| Literature DB >> 35286547 |
Britta Jacobsen1,2, Christina Lindemann3,4, Rainer Petzina4, Uwe Verthein3.
Abstract
Foetal alcohol spectrum disorder (FASD) comprises multiple neurodevelopmental disorders caused by alcohol consumption during pregnancy. With a global prevalence rate of 7.7 per 1000 population, FASD is a leading cause of prenatal developmental disorders. The extent of physical, mental, and social consequences for individuals with FASD can be vast and negatively affect their social environment, daily life, school, relationships, and work. As treatment for FASD is labour- and cost-intensive, with no cure available, prevention is key in reducing FASD prevalence rates. As most systematic reviews conducted so far have focused on specific FASD risk groups, we investigated the effectiveness of universal FASD prevention and primary preventive strategies. We identified a total of 567 potentially pertinent records through PubMed, Cochrane Library, EBSCO, PubPsych, and DAHTA published from 2010 to May 2020, of which 10 studies were included in this systematic review. Results showed a substantial heterogeneity in the studies' quality, although all preventive measures, except one, proved effective in both increasing knowledge and awareness of FASD, as well as decreasing the risk of an alcohol exposed pregnancy. Limiting factors such as small sample sizes and a lack of behavioural change testing require further studies to support existing evidence for FASD prevention and its implementation, as well as detecting the best course of action for FASD prevention when creating and implementing prevention and intervention approaches.Entities:
Keywords: Alcohol consumption; Alcohol exposed risk groups; Foetal alcohol spectrum disorders (FASD); Pregnancy; Primary prevention; Universal prevention
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35286547 PMCID: PMC9114092 DOI: 10.1007/s10935-021-00658-9
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Prev (2022) ISSN: 2731-5533
Fig. 1Flow diagram of systematic review process. Note. Prisma 2009 Flow Diagram from Moher et al. (2009). aExclusion reasons (multiple): efficacy of preventions not measured (n = 7), guideline (n = 1), exclusion criteria (n = 5), focus not on FASD (n = 4). bTwo full-text articles presented the same study and were combined for assessment
Characteristics of the included studies
| Author (year) Location | Participant Details | Intervention Details | Outcome Measures | Results | Quality Ratinga |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Bazzo et al. ( Italy Observational Comparative Study design Universal | 4 groups; | Multilevel FASD awareness program FASD action research experience for and training of HCP; an FASD communication campaign “ | Awareness of the risks of prenatal alcohol exposure Two surveys targeted at HCP and two surveys targeted at pregnant women that were semi-structured self-report questionnaires; Testing of recognition of issue of PAC, rational approach to alcohol, knowledge of alcohol and pregnancy, advice on PAC, opinion on PAC, source of knowledge | Comparison of one and four years after launch of campaign in Treviso: campaign had long term positive effects on HCP, while no difference could be found on cognitive patterns concerning PAC between TPW and VPW; HCP methods probably not effective in changing women’s attitudes and behaviours | 26/42 (15,16)b or 61.9% |
Caley et al. ( USA Case–Control Study Universal | 1 group; and human service professionals from upstate New York (inclusion criteria: potential to counsel on FASD prevention) | FASD workshop based on constructivist learning theory (3 h) | FASD intervention implementation One-group post-test-only questionnaire on which FASD interventions from a possible 60 had been implemented and how often; follow-up after workshop (4 months) | Increase in FASD interventions 61% ( frequent methods were posters, pamphlets, and educational material (8.6%) and adding information in prenatal packets (7.7%) | 18/34 (3,5,6,13, 14,15)b or 52.9% |
Cil ( USA Secondary Data Analysis Structural | Women, new-borns | Alcohol warning signs or labels (AWS) on alcoholic products | PAC, PBD and birth outcomes NVS, birth outcome and BRFSS data was compared | AWS laws associated with decrease in odds of PAC (11% decrease) and PBD (75% decrease); No significant difference in AWS laws on FASD birth outcome; Change in PAC largest for first-time mothers and women over 30 years old | 27/30 (2,5,6,8,11,13,15,16)b or 90.0% |
Driscoll et al. ( USA Formative Evaluation Study Universal | 2 groups; All participants were 21 years old or older | Awareness and educational posters FASD health communication messages placed on pregnancy test dispenser or as a poster in women’s restrooms in places serving alcohol; | Effectiveness, acceptability, and feasibility of FASD prevention messages in women’s restrooms (including knowledge and beliefs) Questionnaire (where message was placed, pregnancy status/ history, drinking behaviour, FASD knowledge); follow-up 6 months later | Improvement of FASD knowledge, dispenser group had higher scores ( | 33/42 (8,15)b or 78.6% |
France et al. ( Australia Randomised Controlled Trial Universal | 4 groups; alcohol consumption and | Message Framing Effects One threat only, one positive (self-efficacy) only and one threat and positive concept message group were compared with a control group, portrayed as a storyboard; | Persuasiveness of different message types, intention to/ confidence in ability to abstain or reduce alcohol consumption or PAC Single-item questions measured efficacy of message; Assessment of message factors through open- and closed-ended questions | All message framing types effective in reducing PAC; no significant difference between pregnant and non-pregnant women; messages including threat aroused negative emotions, self-efficacy only message aroused positive emotions | 24/36 (3,13,14,15,16)b or 66.7% |
Ingersoll et al. ( USA Randomised Controlled Trial Primary, selective | 3 groups (randomised); mean age of 27.9 years; mean years of education = 13.6 years, 58.8% single, unemployed = 25.6% | Video, brochure, and motivational interviewing intervention (EARLY); single intervention | Comparison of outcomes (AEP risk reduction) to prior studies Baseline and follow-up test of AEP risk and alcohol consumption patterns, readiness to change assessed (contraceptive and drinking behaviour); 3- and 6-month follow-up; Comparison of data to two prior AEP studies (meta-analysis) | All interventions conditions effective in reducing AEP risk; EARLY condition had highest reduction rate in ineffective contraceptive behaviour and AEP risk; drinks per drinking day did not have a significant difference to other conditions; in comparison to other multi-session interventions, EARLY was not as effective | 36/44 (15)b or 81.8% |
Ingersoll et al. ( USA Pilot Randomised Controlled Trial Primary, selective | 2 groups (randomised); | Web-based FASD intervention 2 groups, one group took part in an interactive and tailored web-based intervention (CARRII), other group utilised a static educational website intervention | Reduction of risky drinking, contraceptive behaviour and AEP risk Baseline, 9 weeks postintervention and 6-month follow-up assessment through online prospective diary | Individualized intervention (CARRII) leads to significant reduction in AEP risk; no significant change among static patient education group | 40/44 (15)b or 90.4% |
Tenkku et al. ( USA Nonrandomized, Pre-Post Intervention Study Primary, selective | 2 groups (self-selected); Total web-based mail-based | Web- and mail-based FASD intervention Motivational messaging within four modules (self-guided change, individually tailored based on baseline answers) | Reduction of AEP risk (either alcohol consumption, contraceptive behaviour or both) Assessment of AEP risk (i.a. AUDIT), motivation and behaviour at baseline and 4-month follow-up | 58% of participants no longer at AEP risk at follow-up ( ¾ of women reduced or quit drinking | 32/44 (15)b or 72.7% |
Wilton et al. ( USA Randomised Controlled Trial Primary, selective | 2 groups; Inclusion criteria: AEPRG | Telephone or in-person intervention (2 sessions, standardised) Adapted from CHOICES and Healthy Mom’s Study; motivational interviewing and cognitive therapy techniques utilised; personalised feedback used (including goal setting and plan development) | Comparison of in-person and telephone administration of a brief AEP risk reduction intervention Questionnaire on demography, drug use, domestic violence, depression, eating disorders; TLFB methodology to determine alcohol use and sex (including contraceptive behaviour); after baseline and intervention, follow-up at 3, 6 and 12 months | No significant difference between in-person and telephone intervention; Small and significant reduction in alcohol use; large and significant increase in effective contraceptive behaviour; Significant reduction of AEP risk through effective use | 35/40 (13,15,18)b or 87.5% |
Yu et al. ( USA Experimental Randomised Controlled Trial Universal | 4 groups; no inclusion criteria except for female gender | Message Framing Effects (consisting of loss vs. gain frames, statistic vs. exemplar appeals) 4 groups; each had to read 1 of 4 different FASD health messages | Evaluation of message framing effects and exemplification on FASD prevention intention (AEP risk reduction through fear of or behaviour/intention to prevent FASD) Post experimental questionnaire measuring affective responses, behavioural intentions, and attitudes | Both loss/ gain frames and statistics/exemplar appeals effective in increasing prevention intention; gain-statistics appeal promoted perceived efficacy; loss-exemplar appeal increased perceived severity and fear, prevention intention; | 25/34 (3,13,14,15,16,18)b or 73.5% |
Table of Characteristics of included studies adapted from Crawford-Williams et al. (2015)
AEP = alcohol exposed pregnancy. AEPRG = alcohol exposed pregnancy risk group [non-pregnant, fertile, alcohol consumption, inefficient contraceptive behaviour, childbearing age (18–44)]. AUDIT = Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test. BRFSS = Behavioural Risk Factor Surveillance System. CARRII = Contraception and Alcohol Risk Reduction Internet Intervention. CHOICES = Changing High-Risk Alcohol Use and Increasing Contraception Effectiveness Study. DFBI = Dual-Focused Brief Physician Intervention. EARLY = motivational interviewing and assessment feedback intervention by Ingersoll et al. (2013). FCL = Intervention Fidelity Checklists. HCP = healthcare professional. NVS = National Vital Statistics Natality Detail Files. PAC = prenatal alcohol consumption. PBD = prenatal binge drinking. SBD = single binge-drinking question. THCP = healthcare professionals from Treviso. TLFB = Timeline Followback. TPW = pregnant women from Treviso. VHCP = Healthcare professionals from Venetia. VPW = pregnant women from Venetia
Risky Drinking Behaviour (women) = consumption of an average of ≥ 8 standard drinks per week or engaging in binge drinking (i.e., ≥ 4 standard drinks in one day)
aQuality rated by using the quality rating system byMoncrieff et al. (2001)
bCriteria items excluded in quality assessment