Search

This paper models the predicted impact of tobacco price increases proposed in the United States and Australia during 2009 on smoking prevalence in 2010 while taking account of the effects of financial stress among smokers on cessation rates. Two models of smoking prevalence were developed for each country. In model 1, prevalence rates were determined by price elasticity estimates. In model 2 price elasticity was moderated by financial stress. Each model was used to estimate smoking prevalence in 2010 in Australia and the United States. Proposed price increases resulted in a 1.89% and 7.84% decrease in smoking participation among low socio-economic status (SES) groups in the United States and Australia, respectively. Model 1 overestimated the number of individuals expected to quit in both the United States (0.13% of smokers) and Australia (0.36% of smokers) by failing to take account of the differential effects of the tax on financially stressed smokers. The proportion of low-income smokers under financial stress increased in both countries in 2010 (by 1.06% in the United States and 3.75% in Australia). The inclusion of financial stress when modelling the impact of price on smoking prevalence suggests that the population health returns of increased cigarette price will diminish over time. As it is likely that the proportion of low-income smokers under financial stress will also increase in 2010, future population-based approaches to reducing smoking will need to address this factor. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

On July 24-25, 2003, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control convened a meeting of editors of journals that publish papers on HIV behavioral interventions to discuss ways to improve reporting of these studies. The meeting was attended by editors and representatives of 18 journals, including "Addiction." The meeting was also influenced by the movement for evidence-based medicine. The main goals of the meeting were to communicate the usefulness and importance of adequate reporting standards, to reach consensus on reporting standards for behavioral interventions, to develop a checklist of reporting standards to guide authors and journal reviewers and to develop strategies to disseminate the resulting reporting standards. During the meeting there was rapid uniform agreement on the importance of the standards. Discussion also led to a broadening of the focus for the standards to cover public health interventions in general, and not only HIV behavioral interventions. The initial checklist constituting the standards, presently known as the Transparent Reporting of Evaluations with Non-randomized Designs, was recently published in an editorial in the "American Journal of Public Health."

Aim To test a priori hypotheses concerning client–treatment matching in the treatment of alcohol problems and to evaluate the more general hypothesis that client–treatment matching adds to the overall effectiveness of treatment. Design Pragmatic, multi-centre, randomized controlled trial (the UK Alcohol Treatment Trial: UKATT) with open follow-up at 3 months after entry and blind follow-up at 12 months. Setting Five treatment centres, comprising seven treatment sites, including National Health Service (NHS), social services and joint NHS/non-statutory facilities. Treatments Motivational enhancement therapy and social behaviour and network therapy. Measurements Matching hypotheses were tested by examining interactions between client attributes and treatment types at both 3 and 12 months follow-up using the outcome variables of percentage days abstinent, drinks per drinking day and scores on the Alcohol Problems Questionnaire and Leeds Dependence Questionnaire. Findings None of five matching hypotheses was confirmed at either follow-up point on any outcome variable. Conclusion The findings strongly support the conclusion reached in Project MATCH in the United States that client–treatment matching, at least of the kind examined, is unlikely to result in substantial improvements to the effectiveness of treatment for alcohol problems. Possible reasons for this failure to support the general matching hypothesis are discussed, as are the implications of UKATT findings for the provision of treatment for alcohol problems in the United Kingdom. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]