Search

Background and aims: The majority of smokers accessing the current best treatments continue to smoke. We aimed to test if e‐cigarettes (EC) compared with nicotine replacement treatment (NRT) can help such smokers to reduce smoking. Design Randomized controlled trial of EC (n = 68) versus NRT (n = 67) with 6‐month follow‐up. Setting: Stop smoking service in London, UK. Participants: A total of 135 smokers (median age = 40 years, 51% male) previously unable to stop smoking with conventional treatments. Interventions: Participants received either NRT of their choice (8‐week supply) or an EC starter pack and instructions to purchase further e‐liquids of strength and flavours of their choice themselves. Products were accompanied by minimal behavioural support. Measurements Participants who reported that they stopped smoking or reduced their daily cigarette consumption by at least 50% at 6‐month follow‐up were invited to provide a carbon monoxide (CO) reading. The primary outcome was biochemically validated reduction in smoke intake of at least 50% at 6 months and the main secondary outcome was sustained validated abstinence at 6 months. Drop‐outs were included as 'non‐reducers'. Findings Validated smoking reduction (including cessation) was achieved by 26.5 versus 6.0% of participants in the EC and NRT study arms, respectively [relative risk (RR) = 4.4, P = 0.005, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.6–12.4]. Sustained validated abstinence rates at 6 months were 19.1 versus 3.0% (RR = 6.4, P = 0.01, 95% CI = 1.5–27.3). Product use was high and equal in both study arms initially, but at 6 months allocated product use was 47% in the EC arm versus 10% in the NRT arm (χ2(1) = 22.0, P < 0.001), respectively. Adverse events were minor and infrequent. Conclusions: In smokers unable to quit using conventional methods, e‐cigarettes were more effective than nicotine replacement therapy in facilitating validated long‐term smoking reduction and smoking cessation when limited other support was provided. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and aim: Reducing alcohol misuse by male prisoners is an important global issue. Control of drinking behaviour could be a useful target for intervention in this population, and locus of control could be a causal factor in this. We aimed to assess the effect of a clinical psychologist‐facilitated group intervention on male prisoners' locus of control of drinking behaviour. Design A two‐arm, single‐site, open, randomized controlled trial. Setting: A category B local training prison in South Wales, housing about 770 mainly sentenced men. Participants: Prisoners serving less than 2 years who met inclusion criteria for pre‐imprisonment alcohol misuse, alone or with drug misuse. A total of 119 were allocated to the intervention arm and 119 to the control arm; 104 and 87, respectively, completed the post‐randomization baseline interview and 68 and 60 completed a second interview approximately 4 weeks later, respectively, after intervention or treatment as usual (TAU) alone. Intervention: Nine clinical psychologist‐facilitated groups in the prison over 3 weeks. Range of participants per session was one to seven, with three to five most usual. Measures: The primary outcome was locus of control of behaviour (LCB); secondary outcomes included mental state generally (comprehensive psychiatric rating scale/CPRS) and specifically (Beck Depression Inventory/BDI). An integral process evaluation was conducted. Findings LCB scores decreased during the study, but without significant intervention effect [−1.7, 95% confidence interval (CI) = –5.1 to 1.6, P = 0.329]. Change among completers in the control group was from a mean score of 37.4 [standard deviation (SD) = 10.0] to 33.7[SD = 11.7] and in the intervention group from 37.4 (SD = 11.6) to 31.9 (SD = 11.8). Secondary outcomes, including change in mental state, did not differ between arms, but 686 (64%) sessions were lost, most because of 'prison issues'. Conclusions: A clinical psychologist‐facilitated group intervention did not have a statistically significant effect on sense of control of drinking behaviour among men with pre‐imprisonment alcohol misuse serving less than 2 years in a South Wales prison. The study proved coterminous, however, with 40% prison staff cuts which seem likely to have contributed to the high loss of group sessions and possibly overwhelmed any treatment effect. Intervention completion failures, previously cited as harmful, had no effect here, so the trial should be repeated when the prison climate improves. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and Aims Premises licensed for the sale and consumption of alcohol can contribute to levels of assault-related injury through poor operational practices that, if addressed, could reduce violence. We tested the real-world effectiveness of an intervention designed to change premises operation, whether any intervention effect changed over time, and the effect of intervention dose. Design A parallel randomized controlled trial with the unit of allocation and outcomes measured at the level of individual premises. Setting All premises (public houses, nightclubs or hotels with a public bar) in Wales, UK. Participants A randomly selected subsample ( n = 600) of eligible premises (that had one or more violent incidents recorded in police-recorded crime data; n = 837) were randomized into control and intervention groups. Intervention and comparator Intervention premises were audited by Environmental Health Practitioners who identified risks for violence and provided feedback by varying dose (informal, through written advice, follow-up visits) on how risks could be addressed. Control premises received usual practice. Measurements Police data were used to derive a binary variable describing whether, on each day premises were open, one or more violent incidents were evident over a 455-day period following randomization. Findings Due to premises being unavailable at the time of intervention delivery 208 received the intervention and 245 were subject to usual practice in an intention-to-treat analysis. The intervention was associated with an increase in police recorded violence compared to normal practice (hazard ratio = 1.34, 95% confidence interval = 1.20-1.51). Exploratory analyses suggested that reduced violence was associated with greater intervention dose (follow-up visits). Conclusion An Environmental Health Practitioner-led intervention in premises licensed for the sale and on-site consumption of alcohol resulted in an increase in police recorded violence. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Children who show disproportionate difficulty with the pragmatic as compared with the structural aspects of language are described as having pragmatic language impairment (PLI) or social communication disorder (SCD). Some children who have PLI also show mild social impairments associated with high-functioning autism or autism spectrum disorder (ASD). There is little robust evidence of effectiveness of speech-language interventions which target the language, pragmatic or social communication needs of these children. Aims: To evaluate the effectiveness of an intensive manualized social communication intervention (SCIP) for children who have PLI with or without features of ASD. Methods & Procedures: In a single-blind RCT design, 88 children with pragmatic and social communication needs aged 5;11-10;8, recruited from UK speech and language therapy services, were randomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio to SCIP or to treatment-as-usual. Children in the SCIP condition received up to 20 sessions of direct intervention from a specialist research speech and language therapist working with supervised assistants. All therapy content and methodology was derived from an intervention manual. A primary outcome measure of structural language and secondary outcome measures of narrative, parent-reported pragmatic functioning and social communication, blind-rated perceptions of conversational competence and teacher-reported ratings of classroom learning skills were taken pre-intervention, immediately post-intervention and at 6-month follow-up. Analysis was by intention to treat. Outcomes & Results: No significant treatment effect was found for the primary outcome measure of structural language ability or for a measure of narrative ability. Significant treatment effects were found for blind-rated perceptions of conversational competence, for parent-reported measures of pragmatic functioning and social communication, and for teacher-reported ratings of classroom learning skills. Conclusions & Implications: There is some evidence of an intervention effect on blind and parent/teacher-reported communication outcomes, but not standardized language assessment outcomes, for 6-11-year-old children who have pragmatic and social communication needs. These findings are discussed in the context of the increasingly central role of service user outcomes in providing evidence for an intervention. The substantial overlap between the presence of PLI and ASD (75%) across the whole cohort suggests that the intervention may also be applicable to some verbally able children with ASD who have pragmatic communication needs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]