Search

Youth is a period in life when the risk of violence victimization is high and association between victimization and ill health is well established. Youth rarely reveal violence victimization to health professionals if not directly asked but favor health professionals asking about victimization. The study's primary aim was to examine health outcomes in young women being routinely asked about violence victimization and offered subsequent support, compared with controls, at 12-month follow-up. Secondary aims were to examine to what extent routine inquiry altered the consultation and re-victimization rates during the study period. A randomized controlled intervention study was conducted at Swedish youth health centers. Participants assigned to the intervention group were asked structured questions about violence. Victimized participants received empowering strategies and were offered further counseling. Participants in the control group completed questionnaires about victimization after the visit. Both groups answered questions about sociodemographics and health, constructed from validated instruments. A questionnaire was administered to all participants 12 months after baseline. Of 1,445 eligible young women, 1,051 (73%) participated, with 54% of the participants completing the 12-month follow-up. Lifetime violence victimization was reported by 53% in the intervention group and 60% in the control group, ns. There were no significant differences in health outcomes, between baseline and 12-month follow-up, within either group or between groups. Re-victimization rates were 16% in the intervention group and 12% in the control group, ns. Of victimized young women in the intervention group, 14% wanted and received further counseling. Routine inquiry about violence victimization and empowering strategies were feasible within ordinary consultations at youth health centers but did not demonstrate improved health outcomes at 12-month follow-up compared with controls. Questions about violence led to a high degree of disclosure, and 14% of victimized young women in the intervention group received further counseling as a result.

Objective: The aim of this study is to assess the effectiveness of a very brief structured counseling for tobacco cessation in dentistry clinics., Method: A cluster randomized trial was conducted in Sweden in 2012-2013. Twenty-seven dentistry clinics in two Swedish counties were randomized to provide either a structured brief advice based on the 5 A's model or usual care. Participants were 467 patients currently using tobacco daily (225 in the intervention group and 242 in usual care), of which 97% were retained at follow-up, six months after enrolment. Study outcomes were: 7-day abstinence (primary outcome); 3-month sustained abstinence; 50% reduction of the amount tobacco used; quit attempts lasting at least 24h., Results: Compared to usual care, brief counseling was not associated to statistically significant increase in the proportion abstinent from tobacco use after 6months. However, there was a statistically significant association with reduction of tobacco consumption (OR=2.07 95% CI 1.28-3.35). Changes in the expected direction for all outcomes were more frequent in the intervention than in the usual care group, and larger among exclusive snus users than among smokers., Conclusions: Very brief and structured counseling in dentistry may achieve positive behavioral modifications among tobacco users, with significant reduction of tobacco consumption, particularly among smokeless tobacco users., (Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background and aims: Despite the high prevalence and negative effects of hazardous substance use, few young adults enter treatment. Community Reinforcement and Family Training (CRAFT), a support programme for concerned significant others of people with substance use disorders, has proved efficacious in promoting treatment entry. The aim of the current trial was to compare the efficacy of CRAFT with an active control for parents of young adults (aged 18–24 years) with hazardous substance use. Design: This was a randomized controlled superiority trial comparing CRAFT (n = 58) with an active control group receiving manualized counselling (n = 55), with outcome assessments at 6, 12 and 24 weeks (primary end‐point). A sequential design with a stopping rule was added post recruitment commencement. Setting: The study took place in two outpatient clinics for young adults in Stockholm, Sweden, and subsequently via video‐conference due to COVID‐19. Participants: Between October 2018 and May 2021, 113 participants (92% female) who were parents of young adults (87% male) were recruited. Recruitment was discontinued when 70% of the planned sample had been recruited, following an interim analysis of the primary outcome showing no difference between conditions. Intervention and comparator: Participants were randomized (ratio 1 : 1) to eight manual‐based individual CRAFT sessions or five individual manual‐based counselling sessions + one voluntary psychoeducative group session, delivered over maximum 14 weeks. Measurements The primary outcome measure was the rate of young adult entry in substance use treatment during the trial period (24 weeks). Findings At the 24 weeks follow‐up, 19 (33%) of CRAFT participants and 17 (31%) of counselling participants had reported young adult treatment entry, with no difference between conditions (odds ratio CRAFT versus counselling 0.84, 95% confidence interval = 0.35; 1.99, P = 0.700). Both conditions reported clinically relevant reductions in young adult substance use, but no change in participants' levels of depression, anxiety or stress. Conclusions: This trial showed no statistically significant evidence that Community Reinforcement and Family Training (CRAFT), a support programme for concerned significant others of people with substance use disorders, is more efficacious than manual‐based counselling regarding treatment entry for young adults. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]