doi:10.1016/j.mhpa.2020.100362

Article start

Mental Health and Physical Activity 19 (2020) 100362Available online 10 October 20201755-2966/© 2020 Published by Elsevier Ltd.Editorial Editorial: ‘Do we really need another review on the effects of physical activity on alcohol and other drug use disorders?’ Clinical and academic interest in the role of physical activity (PA; encompassing sport, exercise and regular movement) in the prevention, treatment and harm reduction of alcohol and other drug use disorders spans a range of scientific fields and methods of enquiry; Epidemiolo-gists have sought to understand whether engagement in PA is associated with a reduced risk of alcohol and other drug use. Laboratory studies with animals and humans have sought to identify specific biological mechanisms to explain how exercise may alter drug-seeking behaviour and associated addictive processes. Trials with humans have sought to identify if different PA interventions reduce the use of and harm from alcohol and other drug use, and can augment evidence-based treatment options and reduce the risk of relapse. Qualitative research has (with stakeholder input) expanded that work to help our understanding of how such interventions impact individuals, whether they are acceptable and feasible and how different elements of service design can promote optimal engagement, and health economists are interested in whether interventions are cost-effective. Reviews on the effects of exercise interventions on alcohol and other substance use have been published (Hallgren, Vancampfort, Giesen, Lundin, & Stubbs, 2017; Simonton, Young, & Johnson, 2018; Wang, Wang, Wang, Li, & Zhou, 2014; Zschucke, Heinz, & Strohle, 2012), as well as on the effects of exercise on smoking cessation (Ussher et al., 2019), so it perhaps came as no surprise that blind reviewers for the two systematic review manuscripts included in this issue (Horrell et al., 2020; Thompson et al., 2020), challenged us to identify why another review was needed. Indeed, this is a key focus of an article recently published in the British Medical Journal (Tugwell et al., 2020) which suggests that authors follow a checklist to determine need. In our case the need was determined by the scope of the National Institute of Health Research funding stream ‘Research for Patient Benefit’ which required us to demonstrate ‘a clear trajectory towards benefitting the health and well-being of users of the National Health Service and Social Care services in the UK, and this made the reviews unique. Guided by public and patient involvement, understanding the differences in evidence of efficacy (i.e., does PA work when ‘keen’ or incentivised participants do engage or adhere to often a structured programme) and effectiveness (i.e., when participants are given the opportunity to engage in PA within a service or community interven-tion) was essential. Identifying differences in evidence from pro-grammes to influence uptake of alcohol and other substance use (i.e., prevention), reduce harm for heavy users (i.e. reduction), and as an augmented intervention for those in health and social care (i.e. treat-ment) was also important in order to highlight the relevance for re-searchers interested in different questions and for practitioners working in different settings. In identifying the need for another review we also needed to go further and evaluate the rigor of the research (i.e., risk of bias from the methods and study design used), and clearly define the population, intervention, comparison control, and outcomes (PICO) used in the respective studies. Bringing all this work together to shape the design of pragmatic, effective and cost-effective interventions to identify the gaps for future research enquiry has not previously been completed. In two articles in this issue (Horrell et al., 2020; Thompson et al., 2020) we provide a framework (drawn from Taylor & Faulkner, 2014) for understanding what evidence is available in terms of context and population, inter-vention design (including dose and implementation approach), barriers, facilitators, and possible mechanisms of action (both biological and psychosocial) and how interventions to promote change in at least two health behaviours (i.e., PA and alcohol/substance use) can be designed, particularly with service user input. We hope that we make a case for why the review of quantitative and qualitative research was needed, and also shape future priority research questions that have not been answered to date, and will add to similar systematic reviews in the future, not only concerned with outcomes associated with alcohol and other substance use but also other dimensions of mental health. Acknowledgement This editorial introduces independent research funded by the UK National Institute of Health Research (NIHR) under its Research for Patient Benefit (RfPB) Programme (Grant Reference Number PB-PG- 0215-36117). The views expressed are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the NHS, the NIHR or the Department of Health & Social Care. References Hallgren, M., Vancampfort, D., Giesen, E. S., Lundin, A., & Stubbs, B. (2017). Exercise as treatment for alcohol use disorders: Systematic review and meta-analysis. British Journal of Sports Medicine, 51(14), 1058–1064. Horrell, J., Thompson, T. P., Taylor, A. H., Neale, J., Husk, K., Warner, A., et al. (2020). Qualitative systematic review of the acceptability, feasibility, barriers, facilitators and perceived utility of using physical activity in the reduction of and abstinence from alcohol and other drug use. Mental Health & Physical Activity. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.mhpa.2020.100355 Simonton, A. J., Young, C. C., & Johnson, K. (2018). Physical activity interventions to decrease substance use in youth: A review of the literature. Substance Use & Misuse, 53(12), 2052–2068. Taylor, A. H., & Faulkner, G. (2014). Evidence and theory into practice in different health care contexts: A call for more translational science. MENPA, 7(1), 1–5. Thompson, T. P., Horrell, J., Taylor, A. H., Warner, A., Husk, K., Wei, Y., et al. (2020). Physical activity and the prevention, reduction, and treatment of substance use Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Mental Health and Physical Activity journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/menpa https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mhpa.2020.100362

Mental Health and Physical Activity 19 (2020) 1003622across the lifespan (The PHASE review). Mental Health & Physical Activity. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.mhpa.2020.100360 (accepted 28/9/2020). Tugwell, P., Welch, V. A., Karunananthan, S., Maxwell, L. J., Akl, E. A., Avey, M. T., et al. (2020). When to replicate systematic reviews of interventions: Consensus checklist. BMJ, 370, m2864. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.m2864 Ussher, M. H., Faulkner, G. E. J., Angus, K., Hartmann-Boyce, J., & Taylor, A. H. (2019). Exercise interventions for smoking cessation. Cochrane database of systematic re-views. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 2019(10), 2019 Oct 30. Wang, D., Wang, Y., Wang, Y., Li, R., & Zhou, C. (2014). Impact of physical exercise on substance use disorders: A meta-analysis. PloS One, 9(10), Article e110728. Zschucke, E., Heinz, A., & Strohle, A. (2012). Exercise and physical activity in the therapy of substance use disorders. Science World Journal. https://doi.org/10.1100/ 2012/901741 Adrian H. Taylor*, Tom P. Thompson, Jane Horrell University of Plymouth, UK *Corresponding author. E-mail addresses: adrian.taylor@plymouth.ac.uk (A.H. Taylor), tom. thompson@plymouth.ac.uk (T.P. Thompson), jane.horrell@plymouth. ac.uk (J. Horrell). Editorial