Search

Aims: We assessed antibiotic knowledge and practice among youth in India, where antibiotics are widely available without prescription., Methods: Randomly selected school questionnaire survey representing four regions in Goa, India, with students ( n = 773) aged 16-17., Results: Most students (67%) were unaware of the problem of antibiotic resistance, with around half (49%) mistakenly thinking that bacteria cause cold or flu. Around one-fifth (19%) said they frequently self-medicate with antibiotics, 57% would discontinue antibiotics when symptoms alleviated and 24% stored unused antibiotics at home. Generalised linear mixed models (GLMM) showed that females consistently had poorer antibiotic knowledge than males. Especially notable were the higher odds in females for reporting incorrectly that antibiotics kill harmful viruses (odds ratio (OR) = 1.93; 99.5% confidence interval (CI) = 1.09-3.41) and for reporting incorrectly that antibiotics do not kill harmless bacteria (OR = 2.02; 99.5% CI = 1.16-3.51). Poor antibiotic practice was not clearly differentiated between males and females. In terms of poor antibiotic practice, one model showed notable results for educational stream: both arts and commerce students were more likely than science students to say they would discontinue antibiotics when symptoms alleviated and before the antibiotic course of treatment was finished (arts: OR = 2.76; 99.5% CI = 1.58-4.82 and commerce: OR = 1.79; 99.5% CI = 1.06-3.04)., Conclusion: Young adults in India had poor antibiotic knowledge and practice. Efforts to improve antibiotic health knowledge and safe practice are required to help prevent the spread of antibiotic resistance.

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: Drinking is influenced by youth (mis)perceptions of how their peers drink. If misperceptions 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 May 2014: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO and 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., 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 The Cochrane Collaboration. 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 66 studies (43,125 participants) were included in the review, and 59 studies (40,951 participants) in the meta-analyses. Outcomes at 4+ 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 4+ months: IFF standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.16, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.31 to -0.01 (participants = 1065; studies = 7; moderate quality of evidence), equivalent to a decrease of 1.5 points in the 69-point alcohol problems scale score. No effects were found for WF or MF. Binge drinking at 4+ months: results pooled across delivery modes: SMD -0.06, 95% CI -0.11 to -0.02 (participants = 11,292; studies = 16; moderate quality of evidence), equivalent to 2.7% fewer binge drinkers if 30-day prevalence is 43.9%. Drinking quantity at 4+ months: results pooled across delivery modes: SMD -0.08, 95% CI -0.12 to -0.05 (participants = 20,696; studies = 33; moderate quality of evidence), equivalent to a reduction of 0.9 drinks consumed each week, from a baseline of 13.7 drinks per week. Drinking frequency at 4+ months: WF SMD -0.12, 95% CI -0.18 to -0.05 (participants = 9456; studies = 9; moderate quality of evidence), equivalent to a decrease of 0.19 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 of 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 4+ months: peak BAC results pooled across delivery modes: SMD -0.08, 95% CI -0.17 to 0.00 (participants = 7198; studies = 13; low quality of evidence), equivalent to a reduction in peak PAC 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 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: 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.