Clinical guidelines recommend Self-Management and Recovery Training (SMART Recovery) and 12-step models of mutual aid as important sources of long-term support for addiction recovery. Methodologically rigorous reviews of the efficacy and potential mechanisms of change are available for the predominant 12-step approach. A similarly rigorous exploration of SMART Recovery has yet to be undertaken. We aim to address this gap by providing a systematic overview of the evidence for SMART Recovery in adults with problematic alcohol, substance, and/or behavioral addiction, including (i) a commentary on outcomes assessed, process variables, feasibility, current understanding of mental health outcomes, and (ii) a critical evaluation of the methodology. We searched six electronic peer-reviewed and four gray literature databases for English-language SMART Recovery literature. Articles were classified, assessed against standardized criteria, and checked by an independent assessor. Twelve studies (including three evaluations of effectiveness) were identified. Alcohol-related outcomes were the primary focus. Standardized assessment of nonalcohol substance use was infrequent. Information about behavioral addiction was restricted to limited prevalence data. Functional outcomes were rarely reported. Feasibility was largely indexed by attendance. Economic analysis has not been undertaken. Little is known about the variables that may influence treatment outcome, but attendance represents a potential candidate. Assessment and reporting of mental health status was poor. Although positive effects were found, the modest sample and diversity of methods prevent us from making conclusive remarks about efficacy. Further research is needed to understand the clinical and public health utility of SMART as a viable recovery support option. (PsycINFO Database Record

Objectives The primary aim of the review was to determine the effectiveness of strategies to improve clinician provision of psychosocial distress screening and referral of patients with cancer. Design Systematic review. Data sources Electronic databases (Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL)) were searched until July 2016. Inclusion criteria Population: adult patients with cancer and clinical staff members. Intervention: any strategy that aimed to improve the rate of routine screening and referral for detected distress of patients with cancer. Comparison: no intervention controls, ‘usual’ practice or alternative interventions. Outcome: (primary) any measure of provision of screening and/or referral for distress, (secondary) psychosocial distress, unintended adverse effects. Design: trials with or without a temporal comparison group, including randomised and non-randomised trials, and uncontrolled pre–post studies. Data extraction and analysis Two review authors independently extracted data. Heterogeneity across studies precluded quantitative assessment via meta-analysis and so a narrative synthesis of the results is presented. Results Five studies met the inclusion criteria. All studies were set in oncology clinics or departments and used multiple implementation strategies. Using the Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation, the overall rating of the certainty of the body of evidence reported in this review was assessed as very low. Three studies received a methodological quality rating of weak and two studies received a rating of moderate. Only one of the five studies reported a significant improvement in referrals. Conclusions The review identified five studies of predominantly poor quality examining the effectiveness of strategies to improve the routine implementation of distress screening and referral for patients with cancer. Future research using robust research designs, including randomised assignment, are needed to identify effective support strategies to maximise the potential for successful implementation of distress screening and referral for patients with cancer. PROSPERO registration number CRD42015017518.

Objective To examine the effectiveness of smoking cessation interventions in improving cessation rates and smoking related behaviour in patients with head and neck cancer (HNC). Design A systematic review of randomised and non-randomised controlled trials. Methods We searched the following data sources: CENTRAL in the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO and CINAHL up to February 2016. A search of reference lists of included studies and Google Scholar (first 200 citations published online between 2000 and February 2016) was also undertaken. The methodological quality of included studies was assessed using the Effective Public Health Practice Project Quality Assessment Tool (EPHPP). 2 study authors independently screened and extracted data with disagreements resolved via consensus. Results Of the 5167 studies identified, 3 were eligible and included in the review. Trial designs of included studies were 2 randomised controlled trials and 1 non-randomised controlled trial. 2 studies received a weak methodological rating and 1 received a moderate methodological rating. The trials examine the impact of the following interventions: (1) nurse delivered cognitive–behaviour therapy (CBT) via telephone and accompanied by a workbook, combined with pharmacotherapy; (2) nurse and physician brief advice to quit and information booklets combined with pharmacotherapy; and (3) surgeon delivered enhanced advice to quit smoking augmented by booster sessions. Only the trial of the nurse delivered CBT and pharmacotherapy reported significant increases in smoking cessation rates. 1 study measured quit attempts and the other assessed consumption of cigarettes per day and readiness to change. There was no significant improvement in quit attempts or cigarettes smoked per day among patients in the intervention groups, relative to control. Conclusions There are very few studies evaluating the effectiveness of smoking cessation interventions that report results specific to the HNC population. The 3 trials identified reported equivocal findings. Extended CBT counselling coupled with pharmacotherapy may be effective. Trial registration number CRD42016016421.

We aimed to determine the prevalence and co‐occurrence of tobacco smoking, alcohol consumption, and depressive symptoms among a sample of head and neck cancer (HNC) patients undergoing radiotherapy. A total of 307 HNC patients participated in a multi‐site stepped‐wedge randomized controlled trial (RCT) evaluating the effectiveness of a dietitian‐delivered health behavior intervention in patients with HNC undergoing radiotherapy. During week one of radiotherapy patients completed measures of smoking, alcohol consumption, and level of depression. Approximately one‐fifth (21%) of patients had two or more co‐occurring problems: current smoking, hazardous alcohol use, and/or likely presence of a major depressive episode (MDE). Approximately one‐third (34%) of the sample were current smokers, one‐third (31%) were drinking hazardously and almost one‐fifth (19%) had likely cases of depression. Comorbidity of smoking, hazardous alcohol use, and MDE is high in HNC patients, and interventions need to address this cluster of cancer risk factors.

Introduction Maintaining adequate nutrition for Head and Neck Cancer (HNC) patients is challenging due to both the malignancy and the rigours of radiation treatment. As yet, health behaviour interventions designed to maintain or improve nutrition in patients with HNC have not been evaluated. The proposed trial builds on promising pilot data, and evaluates the effectiveness of a dietitian-delivered health behaviour intervention to reduce malnutrition in patients with HNC undergoing radiotherapy: Eating As Treatment (EAT). Methods and analysis A stepped-wedge cluster randomised design will be used. All recruitment hospitals begin in the control condition providing treatment as usual. In a randomly generated order, oncology staff at each hospital will receive 2 days of training in EAT before switching to the intervention condition. Training will be supplemented by ongoing supervision, coaching and a 2-month booster training provided by the research team. EAT is based on established behaviour change counselling methods, including motivational interviewing, cognitive–behavioural therapy, and incorporates clinical practice change theory. It is designed to improve motivation to eat despite a range of barriers (pain, mucositis, nausea, reduced or no saliva, taste changes and appetite loss), and to provide patients with practical behaviour change strategies. EAT will be delivered by dietitians during their usual consultations. 400 patients with HNC (nasopharynx, hypopharynx, oropharynx, oral cavity or larynx), aged 18+, undergoing radiotherapy (>60 Gy) with curative intent, will be recruited from radiotherapy departments at 5 Australian sites. Assessments will be conducted at 4 time points (first and final week of radiotherapy, 4 and 12 weeks postradiotherapy). The primary outcome will be a nutritional status assessment. Ethics and dissemination Ethics approval from all relevant bodies has been granted. Study findings will be disseminated widely through peer-reviewed publications and conference presentations. Trial registration number ACTRN12613000320752.