Sileo Katelyn M, Miller Amanda P, Wagman Jennifer A, Kiene Susan M
Department of Public Health, University of Texas at San Antonio, San Antonio, TX, USA.
Division of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, School of Public Health, San Diego State University, San Diego, CA, USA.
Addiction. 2021 Mar;116(3):457-473. doi: 10.1111/add.15227. Epub 2020 Sep 15.
Harmful alcohol use is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality in sub-Saharan Africa (sSA); however, the effects of non-pharmacological alcohol interventions in this region are unknown.
A systematic review and meta-analysis of the available literature through 14 March 2019 was undertaken. Two authors extracted and reconciled relevant data and assessed risk of bias. Meta-analyses were conducted. The review protocol is registered on International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) (CRD42019094509).
Studies conducted in sSA were eligible for inclusion.
Individuals participating in interventions aimed at reducing alcohol use.
Randomized and non-randomized controlled trials testing non-pharmacological interventions (psychosocial and structural) on alcohol consumption in sSA.
Eligible outcomes included the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT) scores; alcohol abstinence; measures of drinking quantity and frequency; and biomarkers of alcohol consumption.
Nineteen intervention trials (18 reports) testing psychosocial interventions (no structural interventions included), judged of moderate quality, were included in meta-analyses. A beneficial effect was identified for psychosocial interventions on alcohol abstinence at 3-6 months [odds ratio (OR) = 2.05, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.20-3.48, k = 5, n = 2312, I = 79%] and 12-60 months (OR = 1.91, 95% CI = 1.40-2.61, k = 6, n = 2737, I = 63%) follow-up. There were no statistically significant effects found for AUDIT score [2-3 months: mean differences (MD) = -1.13, 95% CI = -2.60 to 0.34, k = 6, n = 992, I = 85%; 6 months: MD = -0.83, 95% CI = -1.92 to 0.26, k = 6, n = 1081, I = 69%; 12 months: MD = -0.15, 95% CI = -1.66 to 1.36, k = 4; n = 677; I = 75%], drinks per drinking day (3 months: MD = -0.22, 95% CI = -2.51 to 2.07, k = 2, n = 359, I = 82%; 6-36 months: MD = -0.09, 95% CI = -0.49 to 0.30, k = 3, n = 1450, I = 60%) or percentage of drinking days (3 months: MD = -4.60, 95% = -21.14 to 11.94; k = 2; n = 361; I = 90%; 6-9 months: MD = 1.96, 95% CI = -6.54 to 10.46; k = 2; n = 818; I = 88%).
Psychosocial interventions show promise at increasing self-reported alcohol abstinence in sSA, but clinical, methodological and statistical heterogeneity across meta-analytical outcomes suggests that results should be interpreted with caution.
有害饮酒是撒哈拉以南非洲地区(SSA)发病和死亡的主要原因;然而,该地区非药物酒精干预措施的效果尚不清楚。
对截至2019年3月14日的现有文献进行系统评价和荟萃分析。两名作者提取并核对了相关数据,并评估了偏倚风险。进行了荟萃分析。该评价方案已在国际前瞻性系统评价注册库(PROSPERO)(CRD42019094509)上注册。
在SSA进行的研究符合纳入条件。
参与旨在减少饮酒的干预措施的个体。
测试SSA地区非药物干预措施(心理社会和结构性干预)对酒精消费影响的随机和非随机对照试验。
符合条件的结果包括酒精使用障碍识别测试(AUDIT)分数;戒酒情况;饮酒量和频率的测量指标;以及酒精消费的生物标志物。
19项测试心理社会干预措施(未包括结构性干预措施)的干预试验(18份报告),质量中等,被纳入荟萃分析。在3至6个月[优势比(OR)=2.05,95%置信区间(CI)=1.20-3.48,k=5,n=2312,I²=79%]和12至60个月(OR=1.91,95%CI=1.40-2.61,k=6,n=2737,I²=63%)随访时,发现心理社会干预措施对戒酒有有益效果。对于AUDIT分数[2至3个月:平均差异(MD)=-1.13,95%CI=-2.60至0.34,k=6,n=992,I²=85%;6个月:MD=-0.83,95%CI=-1.92至0.26,k=6,n=1081,I²=69%;12个月:MD=-0.15,95%CI=-1.66至1.36,k=4;n=677;I²=75%]、每日饮酒量(3个月:MD=-0.22,95%CI=-2.51至2.07,k=2,n=359,I²=82%;6至36个月:MD=-0.09,95%CI=-0.49至0.30,k=3,n=1450,I²=60%)或饮酒天数百分比(3个月:MD=-4.60,95%CI=-21.14至11.94;k=2;n=361;I²=90%;6至9个月:MD=1.96,95%CI=-6.54至10.46;k=2;n=818;I²=88%),未发现统计学上的显著效果。
心理社会干预措施在提高SSA地区自我报告的戒酒率方面显示出前景,但荟萃分析结果中的临床、方法学和统计学异质性表明,对结果的解释应谨慎。