The present review compares and contrasts the diagnostic entities and taxonomy of substance use and addictive disorders in the beta draft of the Eleventh Revision of the International Classification ...of Diseases (ICD 11), which was released in November 2016, and the Fifth Edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5), which was published in mid-2013. Recently published papers relevant to these two classification systems are examined. New initiatives in diagnosis and assessment including the addictions neuroclinical assessment are noted.
The draft ICD 11 retains substance dependence as the 'master diagnosis' in contrast to the broader and heterogeneous concept of substance use disorder in DSM-5 and there is empirical support for the coherence of substance dependence for alcohol, cannabis, and prescribed opioids. Both systems now include gambling disorder in the addictive disorders section, with it being transferred from the impulse control disorders section. The new diagnosis of Internet gaming disorder is included in DSM-5 as a condition for further study, and gaming disorder is grouped with the substance and gambling disorders in the draft ICD 11. Initiatives from the U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH) are highlighting the importance of capturing the neurobiological phases of the addictive cycle in clinical diagnosis and assessment.
Although most of the changes in the draft ICD 11 and DSM-5 are incremental, the contrast between DSM-5 substance use disorder and substance dependence in the draft ICD 11, and the inclusion of gambling disorder and gaming disorder will generate much discussion and research.
Background
Excessive drinking is a significant cause of mortality, morbidity and social problems in many countries. Brief interventions aim to reduce alcohol consumption and related harm in hazardous ...and harmful drinkers who are not actively seeking help for alcohol problems. Interventions usually take the form of a conversation with a primary care provider and may include feedback on the person's alcohol use, information about potential harms and benefits of reducing intake, and advice on how to reduce consumption. Discussion informs the development of a personal plan to help reduce consumption. Brief interventions can also include behaviour change or motivationally‐focused counselling.
This is an update of a Cochrane Review published in 2007.
Objectives
To assess the effectiveness of screening and brief alcohol intervention to reduce excessive alcohol consumption in hazardous or harmful drinkers in general practice or emergency care settings.
Search methods
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, and 12 other bibliographic databases to September 2017. We searched Alcohol and Alcohol Problems Science Database (to December 2003, after which the database was discontinued), trials registries, and websites. We carried out handsearching and checked reference lists of included studies and relevant reviews.
Selection criteria
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of brief interventions to reduce hazardous or harmful alcohol consumption in people attending general practice, emergency care or other primary care settings for reasons other than alcohol treatment. The comparison group was no or minimal intervention, where a measure of alcohol consumption was reported. 'Brief intervention' was defined as a conversation comprising five or fewer sessions of brief advice or brief lifestyle counselling and a total duration of less than 60 minutes. Any more was considered an extended intervention. Digital interventions were not included in this review.
Data collection and analysis
We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We carried out subgroup analyses where possible to investigate the impact of factors such as gender, age, setting (general practice versus emergency care), treatment exposure and baseline consumption.
Main results
We included 69 studies that randomised a total of 33,642 participants. Of these, 42 studies were added for this update (24,057 participants). Most interventions were delivered in general practice (38 studies, 55%) or emergency care (27 studies, 39%) settings. Most studies (61 studies, 88%) compared brief intervention to minimal or no intervention. Extended interventions were compared with brief (4 studies, 6%), minimal or no intervention (7 studies, 10%). Few studies targeted particular age groups: adolescents or young adults (6 studies, 9%) and older adults (4 studies, 6%). Mean baseline alcohol consumption was 244 g/week (30.5 standard UK units) among the studies that reported these data. Main sources of bias were attrition and lack of provider or participant blinding. The primary meta‐analysis included 34 studies (15,197 participants) and provided moderate‐quality evidence that participants who received brief intervention consumed less alcohol than minimal or no intervention participants after one year (mean difference (MD) ‐20 g/week, 95% confidence interval (CI) ‐28 to ‐12). There was substantial heterogeneity among studies (I² = 73%). A subgroup analysis by gender demonstrated that both men and women reduced alcohol consumption after receiving a brief intervention.
We found moderate‐quality evidence that brief alcohol interventions have little impact on frequency of binges per week (MD ‐0.08, 95% CI ‐0.14 to ‐0.02; 15 studies, 6946 participants); drinking days per week (MD ‐0.13, 95% CI ‐0.23 to ‐0.04; 11 studies, 5469 participants); or drinking intensity (‐0.2 g/drinking day, 95% CI ‐3.1 to 2.7; 10 studies, 3128 participants).
We found moderate‐quality evidence of little difference in quantity of alcohol consumed when extended and no or minimal interventions were compared (‐20 g/week, 95% CI ‐40 to 1; 6 studies, 1296 participants). There was little difference in binges per week (‐0.08, 95% CI ‐0.28 to 0.12; 2 studies, 456 participants; moderate‐quality evidence) or difference in days drinking per week (‐0.45, 95% CI ‐0.81 to ‐0.09; 2 studies, 319 participants; moderate‐quality evidence). Extended versus no or minimal intervention provided little impact on drinking intensity (9 g/drinking day, 95% CI ‐26 to 9; 1 study, 158 participants; low‐quality evidence).
Extended intervention had no greater impact than brief intervention on alcohol consumption, although findings were imprecise (MD 2 g/week, 95% CI ‐42 to 45; 3 studies, 552 participants; low‐quality evidence). Numbers of binges were not reported for this comparison, but one trial suggested a possible drop in days drinking per week (‐0.5, 95% CI ‐1.2 to 0.2; 147 participants; low‐quality evidence). Results from this trial also suggested very little impact on drinking intensity (‐1.7 g/drinking day, 95% CI ‐18.9 to 15.5; 147 participants; very low‐quality evidence).
Only five studies reported adverse effects (very low‐quality evidence). No participants experienced any adverse effects in two studies; one study reported that the intervention increased binge drinking for women and two studies reported adverse events related to driving outcomes but concluded they were equivalent in both study arms.
Sources of funding were reported by 67 studies (87%). With two exceptions, studies were funded by government institutes, research bodies or charitable foundations. One study was partly funded by a pharmaceutical company and a brewers association, another by a company developing diagnostic testing equipment.
Authors' conclusions
We found moderate‐quality evidence that brief interventions can reduce alcohol consumption in hazardous and harmful drinkers compared to minimal or no intervention. Longer counselling duration probably has little additional effect. Future studies should focus on identifying the components of interventions which are most closely associated with effectiveness.
•This review assessed prevalence of substance use in people with schizophrenia.•The prevalence of any substance use disorder (SUD) was 42%.•Meta-analysis showed substance use was higher in males ...(48%) than females (22%).•People with SUD had an earlier age of onset of schizophrenia.•Comorbid prevalence rates have not changed over time.
Comorbidity is highly prevalent between substance use disorders (SUDs) and schizophrenia. This systematic review and meta-analysis estimated prevalence rates of SUDs in epidemiological and treatment-seeking patients diagnosed with schizophrenia or first episode psychosis.
A literature search of Medline, EMBASE, PsycINFO and CINAHL databases was conducted from 1990 to 2017 inclusive. Prevalence of co-morbid SUDs and schizophrenia were extracted and odds ratios (ORs) were calculated using random effects meta-analysis. Combining like studies was dictated how authors reported substance use.
There were 123 included articles with a total sample size of 165,811 subjects that yielded six epidemiological studies, 11 national or state case-registry studies, 20 large cohort studies and 86 clinical studies using in- or out-patient samples. The prevalence of any SUD was 41.7%, followed by illicit drugs (27.5%), cannabis (26.2%), alcohol (24.3%) and stimulant use (7.3%). Meta-analysis showed the pooled variance of any SUD in males was 48% which was significantly higher than that for females with schizophrenia (22.1%, OR 3.43, 95% CI 3.01, 3.92). Patients with SUD had an earlier age of onset of schizophrenia. Meta-regression showed prevalence increased over time for illicit drugs but not for other substances, including alcohol.
The meta-analysis revealed that SUDs in schizophrenia is highly prevalent and rates have not changed over time. This indicates SUD are difficult to treat in this patient population and there is an urgent need for more informative studies to help develop better prevention, detection and treatment of SUDs in persons with schizophrenia and co-morbid disorders.
Full text
Available for:
GEOZS, IJS, IMTLJ, KILJ, KISLJ, NLZOH, NUK, OILJ, PNG, SAZU, SBCE, SBJE, UL, UM, UPCLJ, UPUK, ZRSKP
The Eleventh Revision of the International Classification of Diseases (ICD‐11) was formally published in May 2019. Alcohol use disorders form a key part of the section of Disorders due to Substance ...Use and Addictive Behaviours. This review describes and discusses the alcohol diagnoses within this section of ICD‐11, including Alcohol Dependence, Harmful Pattern of Use of Alcohol, and entities such as Alcohol Intoxication, Alcohol Withdrawal, and several alcohol‐induced mental disorders, and briefly covers Hazardous Alcohol Use, which is listed separately as a health risk factor. We summarize the historical background to the development of these diagnoses, including work within the World Health Organization since the 1970s, and the corresponding diagnoses in the current ICD‐10. The process by which ICD‐11 diagnoses have been made is described and may be summarized as a conceptual–pragmatic–confirmatory one. The available empirical data supporting the ICD‐11 diagnoses are presented, particularly in relation to the diagnostic guidelines for Alcohol Dependence. Comparison is made with the corresponding diagnoses in ICD‐10 and their nearest counterparts in the fourth and fifth editions of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. Field testing of the ICD‐11 diagnoses is currently in progress. A plea is made for matching of diagnoses, diagnostic guidelines/criteria, and the assessment tools intended to capture these diagnoses.
In ICD‐11 the diagnosis of Alcohol Dependence has been retained, in simplified format, as the central alcohol use disorder. Concordance with its ICD‐10 and DSM‐IV equivalents is excellent, but it does not tally well with the broadly formulated DSM‐5 Alcohol Use Disorder. Work is needed to develop the most effective crosswalk between the two. ICD‐11 Harmful Alcohol Use is a non‐dependence disorder; it signifies repeated alcohol consumption which has caused harm or through the person's behaviour, harm to others.
Full text
Available for:
BFBNIB, FZAB, GIS, IJS, KILJ, NLZOH, NUK, OILJ, SAZU, SBCE, SBMB, UL, UM, UPUK
As a response to the COVID-19 pandemic, many governments have introduced steps such as spatial distancing and “staying at home” to curb its spread and impact. The fear resulting from the disease, the ...‘lockdown’ situation, high levels of uncertainty regarding the future, and financial insecurity raise the level of stress, anxiety, and depression experienced by people all around the world. Psychoactive substances and other reinforcing behaviors (e.g., gambling, video gaming, watching pornography) are often used to reduce stress and anxiety and/or to alleviate depressed mood. The tendency to use such substances and engage in such behaviors in an excessive manner as putative coping strategies in crises like the COVID-19 pandemic is considerable. Moreover, the importance of information and communications technology (ICT) is even higher in the present crisis than usual. ICT has been crucial in keeping parts of the economy going, allowing large groups of people to work and study from home, enhancing social connectedness, providing greatly needed entertainment, etc. Although for the vast majority ICT use is adaptive and should not be pathologized, a subgroup of vulnerable individuals are at risk of developing problematic usage patterns. The present consensus guidance discusses these risks and makes some practical recommendations that may help diminish them.
•The COVID-19 pandemic is impacting on individuals' mental health.•Technology is being used to help alleviate stress and anxiety caused by the pandemic.•The risk of problematic internet use (PIU) is increased during the pandemic.•Guidance is needed related to decreasing the risk of PIU.•Practical recommendations to diminish the risk of PIU are presented.
Full text
Available for:
GEOZS, IJS, IMTLJ, KILJ, KISLJ, NLZOH, NUK, OILJ, PNG, SAZU, SBCE, SBJE, UILJ, UL, UM, UPCLJ, UPUK, ZAGLJ, ZRSKP
To conduct a systematic review to identify surgical strategies that may decrease leak after laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG).
LSG is growing in popularity as a primary bariatric procedure. ...Technical aspects of LSG including bougie size remain controversial.
Our systematic review yielded 112 studies encompassing 9991 LSG patients. A general estimating equation (GEE) model was used to calculate the odds ratio (OR) for leak based on bougie size, distance from the pylorus, and use of buttressing on the staple line. Baseline characteristics, including age and body mass index (BMI), were included. A linear repeated measures regression model compared excess weight loss (%EWL) between bougie sizes.
A total of 198 leaks in 8922 patients (2.2%) were identified. The GEE model revealed that the risk of leak decreased with bougie ≥40 Fr (OR = 0.53, 95% CI = 0.37-0.77; P = 0.0009). Buttressing did not impact leak. There was no difference in %EWL between bougie <40 Fr and bougie ≥40 Fr up to 36 months (mean: 70.1% EWL; P = 0.273). Distance from the pylorus did not affect leak or %EWL.
Utilizing bougie ≥40 Fr may decrease leak without impacting %EWL up to 3 years. Distance from the pylorus does not impact leak or weight loss. Buttressing does not seem to impact leak; however, if surgeons desire to buttress, bioabsorbable material is the most common type used. Longer-term studies are needed to definitively determine the effect of bougie size on weight loss after LSG.
In 2013, the American Psychiatric Association (APA) published the 5th edition of its Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM‐5). In 2019, the World Health Assembly approved the ...11th revision of the International Classification of Diseases (ICD‐11). It has often been suggested that the field would benefit from a single, unified classification of mental disorders, although the priorities and constituencies of the two sponsoring organizations are quite different. During the development of the ICD‐11 and DSM‐5, the World Health Organization (WHO) and the APA made efforts toward harmonizing the two systems, including the appointment of an ICD‐DSM Harmonization Group. This paper evaluates the success of these harmonization efforts and provides a guide for practitioners, researchers and policy makers describing the differences between the two systems at both the organizational and the disorder level. The organization of the two classifications of mental disorders is substantially similar. There are nineteen ICD‐11 disorder categories that do not appear in DSM‐5, and seven DSM‐5 disorder categories that do not appear in the ICD‐11. We compared the Essential Features section of the ICD‐11 Clinical Descriptions and Diagnostic Guidelines (CDDG) with the DSM‐5 criteria sets for 103 diagnostic entities that appear in both systems. We rated 20 disorders (19.4%) as having major differences, 42 disorders (40.8%) as having minor definitional differences, 10 disorders (9.7%) as having minor differences due to greater degree of specification in DSM‐5, and 31 disorders (30.1%) as essentially identical. Detailed descriptions of the major differences and some of the most important minor differences, with their rationale and related evidence, are provided. The ICD and DSM are now closer than at any time since the ICD‐8 and DSM‐II. Differences are largely based on the differing priorities and uses of the two diagnostic systems and on differing interpretations of the evidence. Substantively divergent approaches allow for empirical comparisons of validity and utility and can contribute to advances in the field.
Chlamydia is a major public health concern, with high economic and social costs. In 2016, there were over 200,000 chlamydia diagnoses made in England. The highest prevalence rates are found among ...young people. Although annual testing for sexually active young people is recommended, many do not receive testing. General practice is one ideal setting for testing, yet attempts to increase testing in this setting have been disappointing. The Capability, Opportunity, and Motivation Model of Behaviour (COM-B model) may help improve understanding of the underpinnings of chlamydia testing. The aim of this systematic review was to (1) identify barriers and facilitators to chlamydia testing for young people and primary care practitioners in general practice and (2) map facilitators and barriers onto the COM-B model.
Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods studies published after 2000 were included. Seven databases were searched to identify peer-reviewed publications which examined barriers and facilitators to chlamydia testing in general practice. The quality of included studies was assessed using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme. Data (i.e., participant quotations, theme descriptions, and survey results) regarding study design and key findings were extracted. The data was first analysed using thematic analysis, following this, the resultant factors were mapped onto the COM-B model components. All findings are reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines.
Four hundred eleven papers were identified; 39 met the inclusion criteria. Barriers and facilitators were identified at the patient (e.g., knowledge), provider (e.g., time constraints), and service level (e.g., practice nurses). Factors were categorised into the subcomponents of the model: physical capability (e.g., practice nurse involvement), psychological capability (e.g.: lack of knowledge), reflective motivation (e.g., beliefs regarding perceived risk), automatic motivation (e.g., embarrassment and shame), physical opportunity (e.g., time constraints), social opportunity (e.g., stigma).
This systematic review provides a synthesis of the literature which acknowledges factors across multiple levels and components. The COM-B model provided the framework for understanding the complexity of chlamydia testing behaviour. While we cannot at this juncture state which component represents the most salient influence on chlamydia testing, across all three levels, multiple barriers and facilitators were identified relating psychological capability and physical and social opportunity. Implementation should focus on (1) normalisation, (2) communication, (3) infection-specific information, and (4) mode of testing. In order to increase chlamydia testing in general practice, a multifaceted theory- and evidence-based approach is needed.
PROSPERO CRD42016041786.
Full text
Available for:
IZUM, KILJ, NUK, PILJ, PNG, SAZU, UL, UM, UPUK
Abbreviations: ADHD, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder; CBT, cognitive behavioural therapy; GRADE, Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation; LAMIC, low- and ...middle-income countries; mhGAP, Mental Health Gap Action Programme; mhGAP-IG, mhGAP Intervention Guide ; MNS, mental, neurological, and substance use; WHO, World Health Organization Provenance: Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed. Summary Points * The treatment gap for mental, neurological, and substance use (MNS) disorders is more than 75% in many low- and middle-income countries. * In order to reduce the gap, the World Health Organization (WHO) has developed a model intervention guide within its Mental Health Gap Action Programme (mhGAP). * The model intervention guide provides evidence-based recommendations developed with the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology. * This article presents the management recommendations for MNS disorders, with a link to the World Health Organization website where all the background material may be accessed. * To our knowledge, this is a first exercise involving such an extensive and systematic evaluation of evidence in this area.
Full text
Available for:
DOBA, IZUM, KILJ, NUK, PILJ, PNG, SAZU, SIK, UILJ, UKNU, UL, UM, UPUK
PDF
