Search

Background: Many people who experience harm and problems from gambling do not seek treatment from gambling treatment services because of personal and resource barriers. Mobile health (mHealth) interventions are widely used across diverse health care areas and populations. However, there are few in the gambling harm field, despite their potential as an additional modality for delivering treatment and support. Objective: This study aims to understand the needs, preferences, and priorities of people experiencing gambling harms and who are potential end users of a cognitive behavioral therapy mHealth intervention to inform design, features, and functions. Methods: Drawing on a mixed methods approach, we used creators and domain experts to review the GAMBLINGLESS web-based program and convert it into an mHealth prototype. Each module was reviewed against the original evidence base to maintain its intended fidelity and conceptual integrity. Early wireframes, design ideas (look, feel, and function), and content examples were developed to initiate discussions with end users. Using a cocreation process with a young adult, a Maori, and a Pasifika peoples group, all with experiences of problem or harmful gambling, we undertook 6 focus groups: 2 cycles per group. In each focus group, participants identified preferences, features, and functions for inclusion in the final design and content of the mHealth intervention. Results: Over 3 months, the GAMBLINGLESS web-based intervention was reviewed and remapped from 4 modules to 6. This revised program is based on the principles underpinning the transtheoretical model, in which it is recognized that some end users will be more ready to change than others. Change is a process that unfolds over time, and a nonlinear progression is common. Different intervention pathways were identified to reflect the end users' stage of change. In all, 2 cycles of focus groups were then conducted, with 30 unique participants (13 Maori, 9 Pasifika, and

The COVID-19 pandemic has brought the combined disciplines of public health, infectious disease and policy modelling squarely into the spotlight. Never before have decisions regarding public health measures and their impacts been such a topic of international deliberation, from the level of individuals and communities through to global leaders. Nor have models-developed at rapid pace and often in the absence of complete information-ever been so central to the decision-making process. However, after nearly 3 years of experience with modelling, policy-makers need to be more confident about which models will be most helpful to support them when taking public health decisions, and modellers need to better understand the factors that will lead to successful model adoption and utilization. We present a three-stage framework for achieving these ends.

Despite notable scientific and medical advances, broader political, socioeconomic and behavioural factors continue to undercut the response to the COVID-19 pandemic1,2. Here we convened, as part of this Delphi study, a diverse, multidisciplinary panel of 386 academic, health, non-governmental organization, government and other experts in COVID-19 response from 112 countries and territories to recommend specific actions to end this persistent global threat to public health. The panel developed a set of 41 consensus statements and 57 recommendations to governments, health systems, industry and other key stakeholders across six domains: communication; health systems; vaccination; prevention; treatment and care; and inequities. In the wake of nearly three years of fragmented global and national responses, it is instructive to note that three of the highest-ranked recommendations call for the adoption of whole-of-society and whole-of-government approaches1, while maintaining proven prevention measures using a vaccines-plus approach2 that employs a range of public health and financial support measures to complement vaccination. Other recommendations with at least 99% combined agreement advise governments and other stakeholders to improve communication, rebuild public trust and engage communities3 in the management of pandemic responses. The findings of the study, which have been further endorsed by 184 organizations globally, include points of unanimous agreement, as well as six recommendations with >5% disagreement, that provide health and social policy actions to address inadequacies in the pandemic response and help to bring this public health threat to an end.

Aim: To determine whether cytisine was at least as effective as varenicline in supporting smoking abstinence for ≥ 6 months in New Zealand indigenous Māori or whānau (extended-family) of Māori, given the high smoking prevalence in this population. Design: Pragmatic, open-label, randomized, community-based non-inferiority trial. Setting: Bay of Plenty, Tokoroa and Lakes District Health Board regions of New Zealand. Participants: Adult daily smokers who identified as Māori or whānau of Māori, were motivated to quit in the next 2 weeks, were aged ≥ 18 years and were eligible for subsidized varenicline. Recruitment used multi-media advertising. Interventions A total of 679 people were randomly assigned (1 : 1) to receive a prescription for 12 weeks of cytisine or varenicline, plus low-intensity cessation behavioural support from the prescribing doctor and community stop-smoking services or a research assistant. Day 5 of treatment was the designated quit date. Measurements: The primary outcome was carbon monoxide-verified continuous abstinence at 6 months, analysed as intention-to-treat (with multiple imputation for missing data). Secondary outcomes measured at 1, 3, 6 and 12 months post-quit date included: self-reported continuous abstinence, 7-day point prevalence abstinence, cigarettes per day, time to (re)lapse, adverse events, treatment adherence/compliance and acceptability, nicotine withdrawal/urge to smoke and health-care utilization/health-related quality of life. Findings: Verified continuous abstinence rates at 6 months post-quit date were 12.1% (41 of 337) for cytisine versus 7.9% (27 of 342) for varenicline [risk difference 4.29%, 95% confidence interval (CI) = –0.22 to 8.79; relative risk 1.55; 95% CI = 0.97–2.46]. Sensitivity analyses confirmed that the findings were robust. Self-reported adverse events over 6 months occurred significantly more frequently in the varenicline g

BACKGROUND: The low utilisation of current treatment services by people with gambling problems highlights the need to explore new modalities of delivering treatment interventions. This protocol presents the design of a pragmatic randomized control trial aimed at assessing the effectiveness and acceptability of cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) delivered via a mobile app for people with self-reported gambling problems. METHODS: An innovative CBT mobile app, based on Deakin University's GAMBLINGLESS online program, has been adapted with end-users (Manaaki). Six intervention modules have been created. These are interwoven with visual themes to represent a journey of recovery and include attributes such as avatars, videos, and animations to support end-user engagement. An audio facility is used throughout the app to cater for different learning styles. Personalizing the app has been accomplished by using greetings in the participant's language and their name (e.g. Kia ora Tāne) and by creating personalized feedback. A pragmatic, randomized control two-arm single-blind trial, will be conducted in New Zealand. We aim to recruit 284 individuals. Eligible participants are ≥18 years old, seeking help for their gambling, have access to a smartphone capable of downloading an app, able to understand the English language and are willing to provide follow-up information at scheduled time points. Allocation is 1:1, stratified by ethnicity, gender, and gambling symptom severity based on the Gambling Symptom Assessment Scale (G-SAS). The intervention group will receive the full mobile cognitive behavioural programme and the waitlist group will receive a simple app that counts down the time left before they have access to the full app and the links to the data collection tools. Data collection for both groups are: baseline, 4-, 8-, and 12-weeks post-randomisation. The primary outcome is a change in G-SAS scores. Secondary measures include changes in gambling urges, frequency, expend

Background: Combination nicotine replacement therapy shows additive cessation benefits. We aimed to find out the effectiveness of combining nicotine patches with an e-cigarette (with and without nicotine) on six-month smoking abstinence. Methods: We did a pragmatic, three-arm, parallel-group trial in New Zealand in adult smokers who were e-cigarette naive and motivated to quit smoking. Participants were recruited from the general population using national media advertising. Participants were randomly assigned (1:4:4), with the use of stratified block randomisation, to receive 14 weeks (2 weeks before the agreed quit date) of 21 mg, 24h nicotine patches, patches plus an 18 mg/L nicotine e-cigarette, or patches plus a nicotine-free e-cigarette. We advised participants to use one patch daily, with e-cigarette use as and when necessary or desired. Participants and researchers were masked to e-liquid nicotine content. We offered 6 weeks of telephone-delivered behavioural support. The primary outcome was exhaled carbon monoxide (CO)-verified continuous smoking abstinence 6 months after the agreed quit date. Primary analysis was by intention to treat, with sensitivity analysis by per protocol, treatment adherence, varying CO cutoffs, and complete case analysis. This paper presents the main analyses and is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02521662. Findings: Between March 17, 2016 and Nov 30, 2017, 1124 people were assigned to nicotine patches (patches only group, n=125), patches plus a nicotine e-cigarette (patches plus nicotine e-cigarette group, n=500), or patches plus a nicotine-free e-cigarette (patches plus nicotine-free e-cigarette group, n=499). 62 (50%) of 125 participants in the patches only group withdrew or were lost to follow-up by 6 months compared with 161 (32%) of 500 in the patches plus nicotine e-cigarette group and 162 (33%) of 499 in the patches plus nicotine-free e-cigarette group. 35 (7%) participants in the patches

Background Mobile phone-based smoking cessation support (mCessation) offers the opportunity to provide behavioural support to those who cannot or do not want face-to-face support. In addition, mCessation can be automated and therefore provided affordably even in resource-poor settings. This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2006, and previously updated in 2009 and 2012. Objectives To determine whether mobile phone-based smoking cessation interventions increase smoking cessation rates in people who smoke. Search methods For this update, we searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group's Specialised Register, along with clinicaltrials.gov and the ICTRP. The date of the most recent searches was 29 October 2018. Selection criteria Participants were smokers of any age. Eligible interventions were those testing any type of predominantly mobile phone-based programme (such as text messages (or smartphone app) for smoking cessation. We included randomised controlled trials with smoking cessation outcomes reported at at least six-month follow-up. Data collection and analysis We used standard methodological procedures described in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. We performed both study eligibility checks and data extraction in duplicate. We performed meta-analyses of the most stringent measures of abstinence at six months' follow-up or longer, using a Mantel-Haenszel random-effects method, pooling studies with similar interventions and similar comparators to calculate risk ratios (RR) and their corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI). We conducted analyses including all randomised (with dropouts counted as still smoking) and complete cases only. Main results This review includes 26 studies (33,849 participants). Overall, we judged 13 studies to be at low risk of bias, three at high risk, and the remainder at unclear risk. Settings and recruitment procedures varied across studies, but most studies were conducted in high-inco

Objective The aim of this study was to determine the effect of polypill-based care on the achievement of 2016 European Society of Cardiology (ESC) guideline targets for blood pressure (BP), low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol and antiplatelet therapy. Methods We conducted an individual participant data meta-Analysis of three randomised clinical trials that compared a strategy using a polypill containing aspirin, statin and antihypertensive therapy with usual care in patients with a prior cardiovascular disease (CVD) event or who were at high risk of their first event. Overall, the trials included 3140 patients from Australia, England, India, Ireland, the Netherlands and New Zealand (75% male, mean age 62 years and 76% with a prior CVD event). The primary outcome for this study was the proportion of people achieving ESC guideline targets for BP, LDL and antiplatelet therapy. Results Those randomised to polypill-based care were more likely than those receiving usual care to achieve recommended targets for BP (62% vs 58%, risk ratio (RR) 1.08, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.15), LDL (39% vs 34%, RR 1.13, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.25) and all three targets for BP, LDL and adherence to antiplatelet therapy (the latter only applicable to those with a prior CVD event) simultaneously (24% vs 19%, RR 1.27, 95% CI 1.10 to 1.47) at 12 months. There was no difference between groups in antiplatelet adherence (96% vs 96%, RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.01). There was heterogeneity by baseline treatment intensity such that treatment effects increased with the fewer the number of treatments being taken at baseline: for patients taking 3, 2 and 0-1 treatment modalities the RRs for reaching all three guideline goals simultaneously were 1.10 (95% CI 0.94 to 1.30, 22% vs 20%), 1.62 (95% CI 1.09 to 2.42, 27% vs 17%) and 3.07 (95% CI 1.77 to 5.33, 35% vs 11%), respectively. Conclusions Polypill-based therapy significantly improved the achievement of all three ESC targets for BP, LDL and antiplatelet therapy c

BACKGROUND: Risk factors for cardiovascular disease (CVD) are negatively correlated with socio-economic status (SES) in high-income countries (HIC) but there has been little research on their distribution by household SES within low-and middle-income countries (LMICs). Considering the limited data from LMICs, this paper examines the association between behavioural and cardiovascular risk factors and household SES in Papua New Guinea (PNG). METHODS: Reported here are results of 671 participants from the 900 randomly selected adults aged 15-65 years. These adults were recruited from three socioeconomically and geographically diverse surveillance sites (peri-urban community, rural Highland and an Island community) in PNG in 2013-2014. We measured their CVD risk factors (behavioural and metabolic) using a modified WHO STEPS risk factor survey and analysis of blood samples. We assessed SES by education, occupation and creating a household wealth index based on household assets. We calculated risk ratios (RR) and their 95% confidence intervals (CI) using a generalized linear model to assess the associations between risks and SES. FINDINGS: Elevated CVD risk factors were common in all SES groups but the CVD metabolic risk factors were most prevalent among homemakers, peri-urban and rural highlands, and the highest (4th and 5th) wealth quintile population. Adults in the highest wealth quintile had high risks of obesity, elevated HbA1c and metabolic syndrome (MetS) that were greater than those in the lowest quintile although those in the highest wealth quintiles were less likely to smoke tobacco. Compared to people from the Island community, peri-urban residents had increased risks of increased waist circumference (WC) (RR: 1.67, 95%CI: 1.21-2.31), hypertension (RR: 2∙29, 95%CI: 1∙89-4.56), high cholesterol (RR: 2∙22, 95%CI: 1∙20-4∙10), high triglycerides (RR: 1∙49, 95%CI: 1∙17-1∙91), elevated HbA1c (RR: 5∙54, 95%CI: 1∙36-21∙56), and Metabolic syndrome (MetS) (RR: 2∙04, 95%C

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0211068.].

Introduction: Evidence indicates e-cigarettes can help people quit smoking; however, more confirmatory trials are needed. To date, no trials have evaluated the effectiveness and safety of combining nicotine patches with e-cigarettes (with and without nicotine) for smoking cessation. Methods and analysis: This study is a pragmatic, three-arm, community-based, single-blind, randomised trial undertaken in New Zealand. Eligible participants are daily/non-daily smokers, aged ≥18 years, naive e-cigarette users and motivated to quit smoking in the next 2 weeks. Participants (n=1809), recruited using multi-media advertising, are randomised to 14 weeks of (1) 21 mg nicotine patches (n=201); (2) 21 mg nicotine patches+18 mg/mL nicotine e-cigarette (n=804); or (3) 21 mg nicotine patches+nicotine free e-cigarette (n=804). Participants receive weekly withdrawal-oriented behavioural support calls for 6 weeks post-randomisation. The primary outcome is self-reported biochemically verified continuous abstinence (CA) at 6 months post quit-date. The primary comparison is nicotine patch + nicotine e-cigarette versus nicotine patch + nicotine free e-cigarette, and the secondary comparison is nicotine patch versus nicotine patch +nicotine e-cigarette (90% power, p=0.05, to detect an absolute difference in 6 month CA rates of 8% and 15% respectively). Secondary outcomes, collected by phone interview at quit date, then 1, 3, 6 and 12 months post-quit date, include self-reported CA, 7 day point prevalence abstinence, cigarettes per day (if smoking, or when smoking for non-daily smokers), time to relapse (if returned to smoking), belief in ability to quit, use of other cessation support, side effects/serious adverse events, treatment compliance, seeking additional support around e-cigarette use, daily use of both e-cigarettes and cigarettes, use of treatment past 14 weeks, views on treatment and recommendation to others, weight and cost-per-quitter. Ethics and dis

Background and aims Cytisine, a nicotinic acetylcholine receptor partial agonist (like varenicline) found in some plants, is a low-cost, effective smoking cessation medication that may appeal to Māori [the indigenous people of New Zealand (NZ)]. The RAUORA trial aims to determine the effectiveness, safety and cost-effectiveness of cytisine (Tabex®) versus varenicline (Champix®) for smoking cessation in Māori and the whānau (extended family) of Māori. Design Pragmatic, community-based, open-label randomized non-inferiority trial. Setting Lakes District Health Board region, NZ. Participants Daily smokers (n = 2140) who self-identify as Māori or whānau of Māori, and are: aged ≥ 18 years, motivated to quit smoking in the next 2 weeks, eligible for subsidized varenicline, able to provide verbal consent and have daily access to a mobile phone/internet. Recruitment uses multi-media advertising. Intervention and comparator Participants are randomized (1 : 1 ratio) to receive a prescription for 12 weeks of cytisine tablets [following the manufacturer’s dosing regimen for 25 days, then one 1.5-mg tablet every 6 hours (two per day) until 12 weeks] or varenicline tablets (following the manufacturer’s dosing regimen). Both groups receive brief stop-smoking advice from the prescribing doctor and withdrawal-orientated behavioural support via community-based stop-smoking counselling services (frequency, duration and mode of delivery tailored for participants) or a research assistant (six weekly 10–15- minute calls). Participants are advised to reduce their smoking over the first 4 days of treatment, with day 5 as their designated quit-date. Measurements The primary outcome is carbon monoxide-verified continuous abstinence at 6 months post-quit date. Secondary outcomes at 1, 3, 6 and 12 months post-quit date include: self-reported continuous abstinence, 7-day point prevalence abstinence, cigarettes per day, time to (re)lapse, adverse

Objective: The aim of this study was to determine the effect of polypill-based care on the achievement of 2016 European Society of Cardiology (ESC) guideline targets for blood pressure (BP), low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol and antiplatelet therapy. Methods: We conducted an individual participant data meta-Analysis of three randomised clinical trials that compared a strategy using a polypill containing aspirin, statin and antihypertensive therapy with usual care in patients with a prior cardiovascular disease (CVD) event or who were at high risk of their first event. Overall, the trials included 3140 patients from Australia, England, India, Ireland, the Netherlands and New Zealand (75% male, mean age 62 years and 76% with a prior CVD event). The primary outcome for this study was the proportion of people achieving ESC guideline targets for BP, LDL and antiplatelet therapy. Results: Those randomised to polypill-based care were more likely than those receiving usual care to achieve recommended targets for BP (62% vs 58%, risk ratio (RR) 1.08, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.15), LDL (39% vs 34%, RR 1.13, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.25) and all three targets for BP, LDL and adherence to antiplatelet therapy (the latter only applicable to those with a prior CVD event) simultaneously (24% vs 19%, RR 1.27, 95% CI 1.10 to 1.47) at 12 months. There was no difference between groups in antiplatelet adherence (96% vs 96%, RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.01). There was heterogeneity by baseline treatment intensity such that treatment effects increased with the fewer the number of treatments being taken at baseline: for patients taking 3, 2 and 0-1 treatment modalities the RRs for reaching all three guideline goals simultaneously were 1.10 (95% CI 0.94 to 1.30, 22% vs 20%), 1.62 (95% CI 1.09 to 2.42, 27% vs 17%) and 3.07 (95% CI 1.77 to 5.33, 35% vs 11%), respectively. Conclusions: Polypill-based therapy significantly improved the achievement of all three ESC targets for BP, LDL and antiplatelet thera