UNASSIGNED: Anxiety is one of the most prevalent mental health conditions worldwide, and psychotherapeutic techniques can be employed to help manage and mitigate symptoms. While the available therapies are numerous, key strategies often involve cognitive and/or embodiment techniques. Within body-centered methods, breathing-oriented approaches are particularly prevalent, using either attention towards or active control of breathing. As the perception of body states (i.e., interoception) is thought to be an integral component of emotion generation, these embodiment and breathing techniques may be key in addressing the miscommunication between the brain and body that is thought to exist with anxiety. Therefore, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the effects of acute administration of psychological interventions for state anxiety.
UNASSIGNED: This systematic review was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA statement and registered prospectively in PROSPERO. A literature search for randomized controlled trials was conducted in PubMed, PsycINFO, and Scopus. We considered interventions that focused on cognitive, embodiment or breathing strategies, or a combination of these techniques. Twelve studies met our inclusion criteria, and study characteristics, quality and effect sizes were assessed. A single cognitive study was found to produce a moderate reduction in state anxiety, while moderate to large effects were found across studies assessing embodiment practices. In contrast, studies which utilized breathing-based interventions alone produced inconsistent results, with both attention towards and active control of breathing producing large to no effects depending on the technique employed. Finally, consistent moderate effects were found with combination techniques that involved passive attention (e.g., towards cognitions, body and/or breathing), with active combination techniques producing inconsistent results.
UNASSIGNED: While study numbers are limited regarding brief interventions, cognitive and embodiment techniques are consistently helpful for reducing state anxiety, while breathing-based exercises need to consider the specific technique employed, and how successful this may be for each individual. Furthermore, combined practices such as mindfulness can also be successful, although care must be taken when introducing an active change to one or more elements.
UNASSIGNED: CRD42024507585 Available from: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42024507585.

BACKGROUND: Screening, brief intervention, and referral to treatment for adolescents (SBIRT-A) is widely recommended to promote detection and early intervention for alcohol and other drug (AOD) use in pediatric primary care. Existing SBIRT-A procedures rely almost exclusively on adolescents alone, despite the recognition of caregivers as critical protective factors in adolescent development and AOD use. Moreover, controlled SBIRT-A studies conducted in primary care have yielded inconsistent findings about implementation feasibility and effects on AOD outcomes and overall developmental functioning. There is urgent need to investigate the value of systematically incorporating caregivers in SBIRT-A procedures.
OBJECTIVE: This randomized effectiveness trial will advance research and scope on SBIRT-A in primary care by conducting a head-to-head test of 2 conceptually grounded, evidence-informed approaches: a standard adolescent-only approach (SBIRT-A-Standard) versus a more expansive family-based approach (SBIRT-A-Family). The SBIRT-A-Family approach enhances the procedures of the SBIRT-A-Standard approach by screening for AOD risk with both adolescents and caregivers; leveraging multidomain, multireporter AOD risk and protection data to inform case identification and risk categorization; and directly involving caregivers in brief intervention and referral to treatment activities.
METHODS: The study will include 2300 adolescents (aged 12-17 y) and their caregivers attending 1 of 3 hospital-affiliated pediatric settings serving diverse patient populations in major urban areas. Study recruitment, screening, randomization, and all SBIRT-A activities will occur during a single pediatric visit. SBIRT-A procedures will be delivered digitally on handheld tablets using patient-facing and provider-facing programming. Primary outcomes (AOD use, co-occurring behavior problems, and parent-adolescent communication about AOD use) and secondary outcomes (adolescent quality of life, adolescent risk factors, and therapy attendance) will be assessed at screening and initial assessment and 3-, 6-, 9-, and 12-month follow-ups. The study is well powered to conduct all planned main and moderator (age, sex, race, ethnicity, and youth AOD risk status) analyses.
RESULTS: This study will be conducted over a 5-year period. Provider training was initiated in year 1 (December 2023). Participant recruitment and follow-up data collection began in year 2 (March 2024). We expect the results from this study to be published in early 2027.
CONCLUSIONS: SBIRT-A is widely endorsed but currently underused in pediatric primary care settings, and questions remain about optimal approaches and overall effectiveness. In particular, referral to treatment procedures in primary care remains virtually untested among youth. In addition, whereas research strongly supports involving families in interventions for adolescent AOD, SBIRT-A effectiveness trial testing approaches that actively engage family members in primary care are absent. This trial is designed to help fill these research gaps to inform the critical health decision of whether and how to include caregivers in SBIRT-A activities conducted in pediatric primary care.
BACKGROUND: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05964010; https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT05964010.
UNASSIGNED: PRR1-10.2196/54486.

Background: Trauma exposure prevalence and consequent post-traumatic stress disorder among South African adolescents are significant. Sleep disturbances are among the most frequently reported difficulties faced by those dealing with PTSD. The current study examined the feasibility and preliminary efficacy of the South African Adolescence Group Sleep Intervention on PTSD symptom severity and sleep disturbance.Method: Sixty-one adolescents with PTSD diagnoses and sleep disturbance were randomly assigned (1:1) to one individual and four group sessions of a sleep intervention (SAASI) or a control group. Participants completed the Child PTSD symptom scale for DSM5 (CPSS-5) and the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI) among other sleep and psychiatric measures. The trial was registered on the Pan African Trial Registry (PACTR202208559723690).Results: There was a significant but similar decrease in PSQI scores in both groups over time indicating no overall intervention effect (Wald test = -2.18, p = .029), mean slope = -0.2 (95% CI: -0.37 to -0.02) (p = .583). On the CPSS-5, interaction between groups was also not significant (p = .291). Despite this overall finding, the mean difference in CPSS-SR-5 scores increased over time, with the difference between groups post-treatment -9.10 (95%CI: -18.00 to -0.21), p = .045 and the 1-month follow-up contrast - 11.22 (95%CI: -22.43 to -0.03), p = .049 suggesting that PTSD symptom severity decreased more in the intervention group than the control group. The dropout rate was higher than expected for both the intervention (n = 10; 32%) and control (n = 8; 26.7%) groups. Dropout were mostly school commitments or travel related.Conclusions: Early findings suggest a trend towards dual improvement in sleep quality and PTSD symptom severity in adolescents with a sleep disturbance and PTSD receiving a group sleep intervention (SAASI). Further investigation in a properly powered RCT with detailed retention planning is indicated.
A four-week group sleep intervention seems feasible in adolescents with PTSD and sleep disturbances in a low-resource South African setting.Utilising less specialised mental health resources such as nurses and counsellors in intervention delivery was feasible and effective.Preliminary results are promising and support further research to establish the efficacy of the intervention.

BACKGROUND: With expanded and sustained availability of HIV treatment resulting in substantial improvements in life expectancy, the need to address modifiable risk factors associated with leading causes of death among people living with HIV/AIDS (PLWH), such as tobacco smoking, has increased. Tobacco use is highly prevalent among PLWH, especially in southern Africa, where HIV is heavily concentrated, and many people who smoke would like to quit but are unable to do so without assistance. SBIRT (Screening, Brief Intervention and Referral to Treatment) is a well-established evidence-based approach successful at supporting smoking cessation in a variety of settings. Varenicline is efficacious in supporting smoking cessation. We intend to assess the effectiveness of SBIRT and varenicline on smoking cessation among PLWH in Botswana and the effectiveness of our implementation.
METHODS: BSMART (Botswana Smoking Abstinence Reinforcement Trial) is a stepped-wedge, cluster randomized, hybrid Type 2 effectiveness-implementation study guided by the RE-AIM framework, to evaluate the effectiveness and implementation of an SBIRT intervention consisting of the 5As compared to an enhanced standard of care. SBIRT will be delivered by trained lay health workers (LHWs), followed by referral to treatment with varenicline prescribed and monitored by trained nurse prescribers in a network of outpatient HIV care facilities. Seven hundred and fifty people living with HIV who smoke daily and have been receiving HIV care and treatment at one of 15 health facilities will be recruited if they are up to 18 years of age and willing to provide informed consent to participate in the study.
CONCLUSIONS: BSMART tests a scalable approach to achieve and sustain smoking abstinence implemented in a sustainable way. Integrating an evidence-based approach such as SBIRT, into an HIV care system presents an important opportunity to establish and evaluate a modifiable cancer prevention strategy in a middle-income country (MIC) setting where both LHW and non-physician clinicians are widely used. The findings, including the preliminary cost-effectiveness, will provide evidence to guide the Botswanan government and similar countries as they strive to provide affordable smoking cessation support at scale.
BACKGROUND: NCT05694637 Registered on 7 December 2022 on clinicaltrials.gov, https://clinicaltrials.gov/search?locStr=Botswana&country=Botswana&cond=Smoking%20Cessation&intr=SBIRT.

Screening for hazardous alcohol use and performing brief interventions (BIs) are recommended to reduce alcohol-related negative health consequences. We aimed to compare the effectiveness (defined as an at least 10% absolute difference) of BI with usual care in reducing alcohol intake in intensive care unit survivors with history of hazardous alcohol use.
We used Alcohol Use Disorder Identification Test-Consumption (AUDIT-C) score to assess history of alcohol use.
Emergency admitted adult ICU patients in three Finnish university hospitals, with an AUDIT-C score > 5 (women), or > 6 (men). We randomized consenting eligible patients to receive a BI or treatment as usual (TAU).
BI was delivered by the time of ICU discharge or shortly thereafter in the hospital ward.
Control patients received TAU.
The primary outcome was self-reported alcohol consumption during the preceding week 6 and 12 months after randomization. Secondary outcomes were the change in AUDIT-C scores from baseline to 6 and 12 months, health-related quality of life, and mortality. The trial was terminated early due to slow recruitment during the pandemic.
We randomized 234 patients to receive BI (N = 117) or TAU (N = 117). At 6 months, the median alcohol intake in the BI and TAU groups were 6.5 g (interquartile range [IQR] 0-141) and 0 g (0-72), respectively (p = 0.544). At 12 months, it was 24 g (0-146) and 0 g (0-96) in the BI and TAU groups, respectively (p = 0.157). Median change in AUDIT-C from baseline to 6 months was - 1 (- 4 to 0) and 2 (- 6 to 0), (p = 0.144) in the BI and TAU groups, and to 12 months - 3 (- 5 to - 1) and - 4 (- 7 to - 1), respectively (p = 0.187). In total, 4% (n = 5) of patients in the BI group and 11% (n = 13) of patients in the TAU group were abstinent at 6 months, and 10% (n = 12) and 15% (n = 17), respectively, at 12 months. No between-groups difference in mortality emerged.
As underpowered, our study cannot reject or confirm the hypothesis that a single BI early after critical illness is effective in reducing the amount of alcohol consumed compared to TAU. However, a considerable number in both groups reduced their alcohol consumption.
ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03047577).

BACKGROUND: Brief intervention services provide rapid, mobile and flexible short-term delivery of interventions to resolve mental health crises. These interventions may provide an alternative pathway to the emergency department or in-patient psychiatric services for children and young people (CYP), presenting with an acute mental health condition.
OBJECTIVE: To synthesise evidence on the effectiveness of brief interventions in improving mental health outcomes for CYP (0-17 years) presenting with an acute mental health condition.
METHODS: A systematic literature search was conducted, and the studies\' methodological quality was assessed. Five databases were searched for peer-reviewed articles between January 2000 and September 2022.
RESULTS: We synthesised 30 articles on the effectiveness of brief interventions in the form of (a) crisis intervention, (b) integrated services, (c) group therapies, (d) individualised therapy, (e) parent-child dyadic therapy, (f) general services, (g) pharmacotherapy, (h) assessment services, (i) safety and risk planning and (j) in-hospital treatment, to improve outcomes for CYP with an acute mental health condition. Among included studies, one study was rated as providing a high level of evidence based on the National Health and Medical Research Council levels of evidence hierarchy scale, which was a crisis intervention showing a reduction in length of stay and return emergency department visits. Other studies, of moderate-quality evidence, described multimodal brief interventions that suggested beneficial effects.
CONCLUSIONS: This review provides evidence to substantiate the benefits of brief interventions, in different settings, to reduce the burden of in-patient hospital and readmission rates to the emergency department.

Pharmacy-based screening and brief interventions (SBI) offer opportunities to identify opioid misuse and opioid safety risks and provide brief interventions that do not overly burden pharmacists. Currently, such interventions are being developed without patient input and in-depth contextual data and insufficient translation into practice. The purpose of this study is to qualitatively explore and compare patient and pharmacist perceptions and needs regarding a pharmacy-based opioid misuse SBI and to identify relevant SBI features and future implementation strategies.
Using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research, we conducted semi-structured interviews with 8 patients and 11 pharmacists, to explore needs and barriers to participating in a pharmacy-based SBI. We recruited a purposive sample of English-speaking patients prescribed opioids for chronic or acute pain and pharmacists practicing in varied pharmacies (small independent, large-chain, specialty retail) settings. We used an inductive content analysis approach to analyze patient interview data. Then through a template analysis approach involving comparison of pharmacist and patient themes, we developed strategies for SBI implementation.
Most patient participants were white, older, described living in suburban areas, and were long-term opioid users. We identified template themes related to individual, interpersonal, intervention, and implementation factors and inferred applications for SBI design or potential SBI implementation strategies. We found that patients needed education on opioid safety and general opioid use, regardless of opioid use behaviors. Pharmacists described needing patient-centered training, protocols, and scripts to provide SBI. A short-self-reported screening and brief interventions including counseling, naloxone, and involving prescribers were discussed by both groups.
Through this implementation-focused qualitative study, we identified patient needs such as opioid safety education delivered in a private and convenient format and pharmacist needs including training, workflow integration, protocols, and a time-efficient intervention for effective pharmacy-based SBI. Alternate formats of SBI using digital health technologies may be needed for effective implementation. Our findings can be used to develop patient-centered pharmacy-based SBI that can be implemented within actual pharmacy practice.

Alcohol and other substance use disorders usually begin with substance use in adolescence. Pediatric primary care offices, where most adolescents receive health care, are a promising venue for early identification of substance use and for brief intervention to prevent associated problems and the development of substance use disorder.
This study tests the effects of a computer-facilitated screening and brief intervention (cSBI) system (the CRAFFT [Car, Relax, Alone, Forget, Family/Friends, Trouble] Interactive System [CRAFFT-IS]) on heavy episodic drinking, riding with a driver who is substance impaired, or driving while substance impaired among adolescents aged 14 to 17 years presenting for a well visit at pediatric primary care practices.
We are conducting a cluster randomized controlled trial of the CRAFFT-IS versus usual care and recruiting up to 40 primary care clinicians at up to 20 pediatric primary care practices within the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) Pediatric Research in Office Settings network. Clinicians are randomized 1:1 within each practice to implement the CRAFFT-IS or usual care with a target sample size of 1300 adolescent patients aged 14 to 17 years. At study start, intervention clinicians complete web-based modules, trainer-led live sessions, and mock sessions to establish baseline competency with intervention counseling. Adolescents receive mailed recruitment materials that invite adolescents to complete an eligibility survey. Eligible and interested adolescents provide informed assent (parental permission requirement has been waived). Before their visit, enrolled adolescents seeing intervention clinicians complete a self-administered web-based CRAFFT screening questionnaire and view brief psychoeducational content illustrating substance use-associated health risks. During the visit, intervention clinicians access a computerized summary of the patient\'s screening results and a tailored counseling script to deliver a motivational interviewing-based brief intervention. All participants complete previsit, postvisit, and 12-month follow-up study assessments. Primary outcomes include past 90-day heavy episodic drinking and riding with a driver who is substance impaired at 3-, 6-, 9-, and 12-month follow-ups. Multiple logistic regression modeling with generalized estimating equations and mixed effects modeling will be used in outcomes analyses. Exploratory aims include examining other substance use outcomes (eg, cannabis and nicotine vaping), potential mediators of intervention effect (eg, self-efficacy not to drink), and effect moderation by baseline risk level and sociodemographic characteristics.
The AAP Institutional Review Board approved this study. The first practice and clinicians were enrolled in August 2022; as of July 2023, a total of 6 practices (23 clinicians) had enrolled. Recruitment is expected to continue until late 2024 or early 2025. Data collection will be completed in 2025 or 2026.
Findings from this study will inform the promotion of high-quality screening and brief intervention efforts in pediatric primary care with the aim of reducing alcohol-related morbidity and mortality during adolescence and beyond.
ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04450966; https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT04450966.
DERR1-10.2196/55039.

BACKGROUND: Prior systematic and meta-analytic reviews observed mixed evidence for the efficacy of cannabis brief interventions (BIs). Inconsistent support for cannabis BIs may be the result of intersecting methodological factors, including intervention structure and content, participant eligibility criteria, and outcome assessment measures. The current systematic review of cannabis BI studies narratively synthesizes these data to guide intervention development decision-making in future cannabis BI studies (PROSPERO CRD42022285990).
METHODS: We searched PubMed/MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and CINAHL databases in January 2022 and again in June 2023 to capture newly published studies. Studies were included if they were a randomized trial, enrolled adolescents (13-17) and/or young adults (18-30), specified cannabis use and/or problems inclusion criteria, and evaluated a cannabis BI (defined as ≤4 sessions). We extracted and synthesized data on intervention characteristics (e.g., components, length/duration, modality), cannabis inclusion criteria and recruitment setting, baseline cannabis use descriptives and treatment-seeking status, and outcome assessment measures to discern if/how they may intersect to determine intervention efficacy. The Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool 2 assessed study quality.
RESULTS: Our search resulted in a final sample of 25 study records including 4094 participants. Recruitment setting seemed to provide an influential backdrop for how well inclusion criteria determined baseline cannabis use level, as well as for the type/length of the BI evaluated. Motivational interviewing (MI) and personalized feedback (PF) were the most frequently used BI components overall; however, some differences were observed in the proportion of BIs with reported intervention effects using MI vs. PF. Frequency of use days was the most commonly used outcome measure, although this may not be the most sensitive measure for assessing cannabis BI efficacy.
CONCLUSIONS: Our systematic review indicates that cannabis BI studies require greater precision in their design, giving special attention to matching the content and structure of the BI to the needs of the target population and selecting outcomes commensurate to the goals of the BI and the target population to more accurately reflect the efficacy of the BI. However, consistent with prior reviews, all included studies demonstrated at least some concerns for risk of bias, and most were at high risk.

UNASSIGNED: Alcohol is often overlooked in primary care even though it has wide-ranging impacts. The Structured Medication Review (SMR) in England is a new \'holistic\' service designed to tackle problematic polypharmacy, delivered by clinical pharmacists in a general practice setting. Implementation has been protracted owing to the COVID-19 pandemic. This study explores early patient experiences of the SMR and views on the acceptability of integrating clinical attention to alcohol as another drug linked to their conditions and medicines, rather than as a standalone \'healthy living\' or \'lifestyle\' question.
UNASSIGNED: Semi-structured interviews with a sample of 10 patients who drank alcohol twice or more each week, recruited to the study by five clinical pharmacists during routine SMR delivery.
UNASSIGNED: SMRs received were remote, brief, and paid scant attention to alcohol. Interviewees were interested in the possibility of receiving integrated attention to alcohol within a SMR that was similar to the service specification. They saw alcohol inclusion as congruent with the aims of a holistic medicines review linked to their medical history. For some, considering alcohol as a drug impacting on their medications and the conditions for which they were prescribed, introduced a new frame for thinking about their own drinking.
UNASSIGNED: Including alcohol in SMRs and changing the framing of alcohol away from a brief check with little meaningful scope for discussion, toward being fully integrated within the consultation, was welcomed as a concept by participants in this study. This was not their current medication review experience.