www.archive-org-2014.com » ORG » A » ASCPJOURNAL

Choose link from "Titles, links and description words view":

Or switch to "Titles and links view".

    Archived pages: 364 . Archive date: 2014-08.

  • Title: Addiction Science & Clinical Practice
    Descriptive info: .. ascpjournal.. org/home.. Bottom,Top,Middle,Right1.. BioMed Central.. Journals.. Gateways.. Search.. this journal.. for.. Go.. Advanced search.. Home.. Articles.. Authors.. Reviewers.. About this journal.. My Addiction Science & Clinical Practice.. Co-Editors-in-Chief.. Richard Saitz, Boston University School of Medicine.. Jeffrey Samet, Boston University School of Medicine.. Editorial Board.. |.. Instructions for authors.. FAQ.. Latest.. RSS.. Most viewed.. There has been an error retrieving the data.. Please try again.. Review.. The efficacy-effectiveness distinction in trials of alcohol brief intervention.. Heather N.. Addiction Science & Clinical Practice.. 2014,.. 9.. :13 (16 August 2014).. Research.. Costs of care for persons with opioid dependence in commercial integrated health systems.. Lynch FL, McCarty D, Mertens J, Perrin NA, Green CA, Parthasarathy S, Dickerson JF, Anderson BM.. et al.. :16 (14 August 2014).. Dissemination of a computer-based psychological treatment in a drug and alcohol clinical service: an observational study.. Kay-Lambkin FJ, Simpson AL, Bowman J and Childs S.. :15 (9 August 2014).. An implementation-focused process evaluation of an incentive intervention effectiveness trial in substance use disorders clinics at two Veterans Health Administration medical centers.. Hagedorn HJ, Stetler CB, Bangerter A, Noorbaloochi S, Stitzer ML and Kivlahan D.. :12 (9 July 2014).. Mobile phone brief intervention applications for risky alcohol use among university students: a randomized controlled study.. Gajecki M, Berman AH, Sinadinovic K, Rosendahl I and Andersson C.. :11 (2 July 2014).. Opioid use in Albuquerque, New Mexico: a needs assessment of recent changes and treatment availability.. Greenfield BL, Owens MD and Ley D.. :10 (18 June 2014).. View more articles.. Comments.. Erratum.. Due to a error in the 2011 INEBRIA conference program, the name of the senior author was left off of this abstract.. The corrected author listing is as follows: Niamh Fitzgerald, on behalf of Margaret C.. Watson, Derek Stewart, Mariesha Jaffray, Jackie Inch, Eilidh Duncan, Ebenezer Afolabi, and Anne Ludbrook.. Dr.. Watson is the corresponding author for this abstract (m.. c.. watson@abdn.. ac.. uk).. The Centre of Academic Primary Care, University of Aberdeen, Scotland, UK, is the main institution for this study.. The editors regret the omission.. Comment on:.. Fitzgerald et al.. Addiction Science Clinical Practice.. 2013,.. 7.. :A22.. Medication-Oriented Treatment.. Since writing this piece, I increasingly  ...   address this international health-care challenge.. Advertisement.. Aims scope.. provides a forum for clinically relevant research and perspectives that contribute to improving the quality of care for people with unhealthy alcohol, tobacco, or other drug use and addictive behaviours across a spectrum of clinical settings.. was previously published by NIDA and the journal's back content can be viewed.. here.. News from the web.. May 2014.. Up-to-date guides provide teens and parents with science-based facts on marijuana.. Foster Care: Early interventions can decrease drug use in young women.. though teens are less likely to talk to parents or guardians about the dangers of substance use.. April 2014.. U.. S.. health leaders call for expanded use of medications to combat opioid overdose epidemic.. Comprehensive prevention programs are successful in decreasing HIV rates in people who inject drugs.. Farmington Consensus.. adheres to the ethical guidelines for scientific publishing outlined in the Farmington Consensus.. The Consensus is a series of ethical guidelines for addiction journals developed in 1997 at the inaugural meeting of the group now known as the.. International Society of Addiction Journal Editors.. (ISAJE).. The resulting document can be found in draft form.. The purpose of the guidelines is to provide guidance to authors, editors and other individuals on ethical and procedural matters that affect the integrity of scientific publishing in the addiction field.. We urge readers, writers, reviewers of.. to study the guidelines, to criticize them, to improve them, and to use them effectively.. Submit a manuscript.. Sign up for article alerts.. Contact us.. Follow our.. Editor on Twitter.. Support.. Editors' tools.. For Editors.. Email updates.. Receive periodic news and updates relating to this journal.. straight to your inbox.. Sign up.. Related.. Annals of General Psychiatry.. BMC Family Practice.. BMC Health Services Research.. BMC Pharmacology and Toxicology.. Behavioral and Brain Functions.. Harm Reduction Journal.. Implementation Science.. International Journal of Mental Health Systems.. Substance Abuse Treatment, Prevention, and Policy.. Tobacco Induced Diseases.. View all.. Nursing and Health Care.. Indexed by.. DOAJ.. MEDLINE.. PubMed.. Scopus.. ISSN: 1940-0640.. Mobile view.. Desktop view.. Terms and Conditions.. Privacy statement.. Press.. Information for advertisers.. Jobs at BMC.. 2014 BioMed Central Ltd unless otherwise stated.. Part of Springer Science+Business Media..

    Original link path: /
    Open archive

  • Title: Addiction Science & Clinical Practice | Advanced search
    Descriptive info: org/search.. Bottom,Top.. Search.. help.. Boolean search.. Saved searches.. All fields (full text).. Citation and abstract.. Title+Abstract+Text.. Article no.. /first page no.. Journal.. Author (eg Darwin_CR).. Authors affiliation.. DOI.. Issue.. Text.. Text: introduction.. Text: methods.. Text: results.. Text: discussion/conclusion.. Text: figure legends.. Text: acknowledgements.. References.. Title.. Volume.. Year of publication.. Author Email.. Article type.. All words.. Any word.. Exact phrase.. Exclude.. During the last.. Last 7 days.. Last 14 days.. Last 30 days.. Last 60 days.. Last 90 days.. Last 180 days.. Last year.. or between.. 2014.. 2013.. 2012.. 2011.. 2010.. 2009.. 2008.. 2007.. 2006.. 2005.. 2004.. 2003.. 2002.. 2001.. 2000.. 1999.. 1998.. 1997.. and.. Order.. by date.. by relevance.. Show.. 25.. 50.. 100.. results per page.. Include.. All article types.. Case Report.. Case Study.. Commentary.. Editorial.. Letter to the Editor.. Meeting abstract.. Meeting Report.. Research.. Review.. Study Protocol.. close.. Tips.. History.. Fields.. General.. Type your search terms in the four empty boxes, one or more per box.. With the menus at the left of each box you can restrict to a specific field: author, title etc.. The menus at the right determine what happens if the box contains more than one word:.. all words:.. will return articles that contain all words, anywhere in the requested field.. any word:.. will return articles that contain at least one of the words in the requested field.. exact phrase:.. will return articles where the words appear as a continuous phrase in the requested field.. Wildcards and truncation.. A question mark stands for any single character.. An asterisk stands for any number of characters.. These wildcards can be used at the end of a search term, and also at the beginning or in the middle of a word.. The search may be slower in these cases.. Examples:.. tumo*.. retrieves tumor, tumour, tumors, tumours, tumorigenisis, tumoricidal etc.. nf*.. retrieves NF-?B, NF?B, NF-kB, NFkappaB, NF1 etc.. j*son.. retrieves Johnson,  ...   restrict a search to a particular field.. Abbreviations can be found in the [.. List of field names.. ].. Example:.. smith [au] and array [ti].. Use double quotes to identify phrases (e.. "red blood cell".. ).. The asterisk functions as a wildcard, replacing any number of characters (e.. diabet*.. retrieves diabetes and diabetic).. The question mark replaces one single character (e.. retrieves Jonson, Jenson, Janson etc.. ).. You can turn this off by using exact phrase (instead of all words/any word).. Storing searches.. The search history shows all the searches you have been running in the current session.. It is emptied when you close your browser.. To store a search for a longer period, click the 'store' button next to the query.. Combining searches.. You can combine search numbers from the history with the operators.. AND, OR and NOT.. , e.. #2 and #5 returns articles that are common to search #2 and search #5.. You can also combine search numbers with new search terms e.. #4.. NOT jones [au].. removes articles by Jones from the results of search #4.. You can type combined searches in the advanced search form, or in the boolean search form (only the boolean search page has a list of field names).. Viewing the results of a search.. Click the title of the search or click the 'run' button to run the search again and see the results list.. [PG].. article no.. or first page no.. [PT].. article type.. [AU].. authors' names.. [AD].. affiliation (authors' addresses).. [TIAB].. citation + abstract.. [DISC].. discussion/.. conclusion section of text.. [DOI].. [FIG].. figure legends.. [INTR].. introduction section of text.. [IP].. issue.. [TA].. journal title or abbreviation or ISSN.. [METH].. methods section of text.. [RES].. results section of text.. [REF].. references.. [BDY].. text (excluding citation and abstract).. [TI].. title.. [TW].. title + abstract + text (excluding references).. [VI].. volume.. [DP].. year of publication..

    Original link path: /search
    Open archive

  • Title: Addiction Science & Clinical Practice | All articles
    Descriptive info: org/article.. Bottom,Top,Right1.. Explore.. journal.. All articles.. Archive.. Supplements.. Article collections.. -- All article types --.. Case Report.. Case Study.. Commentary.. Editorial.. Letter to the Editor.. Meeting abstract.. Meeting Report.. Study Protocol.. Vol.. Art.. No.. Jump.. Please provide a volume number.. Page 1 of 3.. 1.. 2.. 3.. Next.. Display/download options.. Articles per page:.. Display options.. Editor's summary.. Citation.. Download options.. Send.. Selected results.. This page.. To.. EndNote, Zotero or Papers.. RefWorks.. Ref Manager.. BibTeX.. Send.. All.. Nick Heather.. Abstract.. Full text.. PDF.. Frances L Lynch, Dennis McCarty, Jennifer Mertens, Nancy A Perrin, Carla A Green, Sujaya Parthasarathy, John F Dickerson, Bradley M Anderson, David Pating.. Provisional PDF.. Frances J Kay-Lambkin, Aaron L Simpson, Jenny Bowman, Steven Childs.. ePUB.. Hildi J Hagedorn, Cheryl B Stetler, Ann Bangerter, Siamak Noorbaloochi, Maxine L Stitzer, Daniel Kivlahan.. Mikael Gajecki, Anne H Berman, Kristina Sinadinovic, Ingvar Rosendahl, Claes Andersson.. Brenna L Greenfield, Mandy D Owens, David Ley.. Rationale and design of a randomized controlled trial of varenicline directly observed therapy delivered in methadone clinics.. Shadi Nahvi, Kate S Segal, Alain H Litwin, Julia H Arnsten.. :9 (13 June 2014).. Randomized clinical trial of the effects of screening and brief intervention for illicit drug use: the life shift/shift gears study.. Susan I Woodruff, John D Clapp, Kimberly Eisenberg, Cameron McCabe, Melinda Hohman, Audrey M Shillington, C Sise, Edward M Castillo, Theodore C Chan, Michael J Sise, Joey Gareri.. :8 (22 May 2014).. Participation in a novel treatment component during residential substance use treatment is associated with improved outcome: a pilot study.. Kathleen P Decker, Stephanie L Peglow, Carl R Samples.. :7 (16 May 2014).. Clinically relevant characteristics associated with early treatment drug use versus abstinence.. Gerald Cochran, Maxine Stitzer, Edward V Nunes, Mei-Chen Hu, Aimee Campbell.. :6 (4 April 2014).. HealthCall for the smartphone: technology enhancement of brief intervention in HIV alcohol dependent patients.. Deborah S Hasin, Efrat Aharonovich, Eliana Greenstein.. :5 (17 February 2014).. Continuous quality improvement (CQI) in  ...   bupropion.. Karine Giasson-Gariépy, Didier Jutras-Aswad.. 8.. :22 (21 December 2013).. Management of chronic pain with chronic opioid therapy in patients with substance use disorders.. Yu-Ping Chang, Peggy Compton.. :21 (16 December 2013).. Age and sharing of needle injection equipment in a cohort of Massachusetts injection drug users: an observational study.. Katherine Tassiopoulos, Judith Bernstein, Edward Bernstein.. :20 (13 December 2013).. Integrated care for comorbid alcohol dependence and anxiety and/or depressive disorder: study protocol for an assessor-blind, randomized controlled trial.. Kirsten C Morley, Andrew Baillie, Claudia Sannibale, Maree Teesson, Paul S Haber.. :19 (19 November 2013).. 2013 Update in addiction medicine for the generalist.. Adam J Gordon, Nicolas Bertholet, Jennifer McNeely, Joanna L Starrels, Jeanette M Tetrault, Alexander Y Walley.. :18 (4 November 2013).. Effects of therapeutic goal management (TGM) on treatment attendance and drug abstinence among men with co-occurring substance use and axis I mental disorders who are homeless: results of the Birmingham EARTH program.. Anna Davidson, Michael Jensen, Emilee Burgess, Angee Stevens, Lauren Hayes, Susan Sieweke, Karen Stough, Anne Wright, Robin McCarty, Lillian Eddleman, Young-il Kim, Jesse B Milby, Joseph E Schumacher.. :17 (27 October 2013).. Screening, brief intervention, and referral to treatment (SBIRT) for offenders: protocol for a pragmatic randomized trial.. Michael L Prendergast, Jerome J Cartier.. :16 (23 October 2013).. Perception of tobacco, cannabis, and alcohol use of others is associated with one s own use.. Nicolas Bertholet, Mohamed Faouzi, Joseph Studer, Jean-Bernard Daeppen, Gerhard Gmel.. :15 (19 October 2013).. The hospital outpatient alcohol project (HOAP): protocol for an individually randomized, parallel-group superiority trial of electronic alcohol screening and brief intervention versus screening alone for unhealthy alcohol use.. Natalie A Johnson, Kypros Kypri, John B Saunders, Richard Saitz, John Attia, Adrian Dunlop, Christopher Doran, Patrick McElduff, Luke Wolfenden, Jim McCambridge.. :14 (3 September 2013).. Confidentiality protections versus collaborative care in the treatment of substance use disorders.. Jennifer K Manuel, Howard Newville, Sandra E Larios, James L Sorensen.. :13 (26 August 2013)..

    Original link path: /content
    Open archive

  • Title: Addiction Science & Clinical Practice | Instructions for Authors
    Descriptive info: org/about.. Research articles.. Book Reviews.. Case Reports.. Case Studies.. Commentaries.. Letters to the Editor.. Meeting Reports.. Methodologies.. Reviews.. Study Protocols.. My manuscripts.. BioMed Central author academy.. Each article type published by.. follows a specific format, as detailed in the corresponding instructions for authors; please choose an article type from the list on the left to view the instructions for authors.. The instructions for authors includes information about preparing a manuscript for submission  ...   the journal's policies, the refereeing process and so on can be found in.. 'About this journal'.. publishes the following article types:.. We use plagiarism detection.. This journal is a member of, and subscribes to the principles of, the.. Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).. Authors and referees are asked to declare any.. competing interests.. Copyright rests with the authors.. For more information on copyright of articles, see our publisher's.. copyright and license.. policy..

    Original link path: /authors/instructions
    Open archive

  • Title: Addiction Science & Clinical Practice | For reviewers
    Descriptive info: Search information pages.. Guide for.. reviewers.. This guide for reviewers contains information about basic considerations that should be applied when reviewing a manuscript that has been submitted to.. , and about the editorial standards of the journal.. Other relevant information about the journal’s aims and scope and editorial policies can be found at.. Submitted manuscripts are usually reviewed by two or more experts.. Peer reviewers will be asked to recommend whether a manuscript should be accepted, revised or rejected.. They should also alert the editors of any issues relating to author misconduct such as plagiarism and unethical behavior.. operates using a closed peer review system.. Publication of research articles by.. is dependent primarily on their validity and coherence, as judged by peer reviewers and editors.. The reviewers may also be asked whether the writing is comprehensible and how interesting they consider the article to be.. Submitted manuscripts will be sent to peer reviewers, unless they are out of scope or below the interest threshold of.. , or if the presentation or written English is of an unacceptably low standard.. Points to consider.. Reviewers are asked to provide detailed, constructive comments that will help the editors make a decision on publication and the author(s) improve their manuscript.. A key issue is whether the work has serious flaws that should preclude its publication, or whether there are additional experiments or data required to support the conclusions drawn.. Where possible, reviewers should provide references to substantiate their comments.. Reviewers should address the points below and indicate whether they consider any required revisions to be 'major compulsory revisions', 'minor essential revisions' or 'discretionary revisions'.. In general, revisions are likely to be 'Major compulsory revisions' if additional controls are required to support the claims or the interpretations are not supported by the data, if further analysis is required that may change the conclusions, or if the methods used are inadequate or statistical errors have been made.. Is the question posed original, important and well defined?.. The research question posed by the authors should be easily identifiable and understood.. It is useful to both the editors and authors if reviewers comment on the originality and importance of the study within the context of its field.. If the research question is unoriginal because related work has been published previously, please give references.. Reviewers should ask themselves after reading the manuscript if they have learnt something new and if there is a clear conclusion from the study.. Are the data sound and well controlled?.. If you feel that inappropriate controls have been used please say so, indicating the reasons for your concerns, and suggesting alternative controls where appropriate.. If you feel that further experimental/clinical evidence is required to substantiate the results, please provide details.. Is the interpretation (discussion and conclusion) well balanced and supported by the data?.. The interpretation should discuss the relevance of all the results in an unbiased manner.. Are the interpretations overly positive or negative?.. Conclusions drawn from the study should  ...   manipulation, and of a high enough quality to be published in their present form?.. When revisions are requested.. Reviewers may recommend revisions for any or all of the following reasons: data need to be added to support the authors' conclusions; better justification is needed for the arguments based on existing data; or the clarity and/or coherence of the paper needs to be improved.. Are there any ethical or.. issues you would like to raise?.. The study should adhere to ethical standards of scientific/medical research and the authors should declare that they have received ethics approval and or patient consent for the study, where appropriate.. Whilst we do not expect reviewers to delve into authors' competing interests, if you are aware of any issues that you do not think have been adequately addressed, please inform the editorial office.. Reviewers are reminded of the importance of timely reviews.. If reviewers encounter or foresee any problems meeting the deadline for a report, they should contact.. editorial@ascpjournal.. org.. Confidentiality.. Any manuscript sent for peer review is a confidential document and should remain so until it is formally published.. Are the included additional files (supplementary materials) appropriate?.. Online publishing enables the inclusion of.. additional files.. with published articles.. Additional files of many types can be submitted, including movies, tabular data and mini-websites.. Reviewers are encouraged to comment on the appropriateness of the types of additional files, included with the manuscript, for publication with the final article.. Additional files pertaining to original/raw data files that support the results reported in the manuscript can be included.. It is not expected that reviewers should reanalyze all supporting data as part of their peer review, but the availability of supporting data enables more detailed investigation of particular aspects of the study if the reviewer or editor feels it is necessary.. Portability of peer review.. To support efficient and thorough peer review, we aim to reduce the number of times a manuscript is reviewed, thereby speeding up the publication process and reducing the burden on peer reviewers.. Therefore, please note that, if a manuscript is not accepted for publication in.. and the authors choose to submit a revised version to another.. BioMed Central published journal.. , we will pass the reviews on to the other journal's editors at the authors’ request.. We will reveal the reviewers' names to the handling editor for editorial purposes unless reviewers let us know when they return their report that they do not wish us to share their report with another BioMed Central published journal and/or that they do not wish to participate further in the peer review of this manuscript.. Editorial standards.. Reviewers are asked to bear the.. editorial standards.. of.. in mind and alert the editors if authors have not fully adhered to them.. is a member of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).. Standards of reporting.. supports initiatives aimed at improving the reporting of research.. Reviewers can find more details on this at.. Standards of Reporting in 'About.. '..

    Original link path: /about/reviewers
    Open archive

  • Title: Addiction Science & Clinical Practice | About
    Descriptive info: General information.. Article processing charge FAQ.. Article metrics FAQ.. Privacy policy.. Promote.. About.. Aims and scope.. Open access.. Article-processing charges.. Indexing services.. Publication and peer review process.. Editorial policies.. Citing articles in.. Why publish your article in.. ?.. This page includes information about the aims and scope of.. , editorial policies, open access and article-processing charges, the peer review process and other information.. For details of how to prepare and submit a manuscript through the.. online submission system.. , please see the.. instructions for authors.. accepts articles of clinical relevance related to the prevention and treatment of unhealthy alcohol, tobacco, and other drug use across the spectrum of clinical settings.. Topics of interest address issues related to the following: the spectrum of unhealthy use of alcohol, tobacco, and other drugs among the range of affected persons (e.. , not limited by age, race/ethnicity, gender, or sexual orientation); the array of clinical prevention and treatment practices (from health messages, to identification and early intervention, to more extensive interventions including counseling and pharmacotherapy and other management strategies); and identification and management of medical, psychiatric, social, and other health consequences of substance use.. is particularly interested in articles that address how to improve the quality of care for people with unhealthy substance use and related conditions as described in the (US) Institute of Medicine report,.. Improving the Quality of Healthcare for Mental Health and Substance Use Conditions.. (Washington, DC: National Academies Press, 2006).. Such articles address the quality of care and of health services.. Although the journal also welcomes submissions that address these conditions in addiction speciality-treatment settings, the journal is particularly interested in including articles that address unhealthy use outside these settings, including experience with novel models of care and outcomes, and outcomes of research-practice collaborations.. Although.. is generally not an outlet for basic science research, we will accept basic science research manuscripts that have clearly described potential clinical relevance and are accessible to audiences outside a narrow laboratory research field.. All articles published by.. are made freely and permanently accessible online immediately upon publication, without subscription charges or registration barriers.. Further information about open access can be found.. Authors of articles published in.. are the copyright holders of their articles and have granted to any third party, in advance and in perpetuity, the right to use, reproduce or disseminate the article, according to the.. BioMed Central copyright and license agreement.. For authors who are US government employees or are prevented from being copyright holders for similar reasons, BioMed Central can accommodate non-standard copyright lines.. Please.. contact us.. if further information is needed.. Open access publishing is not without costs.. therefore levies an article-processing charge of 1170/ 1990/ 1480 for each article accepted for publication.. If the submitting author's institution is a.. Member.. , the cost of the article-processing charge is covered by the membership, and no further charge is payable.. In the case of authors whose institutions are.. Supporter Members.. , however, a discounted article-processing charge is payable by the author.. We routinely waive charges for authors from.. low-income countries.. For other countries, article-processing charge waivers or discounts are granted on a case-by-case basis to authors with insufficient funds.. Authors can request a waiver or discount during the submission process.. For further details, see our.. article-processing charge page.. All articles published in.. are included in.. , the most widely used biomedical bibliographic database service, which is run by the US National Library of Medicine.. Other bibliographic databases that index articles published in.. include:.. Citebase.. Google Scholar.. OAIster.. SOCOLAR.. Zetoc.. The full text of all research articles is deposited in.. PubMed Central.. , the US National Library of Medicine's full-text repository of life science literature, and other.. digital archives.. including.. e-Depot.. (The Netherlands).. The full text of all research articles published by BioMed Central is also available on.. SpringerLink.. BioMed Central is working closely with.. Thomson Reuters (ISI).. to ensure that citation analysis of articles published in.. will be available.. Criteria for publication.. Book reviews:.. summaries of the strengths and weaknesses of a book.. They evaluate the books overall usefulness to the intended audience.. Case reports:.. reports of clinical cases that are educational, describe a  ...   the following criteria (where applicable): originality and timeliness, clarity of writing, appropriateness of research methods, validity of data, strength of the conclusions and whether the data support them, and whether the topic falls within the scope of the journal.. Manuscripts that do not meet these criteria are rejected promptly.. Otherwise manuscripts are sent to an Associate Editor, who either makes a case to reject the manuscript or seeks two peer reviewers with relevant expertise (including statistical expertise when necessary) for evaluation.. Following receipt of reviewers reports the Associate Editor makes a decision on the manuscript, which is then reviewed with one of the Editors-in-Chief, and a final decision is made.. Authors may appeal a decision, and the Editor-in-Chief who did not originally handle the manuscript will normally consider the appeal and make a final decision.. The journal aims to provide a first decision within 6 weeks of submission.. Authors will be able to check the progress of their manuscript through the submission system at any time by logging into.. , a personalized section of the site.. Reprints.. High-quality, bound reprints can be purchased for all articles published.. Please see our.. reprints website.. for further information about ordering reprints.. will consider supplements based on proceedings (full articles or meeting abstracts), reviews or research.. All articles submitted for publication in supplements are subject to peer review.. Published supplements are fully searchable and freely accessible online and can also be produced in print.. All full length articles (proceedings, reviews or research articles) are indexed by PubMed.. PubMed displays the title of the supplement only in the case of meeting abstract collections.. For further information, please.. All manuscripts submitted to.. should adhere to.. BioMed Central's editorial policies.. Articles in.. should be cited in the same way as articles in a traditional journal.. Because articles are not printed, they do not have page numbers; instead, they are given a unique article number.. Article citations follow this format:.. Authors: Title.. Addict Sci Clin Pract.. [year], [volume number]:[article number].. e.. Roberts LD, Hassall DG, Winegar DA, Haselden JN, Nicholls AW, Griffin JL: Increased hepatic oxidative metabolism distinguishes the action of Peroxisome Proliferator-Activated Receptor delta from Peroxisome Proliferator-Activated Receptor gamma in the Ob/Ob mouse.. 2009,.. :115.. refers to article 115 from Volume 1 of the journal.. High visibility.. 's open access policy allows maximum visibility of articles published in the journal as they are available to a wide, global audience.. Articles that have been especially highly accessed are highlighted with a.. 'Highly accessed'.. graphic, which appears on the journal's contents pages and search results.. Speed of publication.. offers a fast publication schedule whilst maintaining rigorous peer review; all articles must be submitted online, and peer review is managed fully electronically (articles are distributed in PDF form, which is automatically generated from the submitted files).. Articles will be published with their final citation after acceptance, in both fully browsable web form, and as a formatted PDF; the article will then be available through.. , BioMed Central and PubMed Central and will also be included in PubMed.. Flexibility.. Online publication in.. gives authors the opportunity to publish large datasets, large numbers of color illustrations and moving pictures, to display data in a form that can be read directly by other software packages so as to allow readers to manipulate the data for themselves, and to create all relevant links (for example, to PubMed, to sequence and other databases, and to other articles).. Promotion and press coverage.. Articles published in.. article alerts.. and regular email updates.. Some may be included in abstract books mailed to academics and are highlighted on.. 's pages and on the BioMed Central homepage.. In addition, articles published in.. may be promoted by press releases to the general or scientific press.. These activities increase the exposure and number of accesses for articles published in.. A list of articles recently press-released by journals published by BioMed Central is available.. Copyright.. retain the copyright of their articles and are free to reproduce and disseminate their work (for further details, see the BioMed Central.. copyright policy.. license agreement.. For further information about the advantages of publishing in a journal from BioMed Central, please click..

    Original link path: /about
    Open archive

  • Title: Addiction Science & Clinical Practice | Editorial Board
    Descriptive info: Boston University School of Medicine, United States of America.. Associate Editors.. Gavin Bart.. University of Minnesota Medical School, United States of America.. Jean-Bernard Daeppen.. University of Lausanne, Switzerland.. Adam Gordon.. University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, United States of America.. P Todd Korthuis.. Oregon Health & Science University, United States of America.. Dr Anna Lembke.. Stanford University, United States of America.. Alexander Sox-Harris.. VA Palo Alto Health Care System, United States of America.. Emily C Williams.. Veterans Affairs Puget Sound Health Care System and the University of Washington, United States of America.. Jasjit S Ahluwalia.. Kathleen Brady.. Medical University of South Carolina, United States of America.. Debbie M Cheng.. Boston University Schools of Medicine and Public Health, United States of America.. Wilson M Compton.. National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA), United States of America.. Katherine Conigrave.. University of Sydney Medical School, Australia.. Jan Copeland.. University of New South Wales, Australia.. Michelle Drapkin.. University of Pennsylvania and the Philadelphia Veterans Affairs Medical Center, United States of America.. Lillian Gelberg.. University of California  ...   of Medicine, United States of America.. Evgeny Krupitsky.. St.. Petersburg State Pavlov Medical University, Russia.. Mary Jo Larson.. Brandeis University, United States of America.. Joshua Lee.. New York University School of Medicine, United States of America.. Petros Levounis.. Addiction Institute of New York, United States of America.. Jim McCambridge.. London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, United Kingdom.. Elizabeth Merrick.. Jennifer R Mertens.. Kaiser Permanente, United States of America.. Edward Nunes.. Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons, United States of America.. Anita Palepu.. University of British Columbia, United States of America.. Tibor Palfai.. Boston University School of Public Health, United States of America.. Flavio Pechansky.. Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil.. Kimber Richter.. University of Kansas School of Medicine, United States of America.. James L Sorensen.. University of California, San Francisco, United States of America.. Maria Lucia Souza-Formigoni.. Universidade Federal de Sao Paulo, Brazil.. Scott Stewart.. University of Buffalo/State University of New York, United States of America.. MANAGING EDITOR.. Ms Casy Calver.. Boston University, United States of America..

    Original link path: /about/edboard
    Open archive

  • Title: Addiction Science & Clinical Practice | Frequently Asked Questions
    Descriptive info: Frequently Asked Questions.. What is.. Addiction Science & Clinical Practice?.. Why submit to.. What is Open Access?.. If my article is published, how will it be cited?.. If my article is published, which bibliographic databases will it be indexed in?.. How can I order reprints?.. What is the copyright policy of.. ?.. Do I need permission to reproduce materials published in.. What are the benefits of registering on the journal website?.. Is there a printed version of the journal?.. How can I ensure that I receive.. 's emails?.. What is BioMed Central?..

    Original link path: /about/faq
    Open archive

  • Title: Addiction Science & Clinical Practice | Most Viewed | Last 30 days
    Descriptive info: All time.. Page 1 of 4.. 4.. 1928.. Accesses.. Performance measures for substance use disorders what research is needed?.. Deborah W Garnick, Constance M Horgan, Andrea Acevedo, Frank McCorry, Constance Weisner.. :18 (11 September 2012).. Cited on BioMed Central.. 1327.. Perceived efficacy of e-cigarettes versus nicotine replacement therapy among successful e-cigarette users: a qualitative approach.. Amanda M Barbeau, Jennifer Burda, Michael Siegel.. :5 (5 March 2013).. 1096.. 532.. 5.. 420.. 6.. 389.. 374.. Prescription of topiramate to treat alcohol use disorders in the Veterans Health Administration.. A C Del Re, Adam J Gordon, Anna Lembke, Alex HS Harris.. :12 (8 July 2013).. 363.. 342.. Levamisole-induced leukocytoclastic vasculitis and neutropenia in a patient with cocaine use: An extensive case with necrosis of skin, soft tissue, and cartilage.. Natasha Arora, Tania Jain, Ravinder Bhanot, Suganthini Natesan.. :19 (24 September 2012).. 10..  ...   (15 March 2012).. 16.. 285.. 17.. 282.. 18.. 279.. Care for hospitalized patients with unhealthy alcohol use: a narrative review.. Regina Makdissi, Scott H Stewart.. :11 (5 June 2013).. 19.. 264.. 20.. 236.. 21.. 224.. A qualitative study of anticipated barriers and facilitators to the implementation of nurse-delivered alcohol screening, brief intervention, and referral to treatment for hospitalized patients in a Veterans Affairs medical center.. Lauren Broyles, Keri L Rodriguez, Kevin L Kraemer, Mary Sevick, Patrice A Price, Adam J Gordon.. :7 (2 May 2012).. 22.. 222.. 23.. 203.. Alcohol use disorder-related sick leave and mortality: a cohort study.. Felix Wedegaertner, Siegfried Geyer, Sonja Arnhold-Kerri, Nicola-Alexander Sittaro, Bert te Wildt.. :3 (30 January 2013).. 24.. 202.. 198.. Pellagrous encephalopathy presenting as alcohol withdrawal delirium: A case series and literature review.. Mark A Oldham, Ana Ivkovic.. :12 (6 July 2012)..

    Original link path: /mostviewed/30days
    Open archive

  • Title: Addiction Science & Clinical Practice | Access to articles
    Descriptive info: Access to articles.. All research articles are open access.. Every peer-reviewed research article appearing in any journal published by BioMed Central is 'open access', meaning that:.. The article is universally and freely accessible via the Internet, in an easily readable format and deposited immediately upon publication, without embargo, in an agreed format - current preference is XML with a declared DTD - in at least one widely and internationally recognized open access repository (such as PubMed Central).. The author(s) or copyright owner(s) irrevocably grant(s) to any third party, in advance and in perpetuity, the right to use, reproduce or disseminate the research article in its entirety or in part, in any format or medium, provided that no substantive errors are introduced in the process, proper attribution of authorship and correct citation details are given, and that the bibliographic details are not changed.. If the article is reproduced or disseminated in part, this must be clearly and unequivocally indicated.. For details, please see BioMed Central’s.. Open Access.. charter.. Access to other articles.. All material in the.. BMC.. -series journals.. and the.. independent journals.. published by BioMed Central is..  ...   access immediately on publication, they also publish value-added content such as specially commissioned reviews and commentaries that are available by subscription for an initial journal-dependent period.. After expiry of the subscription period they become ‘open access’.. All articles are immediately and permanently available online.. Unrestricted use, distribution and reproduction in any medium is permitted, provided the article is properly cited.. See our.. open access charter.. A small number of articles (such as articles co-published with other publishers or preprints) are 'free' to access without charge; these are not ‘open access’ articles.. By 'open data' BioMed Central means that these data are freely available on the public internet permitting any user to download, copy, analyse, re-process, pass them to software or use them for any other purpose without financial, legal, or technical barriers other than those inseparable from gaining access to the internet itself.. BioMed Central encourages the use of fully open formats wherever possible.. While this logo appears, access to the full text of these articles requires a subscription to the journal; after an initial journal-dependent period, these articles become available ‘open access’.. Abstracts are freely accessible..

    Original link path: /about/access
    Open archive

  • Title: Addiction Science & Clinical Practice | Full text | The efficacy-effectiveness distinction in trials of alcohol brief intervention
    Descriptive info: org/article/10.. 1186/1940/0640/9/13.. Top.. Introduction.. Conclusions.. Competing interests.. Volume 9.. Viewing options.. (262KB).. Associated material.. PubMed record.. Article metrics.. Readers' comments.. Related literature.. Cited by.. Google blog search.. Other articles by authors.. on Google Scholar.. on PubMed.. Related articles/pages.. on Google.. Tools.. Download references.. Download XML.. Email to a friend.. Order reprints.. Post a comment.. Download to.. Papers.. Mendeley.. Share this article.. Tweet.. More options.. Citeulike.. LinkedIn.. Del.. icio.. us.. Email.. Facebook.. Google+.. Twitter.. Reddit.. Your browser does not support iframes.. Keep up to date with the latest news and content from Addiction Science & Clinical Practice and BioMed Central.. Nick Heather.. Correspondence: Nick Heather.. nick.. heather@northumbria.. uk.. Author Affiliations.. Department of Psychology, Faculty of Health & Social Sciences, Northumberland Building, Northumbria University, Newcastle upon Tyne NE1 8ST, UK.. :13.. doi:10.. 1186/1940-0640-9-13.. The editorial related to this manuscript is available at.. http://www.. ascpjournal.. org/content/9/1/14.. The electronic version of this article is the complete one and can be found online at:.. org/content/9/1/13.. Received:.. 13 December 2013.. Accepted:.. 31 July 2014.. Published:.. 16 August 2014.. 2014 Heather; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (.. http://creativecommons.. org/licenses/by/2.. 0.. ), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited.. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.. org/publicdomain/zero/1.. 0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.. Three recent sets of null findings from trials of alcohol brief intervention (BI) have been disappointing to those who wish to see a reduction in alcohol-related harm through the widespread dissemination of BI.. Saitz (7) has suggested that these null findings result from a failure to translate the effects of BI seen in efficacy trials, which are thought to contribute mainly to the beneficial effects of BI shown in meta-analyses, to effectiveness trials conducted in real-world clinical practice.. The present article aims to: (i) clarify the meaning of the terms “efficacy” and “effectiveness” and other related concepts; (ii) review the method and findings on efficacy-effectiveness measurement in the 2007 Cochrane Review by Kaner and colleagues; and (iii) make suggestions for further research in this area.. Conclusions are: 1) to avoid further confusion, terms such as “efficacy trial”, “effectiveness trial”, “clinical representativeness”, etc.. should be clearly defined and carefully used; 2) applications of BI to novel settings should begin with foundational research and developmental studies, followed by efficacy trials, and political pressures for quick results from premature effectiveness trials should be resisted; 3) clear criteria are available in the literature to guide progress from efficacy research, through effectiveness research, to dissemination in practice; 4) to properly interpret null findings from effectiveness studies, it is necessary to ensure that interventions are delivered as intended; 5) in future meta-analyses of alcohol BI trials, more attention should be paid to the development and application of a psychometrically robust scale to measure efficacy-effectiveness or clinical representativeness; 6) the null findings under consideration cannot be firmly attributed to a failure to translate effects from efficacy trials to real-world practice, because it is possible that the majority of trials included in meta-analyses on which the evidence for the beneficial effects of alcohol BI was based tended to be effectiveness rather than efficacy trials; and 7) a hypothesis to explain the null findings in question is that they are due to lack of fidelity in the implementation of BI in large, organizationally complex, cluster randomized trials.. Keywords:.. Alcohol-related harm; Brief interventions; Efficacy trials; Effectiveness trials; Meta-analyses.. There recently have been three disappointing sets of findings from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of alcohol brief intervention (BI) in primary care.. From the standpoint of science, no findings are disappointing if they are an accurate reflection of reality; however, because these are all null findings, they are considered disappointing to those who wish to see a substantial reduction in alcohol-related harm through the widespread delivery of BI in routine practice.. The fact that all three trials were located in primary health care, long considered the most promising setting for the delivery of alcohol BI.. [.. ], adds to this sense of disappointment.. In chronological order, the first findings were from a cluster RCT of a tailored, multifaceted improvement program in facilitating the implementation of BI by general medical practitioners (GPs) in The Netherlands (van Beurden et al.. The improvement program consisted of a range of activities aimed at GPs, their organizations, and their patients.. It took advantage of best evidence on how best to encourage GPs to deliver BI and the extensive experience of several of the investigators in this area.. It represented, in short, the best chance for success in encouraging GPs to become involved in the delivery of alcohol BI.. Unfortunately, the authors concluded that their program “failed to show an effect and proved difficult to implement” (p.. 1601) and that, “there remains little evidence to support the use of such an intensive implementation program to improve the management of harmful and hazardous alcohol consumption in primary care” (p.. 1601).. The second set of findings came also from a cluster RCT of a training program for GPs in Wales.. ], but the training in this case was for the delivery of brief behavior change counseling for multiple lifestyle behaviors (smoking, lack of exercise, unhealthy eating, and excessive alcohol consumption), so the main outcome measure was changes in patient rather than GP behavior.. The BI training program, known as PRE-EMPT, was based on motivational interviewing.. ] and its effects were compared with delayed training.. Three months after a BI, there were no differences between groups in the proportion of patients reporting beneficial changes in at least one of the four risky behaviors, including excessive drinking.. The conclusion was that training GPs in behavior change counseling had no effect on patient self-reported behavior change.. The third null findings came from the primary care arm of the SIPS (Screening and Intervention Programme for Sensible Drinking) project.. ], a cluster RCT in England involving three conditions: (i) a control group given a patient information leaflet (PIL); (ii) a group given the PIL plus 5 minutes of structured brief advice, and (iii) a group given the PIL, brief advice, and 20 minutes of brief lifestyle counseling.. At both 6- and 12-month follow-up, there were no differences between groups in the proportion of patients who had reduced their score on the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT).. ] from above to below the recommended cut point; i.. , indicating a beneficial change.. The authors’ conclusion was that “… evidence that brief advice or brief lifestyle counseling provided additional benefit in reducing hazardous or harmful drinking compared with the patient information leaflet was lacking” (p.. 2).. It is important to note that, given the large sample sizes in all three studies discussed here, lack of statistical power is unlikely to be the reason for null findings.. An exchange of views.. Because of their relevance to present concerns, comments by Richard Saitz on the SIPS findings.. ] are worth quoting at length:.. “Particularly given the robust findings from systematic reviews that favor brief intervention … when compared to no brief intervention in efficacy trials …, the conclusion most consistent with these data is that, even when great efforts are made to implement SBI (screening and brief intervention) in real-world clinical care (e.. , with less external researcher support), the effects seen in efficacy studies do not translate into effective interventions in practice.. ”.. Saitz continues:.. “And the effect sizes in efficacy studies, while large from a public health perspective, are small enough (e.. , three fewer drinks per week) that they could easily be erased when SBI is not implemented in practice exactly like it was in those studies….. Yet alcohol SBI can only reach its potential if the effects seen in efficacy studies can be achieved in real-world practice.. Kaner et al.. ’s.. ] systematic review suggested that the practice was similarly effective in trials in which SBI implementation looked more like it would in clinical practice and less like research implementation, but none of those studies came close to being pragmatic trials like SIPS, so they couldn’t really inform that question.. ” (citation added).. Saitz observed that the SIPS trial was one of the few pragmatic implementation studies of alcohol SBI and that another trial, the van Beurden et al.. trial.. ] mentioned above, had an even more disappointing result.. The overall conclusion was that “… researchers and educators should turn their attention to how to implement alcohol screening and brief intervention in clinical practice in a way that retains the efficacy seen in clinical trials.. ” Saitz here has put his finger on the most pressing challenge facing the alcohol BI field at the present time, a challenge that concerns the crucial distinction between efficacy and effectiveness research.. In their reply to Saitz, the SIPS investigators.. ] wrote as follows:.. “In contrast to Professor Saitz, we feel that the brief intervention evidence base to date has indicated … a growing preponderance of effectiveness rather than efficacy trials.. (In the Cochrane Review) … the majority of studies … were judged to be clinically relevant effectiveness trials (with high external validity) rather than ideal-world efficacy trials (with high internal validity).. In a field that has evolved for over 25 years, it is to be expected that evaluations have increasingly reflected the variability and constraints of real-world primary care.. Kaner and colleagues also pointed to the difference between the SIPS trial, in which the aim was to evaluate the impact of SBI on patients’ drinking outcomes, and the van Beurden trial, which was a service-delivery trial to evaluate the impact of an intensive, multifaceted improvement program on GPs’ management of alcohol problems.. Aims of this article.. In this exchange of views, then, there appears to be disagreement and possibly some confusion over the meaning and applicability of the terms “efficacy”, “effectiveness”, “implementation, and “pragmatic” trials.. There are also different views on whether the studies included in the Kaner et al.. Cochrane Review.. ] were primarily efficacy or effectiveness trials.. With these issues in mind, the present article has three aims:.. I.. To clarify the meaning of the terms efficacy trial, effectiveness trial, and other related concepts, and to try to dispel some of the confusion surrounding these terms;.. II.. To review the method and findings on efficacy-effectiveness measurement in the Kaner et al.. ];.. III.. To make suggestions for further research concerning the efficacy-effectiveness distinction.. Explanatory versus pragmatic trials.. In the current literature on alcohol BI, the terms “effectiveness trial” and “pragmatic trial” seem to be used synonymously.. It is, of course, perfectly legitimate to use the word “pragmatic” in its ordinary language sense and, in this way perhaps, as the same in meaning to “effectiveness.. ” (The meaning of effectiveness trial will be considered below).. However, the term pragmatic trial does have a more technical meaning deriving from a paper in the early literature by two French authors.. In this usage, explanatory trials are primarily concerned with understanding.. ,.. whereas pragmatic trials are concerned primarily with decision.. Thus, in a pragmatic trial, treatments are compared “under the conditions in which they would be applied in practice” (p.. 638).. A recent example is the United Kingdom Alcohol Treatment Trial (UKATT).. ] in which the intensity and therapeutic methods of the two forms of treatment being compared were deliberately confounded in the design (eight sessions of Social Behavior and Network Therapy versus three sessions of Motivational Enhancement Therapy, both over 12 weeks).. This was because the aim of the trial was to determine which of two treatments was the more effective and/or cost-effective in the form in which it was intended to be delivered and in order to inform a decision as to which should be rolled out in routine practice in the UK National Health Service.. If this had been an explanatory trial, it would have been necessary to control for either intensity or treatment type so that the effect of the other on outcomes could be independently assessed; but this was not necessary in a pragmatic trial.. The explanatory-pragmatic distinction is clearly similar in some ways to efficacy-effectiveness, but it has special implications for the aims and design of a trial.. The seminal work of Brian Flay.. Flay.. ] published his seminal paper on the efficacy-effectiveness distinction in 1986, certainly the first in the area of substance use disorders and possibly in public health in general.. Flay credits Cochrane.. ] in 1971 with first making the distinction in question, though the potential for confusion here is illustrated by the fact that Cochrane used “effectiveness” and “efficiency” for Flay’s “efficacy” and “effectiveness.. ” Flay’s paper is concerned with health promotion and is illustrated by examples from smoking prevention, but it is highly relevant to research on alcohol BI.. Flay first provides general definitions:.. ● Efficacy trials provide tests of whether a technology, treatment, procedure, or program does more good than harm when delivered under optimum conditions.. ● Effectiveness trials provide tests of whether a technology, treatment, procedure, or program does more good than harm when delivered under real-world conditions.. Note immediately that efficacy is necessary to but not sufficient for effectiveness (i.. , if a treatment is effective, it must be efficacious but, if it is efficacious, it need not necessarily be effective).. Thus, if an effectiveness trial produces a null result, one cannot be sure without a preceding efficacy trial whether the null result is due to lack of efficacy or lack of effectiveness.. In somewhat more detail, an efficacy trial provides a test of (i) a well-specified standardized treatment/program that (ii) is made available in uniform fashion, within standardized contexts/setting, to a specified target group, which (iii) completely accepts, participates in, complies with, or adheres to the treatment/program as delivered.. However, an intervention in a real-world setting will be effective only if an efficacious intervention is delivered/implemented in such a way as to be made available to an appropriate target clientele in a manner acceptable to them (i.. , that they will be receptive to, participate in, comply with, or adhere to).. Thus, the observed effects, or lack thereof, of an intervention in an effectiveness trial may be due to one or more of the following: (i) the efficacy level of the evaluated intervention; (ii) the availability of the intervention to the target population; or (iii) the level of acceptance of (participation in, compliance with, or adherence to) the intervention by the target group.. However, there are two types of effectiveness trials: treatment effectiveness trials and implementation effectiveness trials.. Relationships between three types of research – efficacy trials and the two types of effectiveness trials – are shown in Table.. , which illustrates the role of the two key variables, availability and acceptance, underlying the distinctions between them.. An efficacy trial optimizes both availability and acceptance; a treatment effectiveness trial optimizes availability and leaves acceptability to vary; and an implementation effectiveness  ...   the current body of brief alcohol intervention research is applicable to clinical practice.. Previous trials have fallen on a continuum from efficacy to effectiveness trials, and the lack of significant difference in outcomes on this dimension suggests that this body of work can inform routine practice” (p.. 19).. In addition to the reference to the work of Babor and colleagues.. ] in the quotation above, if it had been available to them at the time, the authors of the Cochrane Review could have cited the letter by Saitz in the.. British Medical Journal.. ] commenting on the SIPS findings.. Thus, an implication of the results of the subgroup analysis summarized above is that Saitz is mistaken in believing that the majority of BI trials in the literature are efficacy trials or that effectiveness trials tend to have weaker effects on treatment outcome than efficacy trials (or, at least, those tending more towards the efficacy end of the spectrum).. Hence, if the subgroup analysis in question is valid, the null findings of the trials described at the outset of this article cannot be attributed to the difficulty in translating effects of BI seen in efficacy trials to effectiveness trials.. Before this conclusion and its implications are fully accepted, however, it must be recognized that the subgroup analysis in question can be criticized on technical grounds.. First, although it was reported that trials were independently coded by two authors, there was no mention of pilot work to establish the reliability of the codings, and no measure of agreement between coders was reported.. Perhaps more damagingly, no psychometrics were carried out on the efficacy-effectiveness scale; e.. , principal components analysis to test for unidimensionality and then deletion of coding items that lowered Cronbach’s alpha.. Lastly, there were no comparisons between the efficacy and effectiveness trial groups on effect sizes for individual scale items.. This possibility was recognized by the authors when they wrote: “It is possible that the treatment effect may be related to some of the individual factors, which were combined in the efficacy score.. However, we did not investigate this as it would have been a.. post hoc.. analysis, not specified in the protocol”.. ] (p.. 17).. As this suggests, an analysis of this kind could be planned for inclusion in any future meta-analysis of BI RCTs.. More generally, the subgroup analysis could be repeated in a future meta-analysis without the flaws identified above.. Whether this would make any difference to the general conclusion reached regarding the essential effectiveness of most trials in the literature is an interesting empirical question.. One last point should be made about the subgroup analysis in the Cochrane Review.. In discussing the interpretation of their coding scheme and scale, Shadish et al.. ] specifically reject the idea that the degree of clinical representativeness of trials they aim to measure can be equated with efficacy-effectiveness based on internal versus external validity.. To do so, they say, results in an oversimplification because, in classic discussions of internal-external validity.. 34.. 35.. ], the crucial methodological features for high internal validity are random assignment and the minimization of attrition.. It is clearly possible for a trial that is clinically representative to meet these two criteria and thus to be both clinically representative and internally valid.. This persuasive argument suggests that the dimension analyzed by Kaner and colleagues in the 2007 Cochrane Review.. ] was clinical representativeness, not efficacy-effectiveness based on relative degrees of internal and external validity.. Other relevant scales.. Before concluding this review of the efficacy-effectiveness dimension, it may be useful to note the publication of two other scales with relevance to the issue.. In the first, Gartlehner and colleagues.. 36.. ] developed and tested a simple instrument based on seven criteria of study design to distinguish effectiveness from efficacy trials.. These authors began by noting that no validated definition of ‘effectiveness study’ exists.. They carried out a search for existing scales to measure the efficacy-effectiveness dimension but found none.. (They obviously missed the scale developed by Kaner and colleagues.. ] and noted above, perhaps because it was buried in a longer Cochrane Review; this suggests the need to make the issue of efficacy-effectiveness or the clinical representativeness of trials the topic of separate publications.. ) It should be stressed, however, that the efficacy-effectiveness scale developed in this project, based as it was on research design and influenced largely by a conventional understanding of internal and external validity, was very different from the scale used by Kaner and colleagues.. ], suggesting again that the latter would be better termed “clinical representativeness.. The second novel scale was developed by Thorpe and colleagues.. 37.. ] and was intended to reflect the explanatory-pragmatic dimension.. However, these authors’ understanding of an explanatory trial differed from that of the originators of this term; i.. , as describing trials that were designed to test causal hypotheses regarding the way an intervention exerts its effect.. ], and was based rather on trials that aimed to provide an answer to the question, “Can this intervention work under ideal conditions?” (as opposed to pragmatic trials, which tried to answer the question, “Does this intervention work under usual conditions?”).. This unhelpful change in terminology illustrates again how easily confusion can be introduced into this field of study by careless use of terms.. Nevertheless, this scale, which differs again from the two considered above.. ], may be useful to researchers.. Indeed, in future meta-analyses of alcohol BI trials, two or even all three of the scales considered here, measuring as they do somewhat different aspects of ideal-world versus real-world trials, could be used and relationships between them explored.. The following are summaries of conclusions in the preceding text:.. There is considerable confusion and inconsistency in the literature regarding such terms as efficacy trial, effectiveness trial, explanatory trial, pragmatic trial, and clinical representativeness.. In the future, these terms should be clearly defined and carefully used.. It is a mistake to go straight to effectiveness trials for new forms of alcohol BI intended for different populations in different settings where the evidence base is thin or nonexistent.. The development and testing of new applications of BI should begin with foundational research and developmental studies, followed by efficacy trials, before large-scale effectiveness trials are mounted.. Political pressures for quick results from premature effectiveness trials should be resisted.. Clear criteria are available in the literature to guide progress in movement from efficacy research, through effectiveness research, to dissemination in practice.. To properly interpret the findings of effectiveness studies, especially null findings, it is necessary to ensure that interventions are delivered as intended and as found efficacious or effective in previous research.. In future meta-analyses of alcohol BI trials, more attention should be paid to the development and application of a scale to measure efficacy-effectiveness or clinical representativeness, including: theory-based scale construction; inter-rater reliability testing and reporting; psychometric scale refinement; and publication as a topic of interest in its own right.. In relation to the three disappointing findings with which this article began:.. a.. The null findings of the van Beurden et al.. ] are not relevant to the issue of translating efficacy into treatment effectiveness because they represent a failure of implementation effectiveness.. They reinforce strongly what is already known – that it is extremely difficult to get health professionals to deliver alcohol BI.. b.. The null findings of the SIPS trial.. ] cannot be firmly attributed to a failure to translate effects from efficacy trials to real-world practice because it is possible that the majority of trials included in meta-analyses on which the evidence for the beneficial effects of alcohol BI is based tended to be effectiveness trials rather than efficacy trials (although the validity of this conclusion should be more rigorously tested in future meta-analyses of alcohol BI).. c.. A leading hypothesis to explain the null findings of the SIPS.. ] trials is that they are due to lack of fidelity in the implementation of BI in large, complex, cluster randomized trials.. The author was one of the authors of the 2007 Cochrane Review and a Principal Investigator of the SIPS trial, both of which are mentioned prominently in this article.. Other than those, he has no competing interests to declare.. This article is based on a presentation at the 10.. th.. Annual Conference of the International Network on Brief Interventions for Alcohol and Other Drugs (INEBRIA), Rome, Italy, 20.. September, 2013.. Babor TF, Ritson EB, Hodgson RJ:.. Alcohol-related problems in the primary health care setting: a review of early intervention strategies.. Br J Addict.. 1986,.. 81.. :.. 23-46.. PubMed Abstract.. Publisher Full Text.. van Beurden I, Anderson P, Akkermans RP, Grol RP, Wensing M, Laurant MG:.. Involvement of general practitioners in managing alcohol problems: a randomized controlled trial of a tailored improvement programme.. Addiction.. 107.. 1601-1611.. Butler CC, Simpson SA, Hood K, Cohen D, Pickles T, Spanou C, McCambridge J, Moore L, Randell E, Alam MF, Kinnersley P, Edwards A, Smith C, Rollnick S:.. Training practitioners to deliver opportunistic multiple behaviour change counselling in primary care: a cluster randomised trial.. BMJ.. 346.. f1191.. PubMed Central Full Text.. Miller WR, Rollnick S:.. Motivational Interviewing: Helping People Change.. 3rd edition.. New York NY: Guilford Press; 2012.. Kaner E, Bland M, Cassidy P, Coulton S, Dale V, Deluca P, Gilvarry E, Godfrey C, Heather N, Myles J, Newbury-Birch D, Oyefeso A, Parrott S, Perryman K, Phillips T, Shepherd J, Drummond C:.. Effectiveness of screening and brief alcohol intervention in primary care (SIPS trial): pragmatic cluster randomised controlled trial.. e8501.. Saunders JB, Aasland OG, Babor TF, de la Fuente JR, Grant M:.. Development of the alcohol use disorders identification test (AUDIT): WHO collaborative project on early detection of persons with harmful alcohol consumption–II.. 1993,.. 88.. 791-804.. Saitz R:.. RE: Effectiveness of screening and brief alcohol intervention in primary care (SIPS trial): pragmatic cluster randomised controlled trial (Letter).. bmj.. com/content/346/bmj.. e8501/rr/625559.. webcite.. Kaner E, Beyer F, Dickinson H, Pienaar E, Campbell F, Schlesinger C, Heather N, Saunders J, Burnand B:.. Effectiveness of brief alcohol interventions in primary care populations.. Cochrane Database Syst Rev.. 2007,.. CD004148.. 1002/14651858.. CD004148.. pub3.. Kaner E, Drummond C, Coulton S, Bland M, Cassidy P, Dale V, DeLuca P, Gilvarry E, Godfrey C, Heather N, Myles J, Newbury-Birch D, Oyefeso A, Parrott S, Perryman K, Phillips T, Shepherd J:.. Reply to comments on “Effectiveness of screening and brief alcohol intervention in primary care (SIPS trial): pragmatic cluster randomised controlled trial.. e8501/rr/629648.. Schwartz D, Lellouch J:.. Explanatory and pragmatic attitudes in therapeutic trials.. J Chronic Dis.. 1967,.. 637-648.. UKATT Research Team:.. Effectiveness of treatment for alcohol problems: findings of the randomised UK alcohol treatment trial (UKATT).. 2005,.. 331.. 541.. Flay BR:.. Efficacy and effectiveness trials (and other phases of research) in the development of health promotion programs.. Prev Med.. 451-474.. Cochrane AL:.. Effectiveness and Efficiency: Random Reflections on Health Services.. London: Nuffield Provincial Hospitals Trust; 1972.. Moriarty HJ, Stubbe MH, Chen L, Tester RM, Macdonald LM, Dowell AC, Dew KP:.. Challenges to alcohol and other drug discussions in the general practice consultation.. Fam Pract.. 213-222.. Heather N:.. Lessons from a controlled evaluation of a general practice minimal intervention for problem drinking.. Austr Drug Alcohol Rev.. 1988,.. 317-328.. Holder H, Flay B, Howard J, Boyd G, Voas R, Grossman M:.. Phases of alcohol problem prevention research.. Alcohol Clin Exp Res.. 1999,.. 183-194.. Heather N, Campion PD, Neville RG, MacCabe D:.. Evaluation of a controlled drinking minimal intervention for problem drinkers in general practice (the DRAMS scheme).. J R Coll Gen Pract.. 1987,.. 358-363.. Wallace P, Cutler S, Haines A:.. Randomised controlled trial of general practitioner intervention in patients with excessive alcohol consumption.. 297.. 663-668.. Scott E, Anderson P:.. Randomized controlled trial of general practitioner intervention in women with excessive alcohol consumption.. Drug Alcohol Rev.. 1991,.. 331-321.. Anderson P, Scott E:.. The effect of general practitioners’ advice to heavy drinking men.. 1992,.. 87.. 891-900.. Fleming MF, Barry KL, Manwell LB, Johnson K, London R:.. Brief physician advice for problem alcohol drinkers: a randomized controlled trial in community-based primary care practices.. JAMA.. 1997,.. 277.. 1039-1045.. A long-standing World Health Organization collaborative project on early identification and brief alcohol intervention in primary health care comes to an end (Editorial).. 102.. 679-681.. Babor TF, de la Fuente JR, Saunders J, Grant M:.. AUDIT, The Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test: Guidelines for Use in Primary Health Care.. Geneva: World Health Organization; 1989.. Kaner EF, Lock CA, McAvoy BR, Heather N, Gilvarry E:.. An RCT of three training and support strategies to encourage implementation of screening and brief alcohol intervention by general practitioners.. Br J Gen Pract.. 49.. 699-703.. WHO Collaborative Project on Identification and Management of Alcohol-Related Problems in Primary Health Care.. Report on Phase IV: Development of Country-Wide Strategies for Implementing Early Identification and Brief Intervention in Primary Health Care.. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2006.. Babor T, Grant M:.. Project on Identification and Management of Alcohol-Related Problems: Report on Phase II: A Randomized Clinical Trial of Brief Interventions in Primary Health Care.. Geneva: World Health Organization; 1992.. O’Donnell A, Anderson P, Newbury-Birch D, Schulte B, Schmidt C, Reimer J, Kaner E:.. The impact of brief alcohol interventions in primary healthcare: a systematic review of reviews.. Alcohol Alcohol.. 66-78.. Flay BR, Biglan A, Boruch RF, Castros FG, Gottfredson D, Kellam S, Moscicki EK, Schinke S, Valentine JC, Ji P:.. Standards of evidence: criteria for efficacy, effectiveness and dissemination.. Prev Sci.. 151-175.. Shadish WR, Matt GE, Navarro AM, Phillips G:.. The effects of psychological therapies under clinically representative conditions: a meta-analysis.. Psych Bull.. 2000,.. 126.. 512-529.. Romelsjö A, Andersson L, Barrner H, Borg S, Granstrand C, Hultman O, Hässler A, Källqvist A, Magnusson P, Morgell R, Nyman K, Olofsson A, Olsson E, Rhedin A, Wikblad O:.. A randomized study of secondary prevention of early stage problem drinkers in primary health care.. 1989,.. 84.. 1319-1327.. Fleming M, Brown R, Brown D:.. The efficacy of a brief alcohol intervention combined with %CDT feedback in patients being treated for type 2 diabetes and/or hypertension.. J Stud Alcohol.. 2004,.. 65.. 631-637.. Lock CA, Kaner E, Heather N, Doughty J, Crayshaw A, McNamee P, Purdy S, Pearson P:.. Effectiveness of nurse-led brief alcohol intervention: a cluster randomized controlled trial.. J Adv Nurs.. 2006,.. 54.. 426-439.. Babor TF, Higgins-Biddle JC, Dauser D, Burleson JA, Zarkin GA, Bray J:.. Brief interventions for at-risk drinking: patient outcomes and cost-effectiveness in managed care organizations.. 41.. 624-631.. Campbell DT, Stanley JC:.. Experimental and Quasi-experimental Designs for Research.. Chicago: Rand McNally; 1966.. Cook T, Campbell D:.. Quasi-experimentation: Design and Analysis for Field Settings.. Chicago: Rand McNally; 1977.. Gartlehner G, Hansen RA, Nissman D, Lohr KN, Carey TS:.. A simple and valid tool distinguished efficacy from effectiveness studies.. J Clin Epidemiol.. 59.. 1040-1048.. Thorpe KE, Zwarenstein M, Oxman AD, Treweek S, Furberg CD, Altman DG, Tunis S, Bergel E, Harvey I, Magid DJ, Chalkidou K:.. A pragmatic-explanatory continuum indicator summary (PRECIS): a tool to help trial designers.. 62.. 464-475.. Sign up to receive new article alerts from..

    Original link path: /content/9/1/13
    Open archive

  • Archived pages: 364