Literature Collection

BACKGROUND: A U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) report found no consistent evidence that counseling interventions are effective at reducing drug use or improving other health outcomes in populations whose drug use was identified through primary care-based screening with questions about drug use or drug-related risks (i.e., “screen-detected populations”). Evidence from studies of persons seeking or referred for treatment for substance use or with clinical signs or symptoms of substance use (i.e., “treatment-seeking populations”) might also be useful for informing assessments regarding screening in primary care settings. PURPOSE: This report updates a 2008 USPSTF report on screening for illicit drug use and supplements an updated USPSTF report on screening for any drug use, focusing on the benefits and harms of pharmacotherapy and psychosocial interventions for persons whose drug use was identified when seeking substance use treatment, when presenting with signs or symptoms of drug use, when screened for drug use in primary care or other settings with questions about drug use or drug-related risks, or other means. DATA SOURCES: The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, and PsycINFO from inception to September 2018; surveillance for new literature was conducted through November 22, 2019. STUDY SELECTION: We included trials of Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved pharmacotherapies for opioid use disorder (methadone, buprenorphine, and naltrexone) and trials of psychosocial interventions for persons engaging in opioid, stimulant, cannabis, and mixed drug or polysubstance use. We also included trials of preemptive prescribing of naloxone in primary care settings as a rescue medication for opioid-related overdose. Trials compared included interventions against placebo, a minimal intervention, waitlist control, or usual care, and evaluated outcomes at ≥3 months for drug use or other risky behaviors; health, social, and legal consequences of drug use; or harms of treatment. DATA EXTRACTION: One investigator abstracted data and a second investigator checked data abstraction for accuracy. Two investigators independently assessed study quality using methods developed by the USPSTF. DATA SYNTHESIS (RESULTS): We included a total of 71 trials, with 19 trials of pharmacotherapies and 52 trials of psychosocial interventions. All trials of pharmacotherapies and 25 trials of psychosocial interventions were conducted in treatment-seeking populations. Psychosocial interventions commonly incorporated cognitive-behavioral or motivational interventions and ranged from brief interventions consisting of one or two sessions of no more than one hour to multiple treatment sessions over weeks or months. In most pharmacotherapy trials, drug use counseling was provided to all patients. No study evaluated benefits or harms of preemptive naloxone prescribed in primary care settings versus placebo or no naloxone as a rescue medication for opioid-related overdose. In treatment-seeking populations with opioid use disorder, naltrexone (12 trials; relative risk [RR] 0.73, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.62 to 0.85; number needed to treat [NNT] 5.3) and opioid agonist therapy with methadone or buprenorphine (4 trials; RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.59 to 0.82; NNT 2.9) were associated with decreased risk of drug use relapse compared with placebo or no pharmacotherapy. Naltrexone and methadone/buprenorphine therapy were also associated with increased likelihood of retention in substance use treatment (9 trials; RR 1.71, 95% CI 1.13 to 2.49; NNT 6.7 and 7 trials; RR 2.58, 95% CI 1.78 to 4.59; NNT 2.6; respectively). Evidence on harms of pharmacotherapies was limited, but indicated no increased risk of serious adverse events. Psychosocial interventions were associated with increased likelihood of abstinence from drug use versus control conditions at 3 to 4 months (15 trials, RR 1.60, 95% CI 1.24 to 2.13; NNT 11) and at 6 to 12 months (14 trials; RR 1.25, 95% CI 1.11 to 1.52; NNT 17), based on trials primarily conducted in treatment-seeking populations. Psychosocial interventions were also associated with a greater decrease versus control conditions in the number of drug use days (19 trials; mean difference −0.49 day in the last 7 days, 95% CI −0.85 to −0.13) and a small but statistically significant greater decrease in drug use severity (16 trials; standard mean difference −0.18, 95% CI −0.32 to −0.05) at 3- to 4-month followup. There was no difference between psychosocial interventions versus controls on drug use days or severity at longer (6 to 12 month) followup. Effects of psychosocial interventions were generally stronger in trials of treatment-seeking than screen-detected populations, trials that evaluated cannabis use than other types of drug use, and trials of more intensive than brief interventions. Few trials evaluated effects of psychosocial interventions for opioid or stimulant use, and estimates were imprecise. LIMITATIONS: Limitations included restriction to English-language articles, statistical heterogeneity in pooled analyses, and little evidence on drug-related health, social, or legal outcomes; most trials had methodological limitations. Evidence was lacking on effectiveness of treatments for opioid use disorder related to prescription drug use or stimulant use and evidence was limited for adolescents or pregnant persons. CONCLUSIONS: Pharmacotherapy and psychosocial interventions are effective at improving drug use outcomes, but evidence of effectiveness remains primarily derived from trials conducted in treatment-seeking populations. Although the applicability of data from such trials to persons whose drug use is identified through primary care-based screening is uncertain, intervention trials that enrolled patients based on screening identified a spectrum of drug use, ranging from mild drug use to more severe, untreated disease. The applicability of current evidence on drug use interventions to screening might be greater for the subset of patients screened in primary care settings with severe, untreated drug use who could utilize pharmacotherapies or more intensive psychosocial interventions.

BACKGROUND: Poor mental health is a recognized risk factor for adverse cardiovascular outcomes, yet depression, anxiety, and stress remain underdiagnosed and undertreated in individuals with cardiovascular disease (CVD). Effective strategies to promote early recognition and management of these conditions are not well established. We conducted a rapid scoping review to identify interventions aimed at improving mental health recognition and management in adult CVD population without diagnosed mental health conditions. METHODS: We systematically searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Web of Science, and Epistemonikos for articles published between January 1, 2014, and December 28, 2024. RESULTS: Of 11,645 screened studies, 24 met inclusion criteria: 12 systematic reviews and meta-analyses, and 12 randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Most focused on coronary artery disease or stroke patients. Interventions included mindfulness interventions (n = 9), routine screening (n = 2), interactive mHealth education (n = 2), psychosocial interventions (n = 4), caregiver education (n = 4), self-care (n = 1), and integrated care (n = 1). Interventions were multimodal pairing patient education with structured clinical encounters. Reporting of delivery methods was inconsistent and fewer than half assessed adherence. Only two RCTs involved patients in intervention design. Primary outcomes included changes in psychological distress symptoms and quality-of-life measures. CONCLUSION: A variety of interventions target early recognition and management of mental health symptoms in CVD patients. The approach of combining self-management with clinician check-ins aligns with contemporary models of integrated care. Standardized reporting and greater interest-holder engagement are needed to improve intervention development, implementation, and evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Medication non-adherence is a notable contributor to healthcare inefficiency, resulting in poor medication management, impaired patient outcomes, and ineffective symptom control. AIM: To summarise interventions targeting medication adherence for adults with mental-physical multimorbidity in primary healthcare settings. DESIGN AND SETTING: A systematic review of the literature - published in any language and with any country of origin - was conducted. METHOD: MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycInfo, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and the Cumulated Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature - more commonly known as CINAHL - were searched for relevant studies. Data were extracted and synthesised using narrative synthesis. The Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) taxonomy was used to classify intervention types. Risk of bias was assessed using the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute's quality assessment tool for controlled intervention studies. RESULTS: Eleven studies, representing 2279 patients, were included. All interventions examined were classified into one EPOC domain, namely 'delivery arrangements'. All included studies examined patients who had a physical condition and depression. Seven studies examining interventions focused on coordination of care and management of care processes reported statistically significant improvements in medication adherence that were attributed to the intervention. Four studies considering the use of information and communication technology observed no changes in medication adherence. CONCLUSION: Interventions that coordinate and manage healthcare processes may help improve patients' adherence to medication regimes in those with mental-physical multimorbidity. However, it is still necessary to better understand how digital health technology can support patients in following their medication regimes. As the growing challenges of treating multimorbidity are faced, everyone involved in health services - from providers to policymakers - must be receptive to a more integrated approach to healthcare delivery.

INTRODUCTION: This study focusses on the implementation of an integrated care pathway for women with SGA in their obstetric history that pursues value-based healthcare. This study aims to 1) Determine whether the integrated care pathway led to a reduction in the number of antenatal secondary care consultations, as an indicator of care efficacy, and 2) compare clinical outcomes for women with a history of SGA before and after implementation of the integrated care pathway. METHODS: Retrospective cohort study including data from pregnant women with a history of SGA within integrated maternity care organisation Annature, 2017-2020. Intervention was an integrated care pathway (2018). Pre- and post-intervention periods were compared assessing prenatal secondary care consultations, place and mode of delivery, and perinatal outcomes. RESULTS: The implementation of the care pathway for pregnant women with a history of SGA led to a reduction in mean number of prenatal secondary care consultations per pregnancy from 11 in 2017-5 in 2020, and fewer inductions of labour (78 (34.2%) vs 127 (26.8%), p = 0.045). Additionally, the number of births in primary care increased (35 (15.4%) vs 136 (28.8%), p < 0.001) with no significant adverse impact on neonatal outcomes in the post-intervention period compared to the pre-intervention period. CONCLUSION: The implementation of the care pathway for pregnant women with a history of SGA resulted in a reduction in prenatal secondary care consultations and fewer inductions of labour. Additionally, the number of births in primary care increased, with no significant adverse impact on neonatal outcomes in the post-intervention period compared to the pre-intervention period.