Search

Background: Alcohol use in young people is a risk factor for a range of short- and long-term harms and is a cause of concern for health services, policy-makers, youth workers, teachers, and parents., Objectives: To assess the effectiveness of universal, selective, and indicated family-based prevention programmes in preventing alcohol use or problem drinking in school-aged children (up to 18 years of age).Specifically, on these outcomes, the review aimed:• to assess the effectiveness of universal family-based prevention programmes for all children up to 18 years ('universal interventions');• to assess the effectiveness of selective family-based prevention programmes for children up to 18 years at elevated risk of alcohol use or problem drinking ('selective interventions'); and• to assess the effectiveness of indicated family-based prevention programmes for children up to 18 years who are currently consuming alcohol, or who have initiated use or regular use ('indicated interventions')., Search Methods: We identified relevant evidence from the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), in the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE (Ovid 1966 to June 2018), Embase (1988 to June 2018), Education Resource Information Center (ERIC; EBSCOhost; 1966 to June 2018), PsycINFO (Ovid 1806 to June 2018), and Google Scholar. We also searched clinical trial registers and handsearched references of topic-related systematic reviews and the included studies., Selection Criteria: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and cluster RCTs (C-RCTs) involving the parents of school-aged children who were part of the general population with no known risk factors (universal interventions), were at elevated risk of alcohol use or problem drinking (selective interventions), or were already consuming alcohol (indicated interventions). Psychosocial or educational interventions involving parents with or without involvement of children were compared with no intervention, or with alternate (e.g. child only) interventions, allowing experimental isolation of parent components., Data Collection and Analysis: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane., Main Results: We included 46 studies (39,822 participants), with 27 classified as universal, 12 as selective, and seven as indicated. We performed meta-analyses according to outcome, including studies reporting on the prevalence, frequency, or volume of alcohol use. The overall quality of evidence was low or very low, and there was high, unexplained heterogeneity.Upon comparing any family intervention to no intervention/standard care, we found no intervention effect on the prevalence (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.08 to 0.08; studies = 12; participants = 7490; I² = 57%; low-quality evidence) or frequency (SMD -0.31, 95% CI -0.83 to 0.21; studies = 8; participants = 1835; I² = 96%; very low-quality evidence) of alcohol use in comparison with no intervention/standard care. The effect of any parent/family interventions on alcohol consumption volume compared with no intervention/standard care was very small (SMD -0.14, 95% CI -0.27 to 0.00; studies = 5; participants = 1825; I² = 42%; low-quality evidence).When comparing parent/family and adolescent interventions versus interventions with young people alone, we found no difference in alcohol use prevalence (SMD -0.39, 95% CI -0.91 to 0.14; studies = 4; participants = 5640; I² = 99%; very low-quality evidence) or frequency (SMD -0.16, 95% CI -0.42 to 0.09; studies = 4; participants = 915; I² = 73%; very low-quality evidence). For this comparison, no trials reporting on the volume of alcohol use could be pooled in meta-analysis.In general, the results remained consistent in separate subgroup analyses of universal, selective, and indicated interventions. No adverse effects were reported., Authors' Conclusions: The results of this review indicate that there are no clear benefits of family-based programmes for alcohol use among young people. Patterns differ slightly across outcomes, but overall, the variation, heterogeneity, and number of analyses performed preclude any conclusions about intervention effects. Additional independent studies are required to strengthen the evidence and clarify the marginal effects observed.

Background: Alcohol use and misuse in young people is a major risk behaviour for mortality and morbidity. Motivational interviewing (MI) is a popular technique for addressing excessive drinking in young adults., Objectives: To assess the effects of motivational interviewing (MI) interventions for preventing alcohol misuse and alcohol-related problems in young adults., Search Methods: We identified relevant evidence from the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (2015, Issue 12), MEDLINE (January 1966 to July 2015), EMBASE (January 1988 to July 2015), and PsycINFO (1985 to July 2015). We also searched clinical trial registers and handsearched references of topic-related systematic reviews and the included studies., Selection Criteria: We included randomised controlled trials in young adults up to the age of 25 years comparing MIs for prevention of alcohol misuse and alcohol-related problems with no intervention, assessment only or alternative interventions for preventing alcohol misuse and alcohol-related problems., Data Collection and Analysis: We used the standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane., Main Results: We included a total of 84 trials (22,872 participants), with 70/84 studies reporting interventions in higher risk individuals or settings. Studies with follow-up periods of at least four months were of more interest in assessing the sustainability of intervention effects and were also less susceptible to short-term reporting or publication bias. Overall, the risk of bias assessment showed that these studies provided moderate or low quality evidence.At four or more months follow-up, we found effects in favour of MI for the quantity of alcohol consumed (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.11, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.15 to -0.06 or a reduction from 13.7 drinks/week to 12.5 drinks/week; moderate quality evidence); frequency of alcohol consumption (SMD -0.14, 95% CI -0.21 to -0.07 or a reduction in the number of days/week alcohol was consumed from 2.74 days to 2.52 days; moderate quality evidence); and peak blood alcohol concentration, or BAC (SMD -0.12, 95% CI -0.20 to 0.05, or a reduction from 0.144% to 0.131%; moderate quality evidence).We found a marginal effect in favour of MI for alcohol problems (SMD -0.08, 95% CI -0.17 to 0.00 or a reduction in an alcohol problems scale score from 8.91 to 8.18; low quality evidence) and no effects for binge drinking (SMD -0.04, 95% CI -0.09 to 0.02, moderate quality evidence) or for average BAC (SMD -0.05, 95% CI -0.18 to 0.08; moderate quality evidence). We also considered other alcohol-related behavioural outcomes, and at four or more months follow-up, we found no effects on drink-driving (SMD -0.13, 95% CI -0.36 to 0.10; moderate quality of evidence) or other alcohol-related risky behaviour (SMD -0.15, 95% CI -0.31 to 0.01; moderate quality evidence).Further analyses showed that there was no clear relationship between the duration of the MI intervention (in minutes) and effect size. Subgroup analyses revealed no clear subgroup effects for longer-term outcomes (four or more months) for assessment only versus alternative intervention controls; for university/college vs other settings; or for higher risk vs all/low risk participants.None of the studies reported harms related to MI., Authors' Conclusions: The results of this review indicate that there are no substantive, meaningful benefits of MI interventions for preventing alcohol use, misuse or alcohol-related problems. Although we found some statistically significant effects, the effect sizes were too small, given the measurement scales used in the included studies, to be of relevance to policy or practice. Moreover, the statistically significant effects are not consistent for all misuse measures, and the quality of evidence is not strong, implying that any effects could be inflated by risk of bias.

Background: Drinking is influenced by youth perceptions of how their peers drink. These perceptions are often incorrect, overestimating peer drinking norms. If inaccurate perceptions can be corrected, young people may drink less., Objectives: To determine whether social norms interventions reduce alcohol-related negative consequences, alcohol misuse or alcohol consumption when compared with a control (ranging from assessment only/no intervention to other educational or psychosocial interventions) among university and college students., Search Methods: The following electronic databases were searched up to July 2015: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library), MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO. The Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) only to March 2008. Reference lists of included studies and review articles were manually searched. No restriction based on language or date was applied., Selection Criteria: Randomised controlled trials or cluster-randomised controlled trials that compared a social normative intervention versus no intervention, alcohol education leaflet or other 'non-normative feedback' alcohol intervention and reported on alcohol consumption or alcohol-related problems in university or college students., Data Collection and Analysis: We used standard methodological procedures as expected by Cochrane. Each outcome was analysed by mode of delivery: mailed normative feedback (MF); web/computer normative feedback (WF); individual face-to-face normative feedback (IFF); group face-to-face normative feedback (GFF); and normative marketing campaign (MC)., Main Results: A total of 70 studies (44,958 participants) were included in the review, and 63 studies (42,784 participants) in the meta-analyses. Overall, the risk of bias assessment showed that these studies provided moderate or low quality evidence.Outcomes at four or more months post-intervention were of particular interest to assess when effects were sustained beyond the immediate short term. We have reported pooled effects across delivery modes only for those analyses for which heterogeneity across delivery modes is not substantial (I(2) < 50%).Alcohol-related problems at four or more months: IFF standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.14, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.24 to -0.04 (participants = 2327; studies = 11; moderate quality evidence), equivalent to a decrease of 1.28 points in the 69-point alcohol problems scale score. No effects were found for WF or MF.Binge drinking at four or more months: results pooled across delivery modes: SMD -0.06, 95% CI -0.11 to -0.02 (participants = 11,292; studies = 16; moderate quality evidence), equivalent to 2.7% fewer binge drinkers if 30-day prevalence is 43.9%.Drinking quantity at four or more months: results pooled across delivery modes: SMD -0.08, 95% CI -0.12 to -0.04 (participants = 21,169; studies = 32; moderate quality evidence), equivalent to a reduction of 0.9 drinks consumed each week, from a baseline of 13.7 drinks per week.Drinking frequency at four or more months: WF SMD -0.11, 95% CI -0.17 to -0.04 (participants = 9929; studies = 10; moderate quality evidence), equivalent to a decrease of 0.17 drinking days/wk, from a baseline of 2.74 days/wk; IFF SMD -0.21, 95% CI -0.31 to -0.10 (participants = 1464; studies = 8; moderate quality evidence), equivalent to a decrease of 0.32 drinking days/wk, from a baseline of 2.74 days/wk. No effects were found for GFF or MC.Estimated blood alcohol concentration (BAC) at four or more months: peak BAC results pooled across delivery modes: SMD -0.08, 95% CI -0.17 to 0.00 (participants = 7198; studies = 11; low quality evidence), equivalent to a reduction in peak BAC from an average of 0.144% to 0.135%. No effects were found for typical BAC with IFF., Authors' Conclusions: The results of this review indicate that no substantive meaningful benefits are associated with social norms interventions for prevention of alcohol misuse among college/university students. Although some significant effects were found, we interpret the effect sizes as too small, given the measurement scales used in the studies included in this review, to be of relevance for policy or practice. Moreover, the significant effects are not consistent for all misuse measures, heterogeneity was a problem in some analyses and bias cannot be discounted as a potential cause of these findings.

Background: Globally, harmful use of alcohol results in approximately 2.5 million deaths each year. About 9% of these deaths are young people between the ages of 15 and 29 years (WHO 2011), mainly resulting from motor vehicle accidents, homicides, suicides and drownings. Hazardous drinking levels for men (consuming over 40 g/day alcohol on average, that is 5 units) double the risk of liver disease, raised blood pressure, some cancers and violent death (because some people who have this average alcohol consumption drink heavily on some days). For women, over 24 g/day average alcohol consumption (3 units) increases the risk for developing liver disease and breast cancer. Motivational interviewing (MI) is a popular technique for addressing excessive drinking in young adults but its effectiveness has not previously been examined in a Cochrane review., Objectives: The specific objectives were:(1) to summarise current evidence about the effects of MI intended to address alcohol and alcohol-related problems in young adults, compared with no intervention or a different intervention, on alcohol consumption and other substantive outcome measures;(2) to investigate whether the effects of MI are modified by the length of the intervention., Search Methods: Relevant evidence was identified from (1) Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (October 2013), (2) MEDLINE (January 1966 to October 2013), (3) EMBASE (January 1988 to October 2013), and (4) PsycINFO (1985 to October 2013). References of topic-related systematic reviews and the included studies were handsearched., Selection Criteria: Randomised controlled trials and cluster randomised controlled trials of young people up to the age of 25 years in college and non-college settings comparing MIs with no intervention or a different intervention for prevention of alcohol misuse and alcohol-related problems were included., Data Collection and Analysis: We used the standard methodological procedures expected by The Cochrane Collaboration., Main Results: A total of 66 randomised trials (17,901 participants) were included four of which were cluster randomised. Studies with longer-term follow-up (four plus months) were of more interest when considering the sustainability of intervention effects.At four or more months follow-up, effects were found for the quantity of alcohol consumed (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.14; 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.20 to -0.08 or a reduction from 13.7 drinks/week to 12.2 drinks/week), moderate quality of evidence; frequency of alcohol consumption (SMD -0.11; 95% CI -0.19 to -0.03 or a reduction in the number of days/week alcohol was consumed from 2.74 days to 2.57 days), moderate quality of evidence; and peak blood alcohol concentration (BAC) (SMD -0.14; 95% CI -0.23 to -0.05 or a decrease in peak BAC from 0.144% to 0.129%), moderate quality of evidence. A marginal effect was found for alcohol problems (SMD -0.08; 95% CI -0.15 to 0.00 or a reduction in an alcohol problems scale score from 8.91 to 8.18), low quality of evidence. No effects were found for binge drinking (SMD -0.05; 95% CI -0.12 to 0.01), moderate quality of evidence; or average BAC (SMD -0.08; 95% CI -0.22 to 0.06), moderate quality of evidence. We also considered other outcomes and at four or more months follow-up we found no effects on drink-driving (SMD -0.11; 95% CI -0.31 to 0.09), moderate quality of evidence; or other alcohol-related risky behaviour (SMD -0.14; 95% CI -0.30 to 0.02), moderate quality of evidence.Further analyses showed that the type of control comparison (assessment only versus alternative intervention) did not predict the outcome in a clear or straightforward way; and there was no consistent relationship between the duration of the MI intervention (in minutes) and effect size., Authors' Conclusions: The results of this review indicate that there are no substantive, meaningful benefits of MI interventions for the prevention of alcohol misuse. Although some significant effects were found, we interpret the effect sizes as being too small, given the measurement scales used in the studies included in the review, to be of relevance to policy or practice. Moreover, the statistically significant effects are not consistent for all misuse measures, heterogeneity was a problem in some analyses and bias cannot be discounted as a potential cause of these findings.

Background: Nurses and midwives form the bulk of the clinical health workforce and play a central role in all health service delivery. There is potential to improve health care quality if nurses routinely use the best available evidence in their clinical practice. Since many of the factors perceived by nurses as barriers to the implementation of evidence-based practice (EBP) lie at the organisational level, it is of interest to devise and assess the effectiveness of organisational infrastructures designed to promote EBP among nurses., Objectives: To assess the effectiveness of organisational infrastructures in promoting evidence-based nursing., Search Methods: We searched the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) Group Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, LILACS, BIREME, IBECS, NHS Economic Evaluations Database, Social Science Citation Index, Science Citation Index and Conference Proceedings Citation Indexes up to 9 March 2011.We developed a new search strategy for this update as the strategy published in 2003 omitted key terms. Additional search methods included: screening reference lists of relevant studies, contacting authors of relevant papers regarding any further published or unpublished work, and searching websites of selected research groups and organisations. , Selection Criteria: We considered randomised controlled trials, controlled clinical trials, interrupted times series (ITSs) and controlled before and after studies of an entire or identified component of an organisational infrastructure intervention aimed at promoting EBP in nursing. The participants were all healthcare organisations comprising nurses, midwives and health visitors., Data Collection and Analysis: Two authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias. For the ITS analysis, we reported the change in the slopes of the regression lines, and the change in the level effect of the outcome at 3, 6, 12 and 24 months follow-up., Main Results: We included one study from the USA (re-analysed as an ITS) involving one hospital and an unknown number of nurses and patients. The study evaluated the effects of a standardised evidence-based nursing procedure on nursing care for patients at risk of developing healthcare-acquired pressure ulcers (HAPUs). If a patient's admission Braden score was below or equal to 18 (i.e. indicating a high risk of developing pressure ulcers), nurses were authorised to initiate a pressure ulcer prevention bundle (i.e. a set of evidence-based clinical interventions) without waiting for a physician order. Re-analysis of data as a time series showed that against a background trend of decreasing HAPU rates, if that trend was assumed to be real, there was no evidence of an intervention effect at three months (mean rate per quarter 0.7%; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.7 to 3.3; P = 0.457). Given the small percentages post intervention it was not statistically possible to extrapolate effects beyond three months., Authors' Conclusions: Despite extensive searching of published and unpublished research we identified only one low-quality study; we excluded many studies due to non-eligible study design. If policy-makers and healthcare organisations wish to promote evidence-based nursing successfully at an organisational level, they must ensure the funding and conduct of well-designed studies to generate evidence to guide policy.

Background: Alcohol misuse in young people is a cause of concern for health services, policy makers, prevention workers, and criminal justice system, youth workers, teachers, and parents., Objectives: To systematically review evidence on the effectiveness of universal family-based prevention programs in preventing alcohol misuse in school-aged children up to 18 years of age. To update a part of a previously published Cochrane systematic review., Search Strategy: Relevant evidence (up to 2002) was selected from the previous Cochrane review. Later studies, to July 2010, were identified from MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, EMBASE, Project CORK, and PsycINFO., Selection Criteria: Randomized trials evaluating universal family-based prevention programs and reporting outcomes for alcohol use in students 18 years of age or younger were included. Two reviewers screened titles/abstracts and full text of identified records., Data Collection and Analysis: Two reviewers extracted relevant data independently using an a priori defined extraction form. Risk of bias was assessed., Main Results: 12 parallel-group trials were included. The reporting quality of trials was poor, only 20% of them reporting adequate method of randomisation and program allocation concealment. Incomplete data was adequately addressed in about half of the trials and this information was unclear for about 30% of the trials. Due to extensive heterogeneity across interventions, populations, and outcomes, the results were summarized only qualitatively.9 of the 12 trials showed some evidence of effectiveness compared to a control or other intervention group, with persistence of effects over the medium and longer-term. Four of these effective interventions were gender-specific, focusing on young females. One study with a small sample size showed positive effects that were not statistically significant, and two studies with larger sample sizes reported no significant effects of the family-based intervention for reducing alcohol misuse., Authors' Conclusions: In conclusion, in this Cochrane systematic review we found that that the effects of family-based prevention interventions are small but generally consistent and also persistent into the medium- to longer-term.

Background: Alcohol misuse in young people is a cause of concern for health services, policy makers, prevention workers, and criminal justice system, youth workers, teachers, and parents., Objectives: To systematically review evidence on the effectiveness of universal multi-component prevention programs in preventing alcohol misuse in school-aged children up to 18 years of age. To update a part of a previously published Cochrane systematic review., Search Strategy: Relevant evidence (up to 2002) was selected from the previous Cochrane review. Later studies, to July 2010, were identified from MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, EMBASE, Project CORK, and PsycINFO., Selection Criteria: Randomized trials evaluating universal multi-component prevention programs (intervention delivered in more than one setting) and reporting outcomes for alcohol use in students 18 years of age or younger were included. Two reviewers screened titles/abstracts and full text of identified records., Data Collection and Analysis: Two reviewers extracted relevant data independently using an a priori defined extraction form. Risk of bias was assessed., Main Results: 20 parallel-group trials were included. The reporting quality of trials was poor, only 25% and 5% of them reporting adequate method of randomisation and program allocation concealment, respectively. Incomplete data was adequately addressed in about half of the trials and this information was unclear for about 20% of the trials. Due to extensive heterogeneity across interventions, populations, and outcomes, the results were summarized only qualitatively.12 of the 20 trials showed some evidence of effectiveness compared to a control or other intervention group, with persistence of effects ranging from 3 months to 3 years. Of the remaining 8 trials, one trial reported significant effects using one-tailed tests and 7 trials reported no significant effects of the multi-component interventions for reducing alcohol misuse.Assessment of the additional benefit of multiple versus single component interventions was possible in 7 trials with multiple arms. Only one of the 7 trials clearly showed a benefit of components delivered in more than one setting., Authors' Conclusions: There is some evidence that multi-component interventions for alcohol misuse prevention in young people can be effective. However, there is little evidence that interventions with multiple components are more effective than interventions with single components.

Background: Alcohol misuse in young people is cause of concern for health services, policy makers, prevention workers, criminal justice system, youth workers, teachers, parents. This is one of three reviews examining the effectiveness of (1) school-based, (2) family-based, and (3) multi-component prevention programs., Objectives: To review evidence on the effectiveness of universal school-based prevention programs in preventing alcohol misuse in school-aged children up to 18 years of age., Search Strategy: Relevant evidence (up to 2002) was selected from the previous Cochrane review. Later studies, to July 2010, were identified from MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, EMBASE, Project CORK, and PsycINFO., Selection Criteria: Randomized trials evaluating universal school-based prevention programs and reporting outcomes for alcohol use in students 18 years of age or younger were included. Two reviewers screened titles/abstracts and full text of identified records., Data Collection and Analysis: Two reviewers extracted relevant data independently using an a priori defined extraction form. Risk of bias was assessed., Main Results: 53 trials were included, most of which were cluster-randomised. The reporting quality of trials was poor, only 3.8% of them reporting adequate method of randomisation and program allocation concealment. Incomplete data was adequately addressed in 23% of the trials. Due to extensive heterogeneity across interventions, populations, and outcomes, the results were summarized only qualitatively.Six of the 11 trials evaluating alcohol-specific interventions showed some evidence of effectiveness compared to a standard curriculum. In 14 of the 39 trials evaluating generic interventions, the program interventions demonstrated significantly greater reductions in alcohol use either through a main or subgroup effect. Gender, baseline alcohol use, and ethnicity modified the effects of interventions. Results from the remaining 3 trials with interventions targeting cannabis, alcohol, and/or tobacco were inconsistent., Authors' Conclusions: This review identified studies that showed no effects of preventive interventions, as well as studies that demonstrated statistically significant effects. There was no easily discernible pattern in characteristics that would distinguish trials with positive results from those with no effects. Most commonly observed positive effects across programs were for drunkenness and binge drinking. Current evidence suggests that certain generic psychosocial and developmental prevention programs can be effective and could be considered as policy and practice options. These include the Life Skills Training Program, the Unplugged program, and the Good Behaviour Game. A stronger focus of future research on intervention program content and delivery context is warranted.

Background: Central venous access (CVA), in which a large bore catheter is routed through a vein in the neck, upper chest or femoral area, is needed to give drugs that cannot be given by mouth or via a conventional cannula in the arm., Objectives: To establish whether either the jugular, subclavian or femoral CVA routes result in a lower incidence of venous thrombosis, venous stenosis or infection related to CVA devices.To determine whether the circumference of a long-term central venous access device influences the incidence of venous thrombosis, venous stenosis or infection related to CVA devices., Search Strategy: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2006, Issue 4), MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE (from inception to December 2006), reference lists of identified trials, and bibliographies of published reviews. We also contacted researchers in the field. There were no language restrictions., Selection Criteria: We included randomized controlled trials comparing central venous catheter insertion routes., Data Collection and Analysis: Two authors assessed potentially relevant studies. We resolved disagreements by discussion. Relevant outcomes were: venous thrombosis, venous stenosis, infection related to CVA devices, mechanical complications (e.g misplaced catheter, minor bleeding, haematoma)., Main Results: We considered 83 studies for inclusion in the review. Six studies appeared eligible but five were subsequently excluded because they did not randomize participants for either site of access or catheter circumference size. One study was a high quality block randomized controlled trial. Allocation concealment was good and randomization was by a central computer. In all, 293 patients were randomized to a femoral or a subclavian CVA group. Results from this one trial were as follows. 1. CATHETER-RELATED INFECTIOUS COMPLICATIONS: Infectious complication (colonization with or without sepsis: the relative risk (RR) was 4.57 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.95 to 10.71) favouring subclavian over femoral access. Major infectious complications (sepsis with or without bacteremia): the RR was 3.04 (95% CI 0.63 to 14.82) favouring subclavian access. Colonized catheter (greater than 103 colony-forming units/mL of gram positive microorganisms): the RR was 3.65 (95%CI 1.40 to 9.56) favouring subclavian access. Colonized catheter (greater than 103 colony-forming units/mL of gram negative microorganisms): the RR was 5.41 (95% CI 1.61 to 18.15) favouring subclavian access. 2. CATHETER-RELATED MECHANICAL COMPLICATIONS: Overall complications (arterial puncture, minor bleeding, haematoma, misplaced catheter): the RR was 0.92 (95% 0.56 to 1.51) favouring subclavian access. 3. CATHETER-RELATED THROMBOTIC COMPLICATIONS: Catheter-related thromboses (fibrin sleeves, major and complete thrombosis): the RR was 11.53 (95% CI 2.80, to 47.52) favouring subclavian access., Authors' Conclusions: Subclavian CVA is preferable to femoral CVA. Further trials of subclavian versus femoral or jugular CVA are needed. Research on the impact of catheter circumference on catheter-related complications is required.

Background: Auricular acupuncture (insertion of acupuncture into a number, usually five, of specific points in the ear) is a widely-used treatment for cocaine dependence., Objectives: To determine whether auricular acupuncture is an effective treatment for cocaine dependence, and to investigate whether its effectiveness is influenced by the treatment regimen., Search Strategy: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library Issue 3, 2004); MEDLINE (January 1966 to October 2004) , EMBASE (January 1988 to October 2004); PsycInfo (1985 to October 2004); CINAHL (1982 to October 2004); SIGLE (1980 to October 2004) and reference lists of articles., Selection Criteria: Randomised controlled trials comparing a therapeutic regimen of auricular acupuncture with sham acupuncture or no treatment for reduction of cocaine use in cocaine dependents., Data Collection and Analysis: Two authors independently extracted data from published reports and assessed study quality using the Drug and Alcohol CRG checklist. All authors were contacted for additional information; two provided data. Separate meta-analyses were conducted for studies comparing auricular acupuncture with sham acupuncture, and with no treatment. For the main cocaine use outcomes, analyses were conducted by intention to treat, assuming that missing data were treatment failures. Available case analyses, using only individuals who provided data, were also conducted., Main Results: Seven studies with a total of 1,433 participants were included. All were of generally low methodological quality. No differences between acupuncture and sham acupuncture were found for attition RR 1.05 (95% CI 0.89 to 1.23) or acupuncture and no acupuncture: RR 1.06 (95% CI 0.90 to 1.26) neither for any measure of cocaine or other drug use. However, the number of participants included in meta-analyses was low, and power was limited. Moderate benefit or harm is not ruled out by these results. Methodological limitations of the included studies may have also made the results open to bias., Authors' Conclusions: There is currently no evidence that auricular acupuncture is effective for the treatment of cocaine dependence. The evidence is not of high quality and is inconclusive. Further randomised trials of auricular acupuncture may be justified.

Background: Interventions intended to prevent or reduce use of drugs by young people may be delivered in schools or in other settings. This review aims to summarise the current literature about the effectiveness of interventions delivered in non schools settings., Objectives: (1) - To summarise the current evidence about the effectiveness of interventions delivered in non-school settings intended to prevent or reduce drug use by young people under 25;(2) - To investigate whether interventions' effects are modified by the type and setting of the intervention, and the age of young people targeted;(3) - To identify areas where more research is needed., Search Strategy: We searched Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL - The Cochrane Library Issue 4, 2004), MEDLINE (1966-2004), EMBASE (1980-2004), PsycInfo (1972-2004), SIGLE (1980-2004), CINAHL (1982-2004) and ASSIA (1987-2004). We searched also reference lists of review articles and retrieved studies., Selection Criteria: Randomised trials that evaluated an intervention targeting drug use by young people under 25 years of age, delivered in a non-school setting, compared with no intervention or another intervention, that reported substantive outcomes relevant to the review., Data Collection and Analysis: Two authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. Results were tabulated, as studies were considered too dissimilar to combine using meta-analysis., Main Results: Seventeen studies, 9 cluster randomised studies, with 253 clusters, 8 individually randomised studies with 1230 participants, evaluating four types of intervention: motivational interviewing or brief intervention, education or skills training, family interventions and multi-component community interventions. Many studies had methodological drawbacks, especially high levels of loss to follow-up. There were too few studies for firm conclusions. One study of motivational interviewing suggested that this intervention was beneficial on cannabis use. Three family interventions (Focus on Families, Iowa Strengthening Families Program and Preparing for the Drug-Free Years), each evaluated in only one study, suggested that they may be beneficial in preventing cannabis use. The studies of multi component community interventions did not find any strong effects on drug use outcomes, and the two studies of education and skills training did not find any differences between the intervention and control groups., Authors' Conclusions: There is a lack of evidence of effectiveness of the included interventions. Motivational interviewing and some family interventions may have some benefit. Cost-effectiveness has not yet been addressed in any studies, and further research is needed to determine whether any of these interventions can be recommended.

Background: The purpose of this systematic review is to determine to what extent organisational infrastructures are effective in promoting the implementation of high quality research evidence on the effectiveness of nursing interventions., Objectives: To identify and summarize rigorous evaluations of organisational infrastructure developments aimed at promoting evidence based nursing practice., Search Strategy: We searched: The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, SIGLE, HEALTHLINE, National Research Register, Nuffield Database of Health Outcomes, NIH Databases up to August 2002. We hand searched the Journal of Advanced Nursing, Applied Nursing Research and Journal of Nursing Administration (to 1999), and checked the reference lists of articles obtained. We contacted experts in the field and relevant Internet groups., Selection Criteria: Randomized controlled trials, controlled clinical trials and interrupted times series studies of an entire or identified component of an organisational infrastructure development aimed at promoting effective nursing interventions. The participants were health care organisations comprising nurses, midwives and health visitors in hospital and community settings., Data Collection and Analysis: All identified papers were screened independently for relevance, design and outcome by two reviewers., Main Results: No studies were sufficiently rigorous to be included in this systematic review. Seven case study evaluations were identified but excluded from the review because of poor design and lack of controls., Reviewer's Conclusions: 1. There are no clear implications for practice.2. Several conceptual models on organisational processes to promote evidence based practice have been described in published papers, and a number of organisational infrastructural interventions have been described in published papers. None have been evaluated properly. The next step in this field should be to conduct well planned evaluations of well planned interventions. 3. Interrupted and Complex Interrupted Times Series (ITS and CITS) designs should be adopted as a useful alternative to randomized controlled trials where such trials would be impractical. The health service cost of any infrastructure developments should be assessed in any evaluation. If possible, patient outcomes should be measured directly.

Background: Alcohol misuse is a cause of concern for health services, policy makers, prevention workers, the criminal justice system, youth workers, teachers and parents., Objectives: 1. To identify and summarize rigorous evaluations of psychosocial and educational interventions aimed at the primary prevention of alcohol misuse by young people. 2. To assess the effectiveness of primary prevention interventions over the longer-term (> 3 years)., Search Strategy: Databases searched (no time limits): Project CORK, BIDS, PSYCLIT, ERIC, ASSIA, MEDLINE, FAMILY-RESOURCES-DATABASE, HEALTH-PERIODICALS-DATABASE, EMBASE, BIDS, Dissertation-Abstracts, SIGLE, DRUG-INFO, SOMED, Social-Work-Abstracts, National-Clearinghouse-on-Alcohol-and-Drug-Information, Mental-Health-Abstracts, DRUG-database, ETOH (all searched Feb-June 2002)., Selection Criteria: 1. randomised controlled and non-randomised controlled and interrupted time series designs. 2. educational and psychosocial primary prevention interventions for young people up to 25 years old. 3. alcohol-specific or generic (drugs; lifestyle) interventions providing alcohol outcomes reported. 4. alcohol outcomes: alcohol use, age of alcohol initiation, drinking 5+ drinks on any one occasion, drunkeness, alcohol related violence, alcohol related crime, alcohol related risky behaviour., Data Collection and Analysis: Stage 1: All papers screened by one reviewer against inclusion criteria. Stage 2: For those papers that passed Stage 1, key information was extracted from each paper by 2-3 reviewers., Main Results: 20 of the 56 studies included showed evidence of ineffectiveness. No firm conclusions about the effectiveness of prevention interventions in the short- and medium-term were possible. Over the longer-term, the Strengthening Families Program (SFP) showed promise as an effective prevention intervention. The Number Needed to Treat (NNT) for the SFP over 4 years for three alcohol initiation behaviours (alcohol use, alcohol use without permission and first drunkeness) was 9 (for all three behaviours). One study also highlighted the potential value of culturally focused skills training over the longer-term (NNT=17 over three-and-a-half years for 4+ drinks in the last week)., Reviewer's Conclusions: 1. Research into important outcome variables needs to be undertaken. 2. Methodology of evaluations needs to be improved. 3. The Strengthening Families Programme needs to be evaluated on a larger scale and in different settings. 4. Culturally-focused interventions require further development and rigorous evaluation. 5. An international register of alcohol and drug misuse prevention interventions should be established and criteria agreed for rating prevention intervention in terms of safety, efficacy and effectiveness.