Amy J. Porath-Waller

Bio: Amy J. Porath-Waller is an academic researcher from Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse. The author has contributed to research in topics: Poison control & Sobriety. The author has an hindex of 6, co-authored 8 publications receiving 199 citations.

A Meta-Analytic Review of School-Based Prevention for Cannabis Use

Abstract: This investigation used meta-analytic techniques to evaluate the effectiveness of school-based prevention programming in reducing cannabis use among youth aged 12 to 19. It summarized the results from 15 studies published in peer-reviewed journals since 1999 and identified features that influenced program effectiveness. The results from the set of 15 studies indicated that these school-based programs had a positive impact on reducing students' cannabis use (d = 0.58, CI: 0.55, 0.62) compared to control conditions. Findings revealed that programs incorporating elements of several prevention models were significantly more effective than were those based on only a social influence model. Programs that were longer in duration (≥15 sessions) and facilitated by individuals other than teachers in an interactive manner also yielded stronger effects. The results also suggested that programs targeting high school students were more effective than were those aimed at middle-school students. Implications for school-based prevention programming are discussed.

Effectiveness of brief interventions as part of the screening, brief intervention and referral to treatment (SBIRT) model for reducing the non-medical use of psychoactive substances: a systematic review protocol.

Abstract: Background: The purpose of this systematic review is to assess the effectiveness of brief interventions (BIs) as part of the Screening, Brief Intervention, and Referral to Treatment (SBIRT) model for reducing the nonmedical use of psychoactive substances. Methods: Bibliographic databases (including MEDLINE, Embase, The Cochrane Library, CINAHL, and PsycINFO to April 2012) and gray literature sources were searched. We included randomized controlled trials that opportunistically screened adolescents or adults and then provided a one-to-one, verbal BI to those at risk of substance-use harm. Of interest was the nonmedical use of psychoactive substances (for example, drugs prohibited by international law), excluding alcohol, nicotine, and caffeine. Interventions comprised four or fewer sessions and were compared with no/delayed intervention or provision of information only. Studies were assessed for bias using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Results were synthesized narratively. Evidence was interpreted according to the GRADE framework. Results: We identified 8,836 records. Of these, five studies met our inclusion criteria. Two studies compared BI with no BI, and three studies compared BI with information only. Studies varied in characteristics such as substances targeted, screening procedures, and BI administered. Outcomes were mostly reported by a single study, leading to limited or uncertain confidence in effect estimates. Conclusions: Insufficient evidence exists as to whether BIs, as part of SBIRT, are effective or ineffective for reducing the use of, or harms associated with nonmedical use of, psychoactive substances when these interventions are administered to nontreatment-seeking, screen-detected populations. Updating this review with emerging evidence will be important. Trial registration: CRD42012002414

Using Multivariate Statistics

Abstract: Thank you for downloading using multivariate statistics. As you may know, people have look hundreds times for their favorite novels like this using multivariate statistics, but end up in infectious downloads. Rather than reading a good book with a cup of tea in the afternoon, instead they juggled with some harmful bugs inside their laptop. using multivariate statistics is available in our digital library an online access to it is set as public so you can download it instantly. Our books collection saves in multiple locations, allowing you to get the most less latency time to download any of our books like this one. Merely said, the using multivariate statistics is universally compatible with any devices to read.

Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015: elaboration and explanation.

Abstract: Protocols of systematic reviews and meta-analyses allow for planning and documentation of review methods, act as a guard against arbitrary decision making during review conduct, enable readers to assess for the presence of selective reporting against completed reviews, and, when made publicly available, reduce duplication of efforts and potentially prompt collaboration. Evidence documenting the existence of selective reporting and excessive duplication of reviews on the same or similar topics is accumulating and many calls have been made in support of the documentation and public availability of review protocols. Several efforts have emerged in recent years to rectify these problems, including development of an international register for prospective reviews (PROSPERO) and launch of the first open access journal dedicated to the exclusive publication of systematic review products, including protocols (BioMed Central's Systematic Reviews). Furthering these efforts and building on the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses) guidelines, an international group of experts has created a guideline to improve the transparency, accuracy, completeness, and frequency of documented systematic review and meta-analysis protocols--PRISMA-P (for protocols) 2015. The PRISMA-P checklist contains 17 items considered to be essential and minimum components of a systematic review or meta-analysis protocol.This PRISMA-P 2015 Explanation and Elaboration paper provides readers with a full understanding of and evidence about the necessity of each item as well as a model example from an existing published protocol. This paper should be read together with the PRISMA-P 2015 statement. Systematic review authors and assessors are strongly encouraged to make use of PRISMA-P when drafting and appraising review protocols.

Epidemiology of DSM-5 Drug Use Disorder: Results From the National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions–III

Abstract: Importance Current information on the prevalence and sociodemographic and clinical profiles of individuals in the general population with DSM-5 drug use disorder (DUD) is limited. Given the present societal and economic context in the United States and the new diagnostic system, up-to-date national information is needed from a single uniform data source. Objective To present nationally representative findings on the prevalence, correlates, psychiatric comorbidity, disability, and treatment of DSM-5 DUD diagnoses overall and by severity level. Design, Setting, and Participants In-person interviews were conducted with 36 309 adults in the 2012-2013 National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions–III, a cross-sectional representative survey of the United States. The household response rate was 72%; person-level response rate, 84%; and overall response rate, 60.1%. Data were collected April 2012 through June 2013 and analyzed from February through March 2015. Main Outcomes and Measures Twelve-month and lifetime DUD, based on amphetamine, cannabis, club drug, cocaine, hallucinogen, heroin, nonheroin opioid, sedative/tranquilizer, and/or solvent/inhalant use disorders. Results Prevalences of 12-month and lifetime DUD were 3.9% and 9.9%, respectively. Drug use disorder was generally greater among men, white and Native American individuals, younger and previously or never married adults, those with lower education and income, and those residing in the West. Significant associations were found between 12-month and lifetime DUD and other substance use disorders. Significant associations were also found between any 12-month DUD and major depressive disorder (odds ratio [OR], 1.3; 95% CI, 1.09-1.64), dysthymia (OR, 1.5; 95% CI, 1.09-2.02), bipolar I (OR, 1.5; 95% CI, 1.06-2.05), posttraumatic stress disorder (OR, 1.6; 95% CI, 1.27-2.10), and antisocial (OR, 1.4; 95% CI, 1.11-1.75), borderline (OR, 1.8; 95% CI, 1.41-2.24), and schizotypal (OR, 1.5; 95% CI, 1.18-1.87) personality disorders. Similar associations were found for any lifetime DUD with the exception that lifetime DUD was also associated with generalized anxiety disorder (OR, 1.3; 95% CI, 1.06-1.49), panic disorder (OR, 1.3; 95% CI, 1.06-1.59), and social phobia (OR, 1.3; 95% CI, 1.09-1.64). Twelve-month DUD was associated with significant disability, increasing with DUD severity. Among respondents with 12-month and lifetime DUD, only 13.5% and 24.6% received treatment, respectively. Conclusions and Relevance DSM-5 DUD is a common, highly comorbid, and disabling disorder that largely goes untreated in the United States. These findings indicate the need for additional studies to understand the broad relationships in more detail; estimate present-day economic costs of DUDs; investigate hypotheses regarding etiology, chronicity, and treatment use; and provide information to policy makers about allocation of resources for service delivery and research. Findings also indicate an urgent need to destigmatize DUD and educate the public, clinicians, and policy makers about its treatment to encourage affected individuals to obtain help.

Growing up unequal: gender and socioeconomic differences in young people's health and well-being.

Abstract: Health Behaviour in School-aged Children (HBSC), a WHO collaborative cross-national study, has provided information about the health, well-being, social environment and health behaviour of 11-, 13and 15-year-old boys and girls for over 30 years. This latest international report from the study presents findings from the 2013/2014 survey, which collected data from almost 220 000 young people in 42 countries in Europe and North America. The data focus on social context (relations with family, peers and school), health outcomes (subjective health, injuries, obesity and mental health), health behaviours (patterns of eating, toothbrushing and physical activity) and risk behaviours (use of tobacco, alcohol and cannabis, sexual behaviour, fighting and bullying) relevant to young people’s health and well-being. New items on family and peer support, migration, cyberbullying and serious injuries are also reflected in the report.