (−2·29 [–3·84 to −0·73]; p=0·004), intimate partner physical violence in women (0·53 [0·29–0·96]; p=0·04), behavioural activation (2·17 [1·34–3·00]; p<0·0001), and suicidal thoughts or attempts (0·61 [0·45–0·83]; p=0·001). The incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year gained was $933...

This paper offers a conceptual overview of a neglected field. Evidence is presented to suggest that, globally, addiction is sufficiently stressful to cause pain and suffering to a large but uncounted number of adult affected family members (AFMs), possibly in the region of 100 million worldwide. A non-pathological stress-strain-coping-support model of the experience of AFMs is presented. The model is based on research in a number of different sociocultural groups in Mexico, England, Australia and Italy and aims to be sensitive to the circumstances of AFMs in low and middle income countries and in minority ethnic and indigenous groups as well to those of majorities in wealthier nations. It highlights the social and economic stressors of many kinds which AFMs face, their lack of information and social support, dilemmas about how to cope, and resulting high risk for ill-health. The public sector and personal costs are likely to be high. Attention is drawn to the relative lack of forms of help designed for AFMs in their own right. A 5-Step form of help aiming to fill that gap is briefly described. Family members affected by addiction have for too long been a group without a collective voice; research and action using the model and method described can make a contribution to changing that state of affairs.

SummaryBackgroundAlthough structured psychological treatments are recommended as first-line interventions for harmful drinking, only a small fraction of people globally receive these treatments because of poor access in routine primary care. We assessed the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of Counselling for Alcohol Problems (CAP), a brief psychological treatment delivered by lay counsellors to patients with harmful drinking attending routine primary health-care settings.MethodsIn this randomised controlled trial, we recruited male harmful drinkers defined by an Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT) score of 12–19 who were aged 18–65 years from ten primary health centres in Goa, India. We excluded patients who needed emergency medical treatment or inpatient admission, who were unable to communicate clearly, and who were intoxicated at the time of screening. Participants were randomly allocated (1:1) by trained health assistants based at the primary health centres to enhanced usual care (EUC) alone or EUC combined with CAP, in randomly sized blocks of four to six, stratified by primary health centre, and allocation was concealed with use of sequential numbered opaque envelopes. Physicians providing EUC and those assessing outcomes were masked. Primary outcomes were remission (AUDIT score of <8) and mean daily alcohol consumed in the past 14 days, at 3 months. Secondary outcomes were the effect of drinking, disability score, days unable to work, suicide attempts, intimate partner violence, and resource use and costs of illness. Analyses were on an intention-to-treat basis. We used logistic regression analysis for remission and zero-inflated negative binomial regression analysis for alcohol consumption. We assessed serious adverse events in the per-protocol population. This trial is registered with the ISCRTN registry, number ISRCTN76465238.FindingsBetween Oct 28, 2013, and July 29, 2015, we enrolled and randomly allocated 377 participants (188 [50%] to the EUC plus CAP group and 190 [50%] to the EUC alone group [one of whom was subsequently excluded because of a protocol violation]), of whom 336 (89%) completed the 3 month primary outcome assessment (164 [87%] in the EUC plus CAP group and 172 [91%] in the EUC alone group). The proportion with remission (59 [36%] of 164 in the EUC plus CAP group vs 44 [26%] of 172 in the EUC alone group; adjusted prevalence ratio 1·50 [95% CI 1·09–2·07]; p=0·01) and the proportion abstinent in the past 14 days (68 [42%] vs 31 [18%]; adjusted odds ratio 3·00 [1·76–5·13]; p<0·0001) were significantly higher in the EUC plus CAP group than in the EUC alone group, but we noted no effect on mean daily alcohol consumed in the past 14 days among those who reported drinking in this period (37·0 g [SD 44·2] vs 31·0 g [27·8]; count ratio 1·08 [0·79–1·49]; p=0·62). We noted an effect on the percentage of days abstinent in the past 14 days (adjusted mean difference [AMD] 16·0% [8·1–24·1]; p<0·0001), but no effect on the percentage of days of heavy drinking (AMD −0·4% [–5·7 to 4·...

This article is based upon the collective findings of a number of studies conducted in a number of countries during the past 20 years. Female partners and mothers are the family members who have been most represented in the study samples, but the latter also included sizeable numbers of male partners, fathers, sisters, brothers and adult sons and daughters. Citing examples taken from the studies, the article describes some of the most prominent elements of the stressful experience of living with a relative who is drinking or taking drugs excessively, notably: the relationship with a relative becoming disagreeable and sometimes aggressive; conflict over money and possessions; the experience of uncertainty; worry about the relative; and home and family life being threatened. The reasons why family members may put up with substance misuse are described, and the ways in which family members may either withdraw and gain independence or stand up to substance misuse, as alternative ways of coping, are outlined. Examples of the strain experienced by family members are given. The kinds of social support valued by family members are explained, as is the finding that good quality social support for family members is often lacking. The article concludes by offering an integrated view highlighting the disempowered position in which family members usually find themselves and the importance of good social support for family members in their coping efforts. Although the picture is coloured by factors such as sociocultural group and the ages and genders of family members and their relatives, we believe the core experience for affected family members is a universal one.

Alcohol and drug problems affect not only those using these substances but also family members of the substance user. In this review evidence of the negative impacts substance misuse may have upon families are examined, following which family-focused interventions are reviewed. Several family-focused interventions have been developed. They can be broadly grouped into three types: (1) working with family members to promote the entry and engagement of substance misusers into treatment; (2) joint involvement of family members and substance misusing relatives in the treatment of the latter; and (3) interventions responding to the needs of the family members in their own right. The evidence base for each of the three types is reviewed. Despite methodological weaknesses in this area, a number of conclusions can be advanced that support wider use of family focused interventions in routine practice. Future research needs to focus on (1) pragmatic trials that are more representative of routine clinical settings; (2) cost-effectiveness analyses, in terms of treatment costs and the impact of interventions on costs to society; (3) explore treatment process; and (4) make use of qualitative methods. In addition, there is a need to define more clearly the conceptual underpinnings of the family intervention under study.

The family plays a key part in both preventing and intervening with substance use and misuse, both through inducing risk, and/or encouraging and promoting protection and resilience. This review examines a number of family processes and structures that have been associated with young people commencing substance use and later misuse, and concludes that there is significant evidence for family involvement in young people's taking up, and later misusing, substances. Given this family involvement, the review explores and appraises interventions aimed at using the family to prevent substance use and misuse amongst young people. The review concludes that there is a dearth of methodologically highly sound research in this area, but the research that has been conducted does suggest strongly that the family can have a central role in preventing substance use and later misuse amongst young people.

Lawrence (Chelsea and Westminster Hospital) were the syphilis specialists who reviewed the cases, and we thank them for their speedy turn round of case reports. We acknowledge the diligence of individual specialists in genitourinary medicine and paediatricians in returning cards and data.Contributors: A-KH undertook the analysis of the data and drafted the paper. AN designed and oversaw the running of the surveys and completed the paper. CC led and coordinated the British Cooperative Clinical Group survey and contributed to the writing of the paper, as did TL, who was the lead clinician for the survey of paediatricians. NC contributed to writing the paper and applying the findings to syphilis screening policy. JW and LR administered the two surveys. AN is the guarantor.Funding: The British Paediatric Surveillance Unit (BPSU) is part of the Research Division of the Royal College of Paediatricians and Child Health (RCPCH) and was supported at the time of the survey by a grant from Children Nationwide. Administration of the surveys was supported by the PHLS through core funding from the Department of Health.Competing interests: None declared. AbstractObjective To determine the prevalence of severe psychological trauma-that is, post-traumatic stress disorder-in children involved in everyday road traffic accidents. Design 12 month prospective study. Setting Accident and emergency department, Royal United Hospital, Bath.

This chapter outlines the stress-strain-coping-support (SSCS) model which underpins the whole programme of work described in this supplement. The need for such a model is explained: previous models of substance misuse and the family have attributed dysfunction or deficiency to families or family members. In contrast, the SSCS model assumes that having a close relative with a substance misuse problem constitutes a form of stressful life circumstances, often long-standing, which puts affected family members at risk of experiencing strain in the form of physical and/or psychological ill-health. Coping and social support are the two other central building blocks of the model. Affected family members are viewed as ordinary people faced with the task of coping with such stressful life circumstances. It is an assumption of the model that, difficult though the coping task is, family members need not be powerless in maintaining their own health and helping their relatives. Good quality social support, in the form of emotional support, good information, and material help, is an invaluable resource for affected family members, supporting their coping efforts and contributing positively to their health. The 5-Step Method, to be described later in the supplement, is based on the SSCS model. It can be seen as a way of increasing the positive social support available from professional sources.