Lopez-Pelayo H.,University of Barcelona |
Wallace P.,University College London |
Segura L.,Public Health Agency |
Miquel L.,Clinical Institute of Neuroscience |
And 8 more authors.
BMJ Open | Year: 2014
Introduction: Early identification (EI) and brief interventions (BIs) for risky drinkers are effective tools in primary care. Lack of time in daily practice has been identified as one of the main barriers to implementation of BI. There is growing evidence that facilitated access by primary healthcare professionals (PHCPs) to a web-based BI can be a time-saving alternative to standard face-to-face BIs, but there is as yet no evidence about the effectiveness of this approach relative to conventional BI. The main aim of this study is to test non-inferiority of facilitation to a web-based BI for risky drinkers delivered by PHCP against face-to-face BI. Method and analysis: A randomised controlled non-inferiority trial comparing both interventions will be performed in primary care health centres in Catalonia, Spain. Unselected adult patients attending participating centres will be given a leaflet inviting them to log on to a website to complete the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT-C) alcohol screening questionnaire. Participants with positive results will be requested online to complete a trial module including consent, baseline assessment and randomisation to either face-to-face BI by the practitioner or BI via the alcohol reduction website. Follow-up assessment of risky drinking will be undertaken online at 3 months and 1 year using the full AUDIT and D5-EQD5 scale. Proportions of risky drinkers in each group will be calculated and non-inferiority assessed against a specified margin of 10%. Assuming reduction of 30% of risky drinkers receiving standard intervention, 1000 patients will be required to give 90% power to reject the null hypothesis. Ethics and dissemination: The protocol was approved by the Ethics Commmittee of IDIAP Jordi Gol i Gurina P14/028. The findings of the trial will be disseminated through peer-reviewed journals, national and international conference presentations. Trial registration number: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02082990. © 2014, BMJ Publishing Group. All rights reserved.
Lopez-Pelayo H.,Clinical Institute of Neuroscience |
Batalla A.,University of Barcelona |
Balcells M.M.,Clinical Institute of Neuroscience |
Colom J.,Public Health Agency |
Gual A.,Clinical Institute of Neuroscience
Psychological Medicine | Year: 2015
Background. Cannabis use and misuse have become a public health problem. There is a need for reliable screening and assessment tools to identify harmful cannabis use at an early stage. We conducted a systematic review of published instruments used to screen and assess cannabis use disorders. Method. We included papers published until January 2013 from seven different databases, following the PRISMA guidelines and a predetermined set of criteria for article selection. Only tools including a quantification of cannabis use and/or a measurement of the severity of dependence were considered. Results. We identified 34 studies, of which 25 included instruments that met our inclusion criteria: 10 scales to assess cannabis use disorders, seven structured interviews, and eight tools to quantify cannabis use. Both cannabis and substance use scales showed good reliability and were validated in specific populations. Structured interviews were also reliable and showed good validity parameters. Common limitations were inadequate time-frames for screening, lack of brevity, undemonstrated validity for some populations (e.g. psychiatric patients, female gender, adolescents), and lack of relevant information that would enable routine use (e.g. risky use, regular users). Instruments to quantify consumption did not measure grams of the psychoactive compounds, which hampered comparability among different countries or regions where tetrahydrocannabinol concentrations may differ. Conclusions. Current instruments available for assessing cannabis use disorders need to be further improved. A standard cannabis unit should be studied and existing instruments should be adapted to this standard unit in order to improve cannabis use assessment. Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2014.
Moro M.F.,University of Cagliari |
Colom F.,Clinical Institute of Neuroscience |
Floris F.,University of Cagliari |
Pintus E.,University of Cagliari |
And 3 more authors.
Clinical Practice and Epidemiology in Mental Health | Year: 2012
Background: Functioning Assessment Short Test (FAST) is a brief instrument designed to assess the main functioning problems experienced by psychiatric patients, specifically bipolar patients. It includes 24 items assessing impairment or disability in six domains of functioning: autonomy, occupational functioning, cognitive functioning, financial issues, interpersonal relationships and leisure time. The aim of this study is to measure the validity and reliability of the Italian version of this instrument. Methods: Twenty-four patients with DSM-IV TR bipolar disorder and 20 healthy controls were recruited and evaluated in three private clinics in Cagliari (Sardinia, Italy). The psychometric properties of FAST (feasibility, internal consistency, concurrent validity, discriminant validity (patients vs controls and eutimic patients vs manic and depressed), and testretest reliability were analyzed. Results: The internal consistency obtained was very high with a Cronbach's alpha of 0.955. A highly significant negative correlation with GAF was obtained (r = -0.9; p < 0.001) pointing to a reasonable degree of concurrent validity. FAST show a good test-retest reliability between two independent evaluation differing of one week (mean K =0.73). The total FAST scores were lower in controls as compared with Bipolar Patients and in Euthimic patients compared with Depressed or Manic. Conclusion: The Italian version of the FAST showed similar psychometrics properties as far as regard internal consistency and discriminant validity of the original version and show a good test retest reliability measure by means of K statistics.