Brief intervention for male heavy drinkers in routine general practice: a three-year randomized controlled study

Adapted motivational interviewing for brief healthcare consultations: A systematic review and meta-analysis of treatment fidelity in real-world evaluations of behaviour change counselling

BACKGROUND

Behaviour change counselling (BCC) is an adaptation of motivational interviewing (MI) designed to maximize the effectiveness of time-limited health behaviour change consultations. To improve intervention quality and understanding of treatment effects, it is recommended that evaluations of health behaviour change interventions incorporate existing fidelity frameworks (e.g. The National Institutes of Health [NIH] Behaviour Change Consortium) and ensure that treatment fidelity is assessed and reported.

PURPOSE

This systematic review was designed to examine (a) adherence to NIH fidelity recommendations, (b) provider fidelity to BCC and (c) impact of these variables on the real-world effectiveness of BCC for adult health behaviours and outcomes.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Searches of 10 electronic databases yielded 110 eligible publications describing 58 unique studies examining BCC delivered within real-world healthcare settings by existing providers. Mean study adherence to NIH fidelity recommendations was 63.31% (Range 26.83%-96.23%). Pooled effect size (Hedges g) for short-term and long-term outcomes was .19 (95% CI [.11, .27]) and .09 (95% CI [.04, .13]), respectively. In separate, random-effects meta-regressions, neither short-term nor long-term effect sizes were significantly modified by adherence to NIH fidelity recommendations. For the subgroup of short-term alcohol studies (n = 10), a significant inverse relationship was detected (Coefficient = -.0114, 95% CI [-.0187, -.0041], p = .0021). Inadequate and inconsistent reporting within the included studies precluded planned meta-regression between provider fidelity and BCC effect size.

CONCLUSIONS

Further evidence is needed to clarify whether adherence to fidelity recommendations modifies intervention effects. Efforts to promote transparent consideration, evaluation and reporting of fidelity are urgently needed. Research and clinical implications are discussed.

A Randomized Trial Comparing Brief Advice and Motivational Interviewing for Persons with HIV-HCV Co-infection Who Drink Alcohol

Alcohol use contributes to the progression of liver disease in HIV-HCV co-infected persons, but alcohol interventions have never addressed low levels of alcohol use in this population. We enrolled 110 persons consuming at least 4 alcoholic drinks weekly in a clinical trial comparing two active 18-month long interventions, delivered every 3 months by phone, brief advice about drinking versus a motivational intervention. Final assessment was at 24 months. MI had larger reductions in alcohol use days than the BA arm at all follow-up assessments. The treatment by time effect was not significant for days of drinking (p = 0.470), mean drinks per day (p = 0.155), or for the continuous FIB-4 index (p = 0.175). Drinking declined in both conditions from baseline, but given the small sample, we do not have sufficient data to make any conclusion that one treatment is superior to the other.Trial Registry Trial registered at clinicaltrials.gov; Clinical Trial NCT02316184.

Does Advice Based on Biomarkers of Liver Injury or Non-Invasive Tests of Liver Fibrosis Impact High-Risk Drinking Behaviour: A Systematic Review With Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Alcohol dependence affects over 240 million people worldwide and attributed to 3 million deaths annually. Early identification and intervention are key to prevent harm. We aim to systematically review literature on the effectiveness of adding advice based on biomarkers of liver injury or non-invasive tests of liver fibrosis (intervention-based advice) to prevent alcohol misuse.

METHODS

Electronic search was conducted on Ovid Medline, PubMed, EMBASE, Psychinfo and CINAHL for articles published up to end of February 2020. Additionally, we searched study citations, Scopus, Ethos and Clinical trials. The primary outcome measure was changed in self-reported alcohol consumption analysed by random-effects meta-analysis. Secondary outcomes included change to liver blood markers and alcohol-related health outcomes.

RESULTS

Fourteen randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and two observational studies comprising n = 3763 participants were included. Meta-analyses showed a greater reduction in alcohol consumption and liver biomarkers for the intervention compared to control group: mean difference for weekly alcohol intake was -74.4 g/week (95% confidence interval (CI) -126.1, -22.6, P = 0.005) and mean difference for gamma-glutamyl transferase (GGT) -19.7 IU/l (95% CI -33.1, -6.4, P = 0.004). There was a higher incidence of alcohol-attributed mortality, number of days spent in the hospital, physician visits and sickness absence in the non-intervention group. The quality of the included studies was moderate for RCTs and high for observational studies.

CONCLUSIONS

The review confirmed a significant association between the addition of intervention-based advice in routine care to the reduction of harmful alcohol consumption, GGT and alcohol-related mortality. The findings support the inclusion of this type of advice in routine alcohol care.

Training health providers to address unhealthy alcohol use in primary care: a cross-sectional, multicenter study

BACKGROUND

Health professionals' training is a key element to address unhealthy alcohol use in Primary Care (PC). Education about alcohol use can be effective in improving PC provider's knowledge and skills addressing alcohol-related problems. The aim of the study was to evaluate the training of health professionals to address unhealthy alcohol use in PC.

METHODS

An observational, descriptive, cross-sectional, multicenter study was performed.

LOCATION

PC centres of the Spanish National Health System (SNHS).

PARTICIPANTS

Family physicians, residents and nurses completed an online questionnaire that inquired about their training (none, basic, medium or advanced), knowledge and preventive practices aimed at reducing unhealthy alcohol use. The study population was recruited via random sampling, stratified by the regions of the SNHS's PC centre, and by email invitation to members of two Spanish scientific societies of Family Medicine.

RESULTS

A total of 1760 professionals participated in the study. Sixty-seven percent (95% CI: 67.5-71.8) reported not having received specific training to address unhealthy alcohol use, 30% (95% CI: 27.4-31.7) reported having received basic training, and 3% (95% CI: 2.3-4.0) medium/advanced training. The training received was greater in younger providers (p < 0.001) who participated in the PAPPS (Preventive Activities and Health Promotion Programme) (p < 0.001). Higher percentages of providers with intermediate or advanced training reported performing screening for unhealthy alcohol use (p < 0.001), clinical assessment of alcohol consumption (p < 0.001), counselling of patients to reduce their alcohol intake (p < 0.001) or to abstain, in the cases of pregnant women and drivers (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Our study reveals a low level of training among Spanish PC providers to address unhealthy alcohol use. A higher percentage of screening, clinical assessment and counselling interventions aimed at reducing unhealthy alcohol use was reported by health professionals with an intermediate or advanced level of training.

Outcome of a "modified brief intervention" program delivered at work place for a population with hazardous alcohol use

INTRODUCTION

At the population level, screening and brief intervention (BI) is the most cost-effective method to reduce the burden of disease due to hazardous alcohol use. In delivering BI at individual level, trained workforce as well as time is a limiting factor. Hence, a study was conducted to assess the outcome of a "modified brief intervention" program delivered at workplace in a group setting for the participants identified with hazardous alcohol use pattern, as a secondary prevention measure.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Study was a pre- and post-intervention study without a control group. Following an educational lecture, conducted by a mental health team including a psychiatrist, participants were screened using the WHO ASSIST questionnaire, V3.0 version. Those screened positive for hazardous alcohol use were given "modified brief intervention" in a group setting at their workplace which consisted of two semi-structured sessions of 1-h duration each. The sessions were spaced in a month. First session was based on motivation enhancement measures along with gathering of current alcohol use details and second session focused on relapse prevention. Three months later, the outcomes were assessed using a semistructured questionnaire and ASSIST was reapplied. The analysis was done using the R-commander from R-software.

RESULTS

No significant difficulty was experienced in conducting the interventions. Fifty (55.6%) participants stayed alcohol abstinent following second session and another 22 (24.44%) had reduced both the quantity and frequency of use. Paired t-tests revealed statistically significant reduction in all secondary outcome parameters (ASSIST scores, usual dose in one sitting, maximum dose, and number of days of use in month). Eighty (88.89%) participants reported the program to be effective. Only 3 months of observation is a limitation.

CONCLUSION

The study provides an efficient secondary prevention model to reduce hazardous drinking at the population level needing less workforce, cost, and time.

Internet Searches for Medical Symptoms Before Seeking Information on 12-Step Addiction Treatment Programs: A Web-Search Log Analysis

Background

Brief intervention is a critical method for identifying patients with problematic substance use in primary care settings and for motivating them to consider treatment options. However, despite considerable evidence of delay discounting in patients with substance use disorders, most brief advice by physicians focuses on the long-term negative medical consequences, which may not be the best way to motivate patients to seek treatment information.

Objective

Identification of the specific symptoms that most motivate individuals to seek treatment information may offer insights for further improving brief interventions. To this end, we used anonymized internet search engine data to investigate which medical conditions and symptoms preceded searches for 12-step meeting locators and general 12-step information.

Methods

We extracted all queries made by people in the United States on the Bing search engine from November 2016 to July 2017. These queries were filtered for those who mentioned seeking Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) or Narcotics Anonymous (NA); in addition, queries that contained a medical symptom or condition or a synonym thereof were analyzed. We identified medical symptoms and conditions that predicted searches for seeking treatment at different time lags. Specifically, symptom queries were first determined to be significantly predictive of subsequent 12-step queries if the probability of querying a medical symptom by those who later sought information about the 12-step program exceeded the probability of that same query being made by a comparison group of all other Bing users in the United States. Second, we examined symptom queries preceding queries on the 12-step program at time lags of 0-7 days, 7-14 days, and 14-30 days, where the probability of asking about a medical symptom was greater in the 30-day time window preceding 12-step program information-seeking as compared to all previous times that the symptom was queried.

Results

In our sample of 11,784 persons, we found 10 medical symptoms that predicted AA information seeking and 9 symptoms that predicted NA information seeking. Of these symptoms, a substantial number could be categorized as nonsevere in nature. Moreover, when medical symptom persistence was examined across a 1-month time period, a substantial number of nonsevere, yet persistent, symptoms were identified.

Conclusions

Our results suggest that many common or nonsevere medical symptoms and conditions motivate subsequent interest in AA and NA programs. In addition to highlighting severe long-term consequences, brief interventions could be restructured to highlight how increasing substance misuse can worsen discomfort from common medical symptoms in the short term, as well as how these worsening symptoms could exacerbate social embarrassment or decrease physical attractiveness.

Screening and Behavioral Counseling Interventions to Reduce Unhealthy Alcohol Use in Adolescents and Adults: Updated Evidence Report and Systematic Review for the US Preventive Services Task Force

IMPORTANCE

Unhealthy alcohol use is common, increasing, and a leading cause of premature mortality.

OBJECTIVE

To review literature on the effectiveness and harms of screening and counseling for unhealthy alcohol use to inform the US Preventive Services Task Force.

DATA SOURCES

MEDLINE, PubMed, PsycINFO, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials through October 12, 2017; literature surveillance through August 1, 2018.

STUDY SELECTION

Test accuracy studies and randomized clinical trials of screening and counseling to reduce unhealthy alcohol use.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Independent critical appraisal and data abstraction by 2 reviewers. Counseling trials were pooled using random-effects meta-analyses.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Sensitivity, specificity, drinks per week, exceeding recommended limits, heavy use episodes, abstinence (for pregnant women), and other health, family, social, and legal outcomes.

RESULTS

One hundred thirteen studies (N = 314 466) were included. No studies examined benefits or harms of screening programs to reduce unhealthy alcohol use. For adolescents (10 studies [n = 171 363]), 1 study (n = 225) reported a sensitivity of 0.73 (95% CI, 0.60 to 0.83) and specificity of 0.81 (95% CI, 0.74 to 0.86) using the AUDIT-C (Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test-Consumption) to detect the full spectrum of unhealthy alcohol use. For adults (35 studies [n = 114 182]), brief screening instruments commonly reported sensitivity and specificity between 0.70 and 0.85. Two trials of the effects of interventions to reduce unhealthy alcohol use in adolescents (n = 588) found mixed results: one reported a benefit in high-risk but not moderate-risk drinkers, and the other reported a statistically significant reduction in drinking frequency for boys but not girls; neither reported health or related outcomes. Across all populations (68 studies [n = 36 528]), counseling interventions were associated with a decrease in drinks per week (weighted mean difference, -1.6 [95% CI, -2.2 to -1.0]; 32 studies [37 effects; n = 15 974]), the proportion exceeding recommended drinking limits (odds ratio [OR], 0.60 [95% CI, 0.53 to 0.67]; 15 studies [16 effects; n = 9760]), and the proportion reporting a heavy use episode (OR, 0.67 [95% CI, 0.58 to 0.77]; 12 studies [14 effects; n = 8108]), and an increase in the proportion of pregnant women reporting abstinence (OR, 2.26 [95% CI, 1.43 to 3.56]; 5 studies [n = 796]) after 6 to 12 months. Health outcomes were sparsely reported and generally did not demonstrate group differences in effect. There was no evidence that these interventions could be harmful.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Among adults, screening instruments feasible for use in primary care are available that can effectively identify people with unhealthy alcohol use, and counseling interventions in those who screen positive are associated with reductions in unhealthy alcohol use. There was no evidence that these interventions have unintended harmful effects.

Perceived barriers by health care providers for screening and management of excessive alcohol use in an emergency department of a low-income country

Annually, alcohol causes 3.3 million deaths; countless more alcohol-related injury patients are treated in emergency departments (EDs) worldwide. Studies show that alcohol-related injury patients reduce their at-risk alcohol-use behavior with a brief negotiational interview (BNI) in the ED. This project aims to identify potential perceived barriers to implementing a BNI in Tanzania. A knowledge, attitude, and practice questionnaire was piloted and administered to all emergency department health care practitioners, including physicians, advanced medical officers, and nurses. The questionnaire included the Perceived Alcohol Stigma (PAS) Scale. The survey was self-administered in English, the language of health care instruction, with a Swahili translation available if preferred. Data were analyzed with relative and absolute frequencies and Spearman's correlation. Thirty-four (100%) health care practitioners completed the survey. Our results found positive attitudes toward addressing alcohol misuse (88%), but very poor knowledge of recommended alcohol-use limits (24%). Participants were willing to discuss alcohol use (88%) and to screen (71%) for alcohol-use disorders. Most health care practitioners report significant stigma against those with alcohol-use disorders (39% discrimination, 53% devaluation, 71% either). Counseling patients about high-risk alcohol use was directly and positively associated with at-risk alcohol and counseling education and believing it was common to ask patients about tobacco and alcohol use; it was negatively associated with believing it was 'not my role' or that knowing about alcohol use 'won't make a difference'. Stigma was negatively and indirectly associated with counseling patients. In conclusion, in an ED in Tanzania, health care practitioners have positive attitudes toward addressing at-risk alcohol use, and endorsed having training in alcohol misuse in school. Unfortunately, participants did not demonstrate knowledge of recommended alcohol limit guidelines. Similarly, among practitioners, there is a significant discrimination and devaluation stigma against those who misuse alcohol. These factors must be addressed prior to a successful implementation of an alcohol harm reduction intervention.

Effectiveness of brief alcohol interventions in primary care populations

BACKGROUND

Excessive drinking is a significant cause of mortality, morbidity and social problems in many countries. Brief interventions aim to reduce alcohol consumption and related harm in hazardous and harmful drinkers who are not actively seeking help for alcohol problems. Interventions usually take the form of a conversation with a primary care provider and may include feedback on the person's alcohol use, information about potential harms and benefits of reducing intake, and advice on how to reduce consumption. Discussion informs the development of a personal plan to help reduce consumption. Brief interventions can also include behaviour change or motivationally-focused counselling.This is an update of a Cochrane Review published in 2007.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of screening and brief alcohol intervention to reduce excessive alcohol consumption in hazardous or harmful drinkers in general practice or emergency care settings.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, and 12 other bibliographic databases to September 2017. We searched Alcohol and Alcohol Problems Science Database (to December 2003, after which the database was discontinued), trials registries, and websites. We carried out handsearching and checked reference lists of included studies and relevant reviews.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of brief interventions to reduce hazardous or harmful alcohol consumption in people attending general practice, emergency care or other primary care settings for reasons other than alcohol treatment. The comparison group was no or minimal intervention, where a measure of alcohol consumption was reported. 'Brief intervention' was defined as a conversation comprising five or fewer sessions of brief advice or brief lifestyle counselling and a total duration of less than 60 minutes. Any more was considered an extended intervention. Digital interventions were not included in this review.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We carried out subgroup analyses where possible to investigate the impact of factors such as gender, age, setting (general practice versus emergency care), treatment exposure and baseline consumption.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 69 studies that randomised a total of 33,642 participants. Of these, 42 studies were added for this update (24,057 participants). Most interventions were delivered in general practice (38 studies, 55%) or emergency care (27 studies, 39%) settings. Most studies (61 studies, 88%) compared brief intervention to minimal or no intervention. Extended interventions were compared with brief (4 studies, 6%), minimal or no intervention (7 studies, 10%). Few studies targeted particular age groups: adolescents or young adults (6 studies, 9%) and older adults (4 studies, 6%). Mean baseline alcohol consumption was 244 g/week (30.5 standard UK units) among the studies that reported these data. Main sources of bias were attrition and lack of provider or participant blinding. The primary meta-analysis included 34 studies (15,197 participants) and provided moderate-quality evidence that participants who received brief intervention consumed less alcohol than minimal or no intervention participants after one year (mean difference (MD) -20 g/week, 95% confidence interval (CI) -28 to -12). There was substantial heterogeneity among studies (I² = 73%). A subgroup analysis by gender demonstrated that both men and women reduced alcohol consumption after receiving a brief intervention.We found moderate-quality evidence that brief alcohol interventions have little impact on frequency of binges per week (MD -0.08, 95% CI -0.14 to -0.02; 15 studies, 6946 participants); drinking days per week (MD -0.13, 95% CI -0.23 to -0.04; 11 studies, 5469 participants); or drinking intensity (-0.2 g/drinking day, 95% CI -3.1 to 2.7; 10 studies, 3128 participants).We found moderate-quality evidence of little difference in quantity of alcohol consumed when extended and no or minimal interventions were compared (-14 g/week, 95% CI -37 to 9; 6 studies, 1296 participants). There was little difference in binges per week (-0.08, 95% CI -0.28 to 0.12; 2 studies, 456 participants; moderate-quality evidence) or difference in days drinking per week (-0.45, 95% CI -0.81 to -0.09; 2 studies, 319 participants; moderate-quality evidence). Extended versus no or minimal intervention provided little impact on drinking intensity (9 g/drinking day, 95% CI -26 to 9; 1 study, 158 participants; low-quality evidence).Extended intervention had no greater impact than brief intervention on alcohol consumption, although findings were imprecise (MD 2 g/week, 95% CI -42 to 45; 3 studies, 552 participants; low-quality evidence). Numbers of binges were not reported for this comparison, but one trial suggested a possible drop in days drinking per week (-0.5, 95% CI -1.2 to 0.2; 147 participants; low-quality evidence). Results from this trial also suggested very little impact on drinking intensity (-1.7 g/drinking day, 95% CI -18.9 to 15.5; 147 participants; very low-quality evidence).Only five studies reported adverse effects (very low-quality evidence). No participants experienced any adverse effects in two studies; one study reported that the intervention increased binge drinking for women and two studies reported adverse events related to driving outcomes but concluded they were equivalent in both study arms.Sources of funding were reported by 67 studies (87%). With two exceptions, studies were funded by government institutes, research bodies or charitable foundations. One study was partly funded by a pharmaceutical company and a brewers association, another by a company developing diagnostic testing equipment.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found moderate-quality evidence that brief interventions can reduce alcohol consumption in hazardous and harmful drinkers compared to minimal or no intervention. Longer counselling duration probably has little additional effect. Future studies should focus on identifying the components of interventions which are most closely associated with effectiveness.

Sustaining SBIRT in the wild: simulating revenues and costs for Screening, Brief Intervention and Referral to Treatment programs

AIMS

To examine the conditions under which Screening, Brief Intervention and Referral to Treatment (SBIRT) programs can be sustained by health insurance payments.

DESIGN

A mathematical model was used to estimate the number of patients needed for revenues to exceed costs.

SETTING

Three medical settings in the United States were examined: in-patient, out-patient and emergency department. Components of SBIRT were delivered by combinations of health-care practitioners (generalists) and behavioral health specialists.

PARTICIPANTS

Practitioners in seven SBIRT programs who received grants from the US Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA).

MEASUREMENTS

Program costs and revenues were measured using data from grantees. Patient flows were measured from administrative data and adjusted with prevalence and screening estimates from the literature.

FINDINGS

SBIRT can be sustained through health insurance reimbursement in out-patient and emergency department settings in most staffing mixes. To sustain SBIRT in in-patient programs, a patient flow larger than the national average may be needed; if that flow is achieved, the range of screens required to maintain a surplus is narrow. Sensitivity analyses suggest that the results are very sensitive to changes in the proportion of insured patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Screening, Brief Intervention and Referral to Treatment programs in the United States can be sustained by health insurance payments under a variety of staffing models. Screening, Brief Intervention and Referral to Treatment programs can be sustained only in an in-patient setting with above-average patient flow (more than 2500 screens). Screening, Brief Intervention and Referral to Treatment programs in out-patient and emergency department settings can be sustained with below-average patient flows (fewer than 125 000 out-patient visits and fewer than 27 000 emergency department visits).

How effective are brief interventions in reducing alcohol consumption: do the setting, practitioner group and content matter? Findings from a systematic review and metaregression analysis

BACKGROUND

While the efficacy and effectiveness of brief interventions for alcohol (ABI) have been demonstrated in primary care, there is weaker evidence in other settings and reviews do not consider differences in content. We conducted a systematic review to measure the effect of ABIs on alcohol consumption and how it differs by the setting, practitioner group and content of intervention.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO; CINAHL, Social Science Citation Index, Cochrane Library and Global Health up to January 2015 for randomised controlled trials that measured effectiveness of ABIs on alcohol consumption. We grouped outcomes into measures of quantity and frequency indices. We used multilevel meta-analysis to estimate pooled effect sizes and tested for the effect of moderators through a multiparameter Wald test. Stratified analysis of a subset of quantity and frequency outcomes was conducted as a sensitivity check.

RESULTS

52 trials were included contributing data on 29 891 individuals. ABIs reduced the quantity of alcohol consumed by 0.15 SDs. While neither the setting nor content appeared to significantly moderate intervention effectiveness, the provider did in some analyses. Interventions delivered by nurses had the most effect in reducing quantity (d=-0.23, 95% CI (-0.33 to -0.13)) but not frequency of alcohol consumption. All content groups had statistically significant mean effects, brief advice was the most effective in reducing quantity consumed (d=-0.20, 95% CI (-0.30 to -0.09)). Effects were maintained in the stratified sensitivity analysis at the first and last assessment time.

CONCLUSIONS

ABIs play a small but significant role in reducing alcohol consumption. Findings show the positive role of nurses in delivering interventions. The lack of evidence on the impact of content of intervention reinforces advice that services should select the ABI tool that best suits their needs.

Patient-centered care interventions for the management of alcohol use disorders: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials

ISSUES

Patient-centered care (PCC) is increasingly accepted as an integral component of good health care, including addiction medicine. However, its implementation has been controversial in people with alcohol use disorders.

APPROACH

A systematic search strategy was devised to find completed randomized controlled trials enrolling adults (>18 years) with alcohol use disorders. Studies had to use a PCC approach such that they should have been individualized, respectful to the patients' own goals, and empowering. Studies until September 2015 were searched using PubMed, Scopus, the Cochrane Library, PsychINFO, and Web of Knowledge.

KEY FINDINGS

In total, 40 studies enrolling 16,020 patients met the inclusion criteria. Assessment revealed two main categories of study: psychosocial (n=35 based on motivational interviewing) and pharmacological (n=5 based on an as needed dosing regimen). Psychosocial interventions were further classified according to the presence or absence of an active comparator. When no active comparator was present, studies were classified according to the number of sessions (≥1). Results from single sessions of motivational interviewing showed no clear benefit on alcohol consumption outcomes, with few studies indicating benefit of PCC versus control. Although the results for studies of multiple sessions of counseling were also mixed, many did show a significant benefit of the PCC intervention. By contrast, studies consistently demonstrated a benefit of pharmacologically supported PCC interventions, with most of the differences reaching statistical significance.

IMPLICATIONS

PCC-based interventions may be beneficial for reducing alcohol consumption in people with alcohol use disorders.

Cost-effectiveness of preventive interventions to reduce alcohol consumption in Denmark

INTRODUCTION

Excessive alcohol consumption increases the risk of many diseases and injuries, and the Global Burden of Disease 2010 study estimated that 6% of the burden of disease in Denmark is due to alcohol consumption. Alcohol consumption thus places a considerable economic burden on society.

METHODS

We analysed the cost-effectiveness of six interventions aimed at preventing alcohol abuse in the adult Danish population: 30% increased taxation, increased minimum legal drinking age, advertisement bans, limited hours of retail sales, and brief and longer individual interventions. Potential health effects were evaluated as changes in incidence, prevalence and mortality of alcohol-related diseases and injuries. Net costs were calculated as the sum of intervention costs and cost offsets related to treatment of alcohol-related outcomes, based on health care costs from Danish national registers. Cost-effectiveness was evaluated by calculating incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) for each intervention. We also created an intervention pathway to determine the optimal sequence of interventions and their combined effects.

RESULTS

Three of the analysed interventions (advertising bans, limited hours of retail sales and taxation) were cost-saving, and the remaining three interventions were all cost-effective. Net costs varied from € -17 million per year for advertisement ban to € 8 million for longer individual intervention. Effectiveness varied from 115 disability-adjusted life years (DALY) per year for minimum legal drinking age to 2,900 DALY for advertisement ban. The total annual effect if all interventions were implemented would be 7,300 DALY, with a net cost of € -30 million.

CONCLUSION

Our results show that interventions targeting the whole population were more effective than individual-focused interventions. A ban on alcohol advertising, limited hours of retail sale and increased taxation had the highest probability of being cost-saving and should thus be first priority for implementation.

Efetividade da intervenção breve para o uso abusivo de álcool na atenção primária: revisão sistemática

A pesquisa identificou estudos clínicos acerca das intervenções breves para o uso abusivo de álcool e analisou a eficácia dos aconselhamentos para os consumidores. Estudo bibliográfico sistemático que utilizou artigos publicados no período de 1997 a 2010. Os achados mostraram que a estratégia de intervenção breve é efetiva na redução da frequência e quantidade de álcool, com melhores resultados quando aplicada na atenção primária. Todos os profissionais da área da saúde obtêm bons resultados com o manejo dessa terapia. Não foi possível definir se a estratégia é mais eficaz se aplicada em bebedores de uso nocivo ou em crônicos, uma vez que a intervenção depende da mobilização de recursos motivacionais do paciente e de mudanças de atitude relacionadas ao consumo de álcool.

Effectiveness of a Feedback-Based Brief Intervention to Reduce Alcohol Use in Community Substance Use Disorders

Feedback brief interventions for alcohol use problems have been highly effective with undergraduate populations. However, there has been little research on the effectiveness of administering feedback alone to community treatment populations. The goal of the current study was to assess the effectiveness of a feedback brief intervention in a community treatment setting with patients characterized largely by dependence on alcohol and drugs, ethnic diversity, and low socioeconomic status. It was hypothesized that pre-treatment brief individualized feedback would reduce alcohol consumption and increase participation in subsequent treatment for a substance use disorder (SUD). Participants were recruited from a public hospital's SUD clinic. After the intake but prior to entry into the treatment as usual, 121 participants were randomized to receive personalized feedback or a condition without feedback. Eighty-seven participants completed post-intervention follow-up interviews and were included in the final analyses. Repeated measures ANOVAs and MANCOVAs were used to examine variables obtained from the Addiction Severity Index (ASI; McLellan et al., 1992) of drinking quantity and frequency, and motivation for treatment. Results indicated that personalized feedback delivered no benefit beyond that of pre-treatment assessment procedures (phone screening and intake interview) alone. Intervention conditions did not differ on other outcomes at follow-up, including days of heavy drinking, motivation for treatment, or drug use frequency. Therefore, feedback-based brief interventions may be not helpful in reducing the drinking frequency and intensity of individuals presenting to community-based substance use treatment.

Alcohol use of diabetes patients: the need for assessment and intervention

It is well known that diabetes self-care behaviors are critical to disease progression. Unfortunately, many patients do not adhere to diabetes self-care recommendations despite their importance. Alcohol use has been identified as a barrier to diabetes self-care adherence. Excessive alcohol consumption not only negatively impacts diabetes self-care adherence but also affects the course of diabetes. Diabetes patients who are at-risk drinkers are likely to have poor diabetes treatment adherence, leading to increased morbidity and mortality. Alcohol consumption by diabetes patients is often inadequately assessed and addressed in their medical care. Brief interventions to reduce at-risk drinking have been well validated in a variety of patient populations and offer the potential to improve diabetes treatment adherence and outcome. Assessment and treatment of at-risk drinking could be readily incorporated into routine diabetes care. Strategies for brief assessment of and intervention for at-risk drinking are offered.

Effectiveness of screening and brief alcohol intervention in primary care (SIPS trial): pragmatic cluster randomised controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the effectiveness of different brief intervention strategies at reducing hazardous or harmful drinking in primary care. The hypothesis was that more intensive intervention would result in a greater reduction in hazardous or harmful drinking.

DESIGN

Pragmatic cluster randomised controlled trial.

SETTING

Primary care practices in the north east and south east of England and in London.

PARTICIPANTS

3562 patients aged 18 or more routinely presenting in primary care, of whom 2991 (84.0%) were eligible to enter the trial: 900 (30.1%) screened positive for hazardous or harmful drinking and 756 (84.0%) received a brief intervention. The sample was predominantly male (62%) and white (92%), and 34% were current smokers.

INTERVENTIONS

Practices were randomised to three interventions, each of which built on the previous one: a patient information leaflet control group, five minutes of structured brief advice, and 20 minutes of brief lifestyle counselling. Delivery of the patient leaflet and brief advice occurred directly after screening and brief lifestyle counselling in a subsequent consultation.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome was patients' self reported hazardous or harmful drinking status as measured by the alcohol use disorders identification test (AUDIT) at six months. A negative AUDIT result (score <8) indicated non-hazardous or non-harmful drinking. Secondary outcomes were a negative AUDIT result at 12 months, experience of alcohol related problems (alcohol problems questionnaire), health utility (EQ-5D), service utilisation, and patients' motivation to change drinking behaviour (readiness to change) as measured by a modified readiness ruler.

RESULTS

Patient follow-up rates were 83% at six months (n=644) and 79% at 12 months (n=617). At both time points an intention to treat analysis found no significant differences in AUDIT negative status between the three interventions. Compared with the patient information leaflet group, the odds ratio of having a negative AUDIT result for brief advice was 0.85 (95% confidence interval 0.52 to 1.39) and for brief lifestyle counselling was 0.78 (0.48 to 1.25). A per protocol analysis confirmed these findings.

CONCLUSIONS

All patients received simple feedback on their screening outcome. Beyond this input, however, evidence that brief advice or brief lifestyle counselling provided important additional benefit in reducing hazardous or harmful drinking compared with the patient information leaflet was lacking.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN06145674.

Managed alcohol as a harm reduction intervention for alcohol addiction in populations at high risk for substance abuse

BACKGROUND

Managed alcohol programmes (MAP) are a harm reduction strategy used to minimise the personal harm and adverse societal effects that alcohol dependence can lead to by providing an alternative to zero-tolerance approaches that incorporate drinking goals (abstinence or moderation) that are compatible with the needs of the individual, and promoting access to services by offering low-threshold alternatives. This enables clients to gain access to services despite continued alcohol consumption and works to help the patient understand the risks involved in their behaviour and make decisions about their own treatment goals.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of MAP treatment regimens (serving limited quantities of alcohol daily to alcoholics) on their own or as compared to moderate drinking (self-controlled drinking), screening and brief intervention using a harm reduction approach, traditional abstinence-based interventions (12 step programmes) and no intervention.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and PsycINFO up to March 2012. This search was expanded by handsearching of high-yield journals and conference proceedings that had not already been handsearched on behalf of The Cochrane Collaboration, searching reference lists of all papers and relevant reviews identified, references to ongoing and recently completed clinical trials in the National Research Register and IFPMA Clinical Trials Database (which contains ClinicalTrials.gov, Centerwatch, Current Controlled Trials and ClinicalStudyResults.gov, and Osservatorio Nazionale sulla Sperimentazione Clinica dei Medicinali). Trials registers, grey literature and reference lists were also searched. Individuals, organisations and experts in the field were contacted.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised control trials (RCT), controlled clinical trials (CCT), interrupted time series (ITS) studies, and control before and after (CBA) studies involving vulnerable people aged 18 years or older who were at high risk for alcohol abuse attending MAP, defined as a structured programme that provided clients with controlled amounts of alcohol on a daily schedule, comparing no treatment, moderate drinking, brief intervention or 12-step variants.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

All study citations were collated into a single database. Two review author independently screened titles and abstracts and selected references potentially relevant to the review. Differences between selection lists were resolved by discussion. Two review authors independently evaluated whether studies should be included or excluded according to the eligibility criteria. In the event of a disagreement, a third author was consulted.

MAIN RESULTS

No studies were included in the review. This systematic review was intended to assess the effectiveness of a brief MAP on the reduction of incidence of harmful behaviour; however, no evidence was available to make this comparison; 22 articles were considered possibly relevant and all were excluded. Most articles were excluded because they failed to compare or consider managed alcohol as the experimental or control intervention, as well as one study (Baker 2010), which was also excluded because study participants were under 18 years of age. No study reviewed offered an intervention that was compared with managed alcohol or considered it as the intervention of interest, providing insufficient evidence to address the objectives of the review. Four studies (Aalto 2001; Baker 2010; Bertholet 2005; Tracy 2007) considered alcohol reduction as an outcome of interest, while four engaged interventions in a shelter setting or targeted vulnerable people (Baker 2010; Bradford 2005; Lapham 1993; McGlynn 1993); only one study (Kidd 2011) offered a qualitative assessment of a participant being admitted to MAP, but offered no analysis of the programme itself. These results accurately reflect the use of MAPs in current practice as existing programmes are ongoing only in a small number of sample pilot projects that target individuals with severe alcohol dependence or who consume non-beverage alcohol.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The lack of evidence does not allow for a conclusion regarding the efficacy of MAP on their own, or as compared to brief intervention, moderate drinking, no intervention or 12-step variants. It is the review authors' opinion that it is likely to be the objective of MAPs that reduce their reportability and use in current practice, rather than a failure to provide an intervention that reduces the effects of alcohol dependence. Aiming to reduce harmful or antisocial behaviour in vulnerable individuals through the regulation of daily alcohol intake, rather than reducing harmful alcohol intake over time, provides considerable difficulty in developing measures of success from self-reported data (low treatment thresholds), monitoring long-term efficacy or establishing causal links between programme admission and a reduction in targeted behaviours, owing to the fact that prolonged participation in the programme is likely to indicate a willingness in the individual to change their behaviour patterns. More effort is needed to develop reporting measures, as well as methodologies, which address these specific challenges.

Developing, evaluating and implementing alcohol brief interventions in Europe

ISSUES

This article traces the history of research on the development, evaluation and implementation of alcohol brief intervention (BI) in Europe.

APPROACH

Narrative and historical review.

KEY FINDINGS

BI originated in Europe and, following a definition of opportunistic BI, early pioneering studies are summarised. The role of European scientists in the series of studies making up the WHO Collaborative Project on Detection and Management of Alcohol-related Problems in Primary Health Care (1982-2006) is then described, followed by a short account of a current EU-funded project (Primary Health European Project on Alcohol) with the aim of achieving a widespread, routine and enduring implementation of BI in EU member states. In addition to involvement in these two major projects, a great deal of research on BI has been carried out in a range of European countries and some of this research is noted.

IMPLICATIONS

Several European governments are now taking the rolling out of BI in routine services very seriously as a policy measure. There is no necessary conflict between widely available BI and alcohol control measures.

CONCLUSION

While much remains to be done regarding practical implementation, the mood of those interested in the promotion of BI as a means of reducing alcohol-related harm, in Europe as elsewhere, is cautiously optimistic.

The potential cost-effectiveness of general practitioner delivered brief intervention for alcohol misuse: evidence from rural Australia

OBJECTIVE

This paper aims to model General Practitioner (GP) delivered screening and brief intervention (BI), and to identify the costs per additional risky drinker who reduces alcohol consumption to low-risk levels, relative to current practice.

METHOD

A decision model and nine different scenarios were developed to assess outcomes and costs of GP-delivered screening and BI on the potential number of risky drinkers who reduce their alcohol consumption to low-risk levels in 10 rural communities in New South Wales, Australia.

FINDINGS

Based on evidence from current practice, approximately 19% of all risky drinkers visiting GPs annually would reduce alcohol consumption to low-risk levels, of which 0.7% would do so because of GP-delivered screening and BI. If rates of screening and BI are increased to 100%, 36% of these risky drinkers would reduce their drinking to low risk-levels. Alternatively, increments of 10% and 20% in GP-delivered screening and BI would reduce the proportion of risky drinkers by 2.1% and 4.2% respectively. The most cost-effective outcome per additional risky drinker reducing their drinking relative to current practice would be if all of these risky drinkers are screened alone with an ICER of AUD$197.

CONCLUSION

These findings indicate that increments in rates of screening and BI delivered by GPs can result in cost-effective reductions per additional risky drinkers reducing their drinking to low-risk levels, relative to current practice. They also imply that achieving substantial reductions in the prevalence of risky drinking in a community will require strategies other than opportunistic screening and BIs by GPs.

The effectiveness of brief alcohol interventions in primary care settings: a systematic review

ISSUES

Numerous studies have reported that brief interventions delivered in primary care are effective in reducing excessive drinking. However, much of this work has been criticised for being clinically unrepresentative. This review aimed to assess the effectiveness of brief interventions in primary care and determine if outcomes differ between efficacy and effectiveness trials.

APPROACH

A pre-specified search strategy was used to search all relevant electronic databases up to 2006. We also hand-searched the reference lists of key articles and reviews. We included randomised controlled trials (RCT) involving patients in primary care who were not seeking alcohol treatment and who received brief intervention. Two authors independently abstracted data and assessed trial quality. Random effects meta-analyses, subgroup and sensitivity analyses and meta-regression were conducted.

KEY FINDINGS

The primary meta-analysis included 22 RCT and evaluated outcomes in over 5800 patients. At 1 year follow up, patients receiving brief intervention had a significant reduction in alcohol consumption compared with controls [mean difference: -38 g week(-1), 95%CI (confidence interval): -54 to -23], although there was substantial heterogeneity between trials (I(2) = 57%). Subgroup analysis confirmed the benefit of brief intervention in men but not in women. Extended intervention was associated with a non-significantly increased reduction in alcohol consumption compared with brief intervention. There was no significant difference in effect sizes for efficacy and effectiveness trials.

CONCLUSIONS

Brief interventions can reduce alcohol consumption in men, with benefit at a year after intervention, but they are unproven in women for whom there is insufficient research data. Longer counselling has little additional effect over brief intervention. The lack of differences in outcomes between efficacy and effectiveness trials suggests that the current literature is relevant to routine primary care.

Alcohol screening and brief intervention in primary care: Absence of evidence for efficacy in people with dependence or very heavy drinking

ISSUES

Although screening and brief intervention (BI) in the primary-care setting reduces unhealthy alcohol use, its efficacy among patients with dependence has not been established. This systematic review sought to determine whether evidence exists for BI efficacy among patients with alcohol dependence identified by screening in primary-care settings.

APPROACH

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) extracted from eight systematic reviews and electronic database searches published through September 2009. These RCTs compared outcomes among adults with unhealthy alcohol use identified by screening who received BI in a primary-care setting with those who received no intervention.

KEY FINDINGS

Sixteen RCTs, including 6839 patients, met the inclusion criteria. Of these, 14 excluded some or all persons with very heavy alcohol use or dependence; one in which 35% of 175 patients had dependence found no difference in an alcohol severity score between groups; and one in which 58% of 24 female patients had dependence showed no efficacy.

CONCLUSION AND IMPLICATIONS

Alcohol screening and BI has efficacy in primary care for patients with unhealthy alcohol use, but there is no evidence for efficacy among those with very heavy use or dependence. As alcohol screening identifies both dependent and non-dependent unhealthy use, the absence of evidence for the efficacy of BI among primary-care patients with screening-identified alcohol dependence raises questions regarding the efficiency of screening and BI, particularly in settings where dependence is common. The finding also highlights the need to develop new approaches to help such patients, particularly if screening and BI are to be disseminated widely.[Saitz R. Alcohol screening and brief intervention in primary care: Absence of evidence for efficacy in people with dependence or very heavy drinking.

Conducting economic evaluations of screening and brief intervention for hazardous drinking: Methods and evidence to date for informing policy

ISSUES

Many policy review articles have concluded that alcohol screening and brief intervention (SBI) is both cost-effective and cost-beneficial. Yet a recent cost-effectiveness review for the United Kingdom's National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence suggests that these conclusions may be premature.

APPROACH

This article offers a brief synopsis of the various types of economic analyses that may be applied to SBI, including cost analysis, cost-effectiveness analysis, cost-utility analysis, cost-benefit analysis and other types of economic evaluation. A brief overview of methodological issues is provided, and examples from the SBI evaluation literature are provided.

KEY FINDINGS, IMPLICATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS

The current evidence base is insufficient to draw firm conclusions about the cost, cost-effectiveness or cost-benefit of SBI and about the impact of SBI on health-care utilisation.[Cowell AJ, Bray JW, Mills MJ, Hinde JM. Conducting economic evaluations of screening and brief intervention for hazardous drinking: Methods and evidence to date for informing policy.

Barriers and facilitators to implementing screening and brief intervention for alcohol misuse: a systematic review of qualitative evidence

BACKGROUND

This review aimed to synthesize qualitative evidence for barriers and facilitators to effective implementation of screening and brief intervention for alcohol misuse in adults and children over 10 years.

METHODS

A search of medical and social science databases was carried out and augmented by hand-searching of reference lists and contents of key journals. Qualitative evidence was synthesized thematically.

RESULTS

A total of 47 papers varying in design and quality were included in the review. Most evaluated implementation in primary care settings. Implementation was reported to be limited by lack of resources, training and support from management, as well as workload. The appropriateness of context in which discussions take place was reported as an acceptability factor for patients and practitioners. Health professionals require sufficient knowledge about alcohol guidelines and risk in order to implement screening and intervention to those most in need.

CONCLUSIONS

Whilst brief screening and brief intervention have been shown to be effective in some settings, this review has identified a number of barriers and facilitators to implementation. Adequate resources, training and the identification of those at risk without stereotyping are the main facilitators in primary care. More research is needed to assess implementation in other settings.

Being questioned and receiving advice about alcohol and smoking in health care: associations with patients' characteristics, health behavior, and reported stage of change

Background

Alcohol habits are more rarely addressed than other health behavior topics in Swedish health care. This study examined whether differences between topics could be explained by their different associations with patient characteristics or by the differences in the prevalence of the disadvantageous health behavior, i.e., excessive alcohol use and smoking. The study moreover examined whether simply being asked questions about behavior, i.e., alcohol use or smoking, was associated with reported change.

Methods

The study was based on a cross-sectional postal survey (n = 4 238, response rate 56.5 percent) representative of the adult population in Stockholm County in 2003. Retrospective self-reports were used to assess health care visits during the past 12 months, the questions and advice received there, patients characteristics, health behavior, and the present stage of change. Logistic regression analysis was used to estimate the associations among the 68 percent who had visited health care.

Results

Among the health care visitors, 23 percent reported being asked about their alcohol habits, and 3 percent reported receiving advice or/and support to modify their alcohol use - fewer than for smoking, physical exercise, or diet. When regression models adjusted for patient characteristics, the differences between health behaviors in the extent of questioning and advice remained. However, when the models also adjusted for smoking and alcohol consumption there was no difference between smoking and alcohol-related advice. In fact one-third of the present smokers and two-fifths of the persons dependent on alcohol reported having receiving advice the previous 12 months. Those who reported being asked questions or receiving advice more often reported a decreased alcohol use and similarly intended to cease smoking within 6 months. Questions about alcohol use were moreover related to a later stage of stage of change independently of advice among women but not among men.

Conclusions

While most patients are never addressed, many in the target groups seem to be reached anyway. Besides advice, already addressing alcohol habits appears to be associated with change. The results also indicate that gender possibly plays a role in the relationship between advice and the stage of change.

Change over time in alcohol consumption in control groups in brief intervention studies: systematic review and meta-regression study

Reactivity to assessment has attracted recent attention in the brief alcohol intervention literature. This systematic review sought to examine the nature of change in alcohol consumption over time in control groups in brief intervention studies. Primary studies were identified from existing reviews published in English language, peer-reviewed journals between 1995 and 2005. Change in alcohol consumption and selected study-level characteristics for each primary study were extracted. Consumption change data were pooled in random effects models and meta-regression was used to explore predictors of change. Eleven review papers reported the results of 44 individual studies. Twenty-six of these studies provided data suitable for quantitative study. Extreme heterogeneity was identified and the extent of observed reduction in consumption over time was greater in studies undertaken in Anglophone countries, with single gender study participants, and without special targeting by age. Heterogeneity was reduced but was still substantial in a sub-set of 15 general population studies undertaken in English language countries. The actual content of the control group procedure itself was not predictive of reduction in drinking, nor were a range of other candidate variables including setting, the exclusion of dependent drinkers, the collection of a biological sample at follow-up, and duration of study. Further investigations may yield novel insights into the nature of behaviour change with potential to inform brief interventions design.

At-risk drinking among diabetic patients

Diabetes Mellitus is a serious chronic disease, affecting an increasing number of individuals worldwide. Adherence to diabetes self-care behaviors is key to the successful management of the disease. At-risk drinking is common among diabetic patients and is associated with inferior diabetes treatment adherence and outcomes, resulting in increased mortality and morbidity. Furthermore, individuals with diabetes who engage in at-risk drinking are also in danger of incurring the negative consequences of at-risk drinking found in the general population. Research suggests that alcohol use screening and intervention do not commonly occur during the course of primary care treatment for diabetes. While methods for reducing alcohol use in this population have been largely unexplored to date, brief interventions to reduce at-risk drinking have been well-validated in other patient populations and offer the promise to reduce at-risk drinking among diabetic patients, resulting in improved diabetes treatment adherence and outcomes.

Client/general medical practitioner interaction during brief intervention for hazardous drinkers: a pilot study

Brief Intervention (BI) for hazardous drinkers at a Primary Health Care (PHC) level can be implemented during the interaction between a GP and his/her client in a range of contexts and opportunities, the GP's office being a primary context. Communication skills are needed for professionals in order to deliver the BI and they should be familiar with motivational interviewing. This pilot study, carried out during 2006-2007, observed how GPs are able to effectively communicate with their hazardous drinking clients when implementing BI. Four GPs have voluntarily participated in the study, altogether interviewing 13 clients in their office in the province of Florence (Italy). Two types of questionnaires were used: a questionnaire on the quality of BI and a questionnaire on the reformulation and summarizing skills. At the end of each interview both questionnaires were independently completed by both the GP and an attending research psychologist. Also, 12 interviews were videotaped and subsequently evaluated by two clinicians. On the whole, GPs scored high regarding their effective communication skills as well as in terms of the quality of BI implemented during the interviews at their offices. The study's limitations are noted and research needed in the future is suggested.

Has brief counselling an impact on the risk factors for cardiovascular disease in 40-year-old men. A three-year follow-up study

The metabolic syndrome presents a serious challenge to health professionals. The aim of the present study is to analyze the impact of a brief counselling on cardiovascular risk factors among 40-year-old men. Forty-six males living in north-eastern Helsinki voluntarily completed the follow-up study between 2001 and 2004, and were assessed for clinical risk factors. The mean differences were determined by a paired t-test, and the interaction between groups and time by the F-test with repeated measures ANOVA. After baseline assessment and in 2002, males received a 45 minute nurse-delivered counselling session with self-administered protocol. Cardiovascular risk factors improved significantly (p<0.05) from baseline within months. However, the final measurements obtained after three years showed that almost all risk factors, except the low and high density lipoprotein, tended to revert back to baseline. The profiles were similar in all predictor groups. Brief counselling had an impact on risk factors measured in 2002, but only a partial effect on them in 2004. Conclusive results lead to the idea thatmore collaboration is needed between private health care agencies and official primary health care for ensuring the continuity of improved health habits among middle-aged males.

Do brief interventions which target alcohol consumption also reduce cigarette smoking? Systematic review and meta-analysis

Brief interventions are known to be effective in changing both substance use and other health-compromising behaviors. It is unknown whether they may have secondary effects on behaviors which are not specifically targeted. The literature on brief alcohol interventions was selected to explore this possibility, with a study focus on secondary impact on cigarette smoking. The CINAHL, EMBASE, MEDLINE and PSYCINFO bibliographic databases were searched for reviews of brief alcohol intervention studies published in English language, peer-reviewed journals between 1995 and 2005. Authors of primary studies identified in the reviews were contacted to ascertain whether or not their studies had collected cigarette smoking data and, if available, to obtain data. Random effect models were used to pool data for meta-analysis. Eleven review papers reported the results of 41 individual primary studies which were included in this systematic review. Fourteen of these studies collected cigarette smoking outcome data, of which 7 studies still had information available and provided these data for meta-analysis. There were no between-group differences in smoking cessation or reduction across these studies. High levels of smoking cessation were detected in both brief intervention and control groups with much heterogeneity between studies. Brief alcohol interventions do not also reduce cigarette smoking, and it appears unlikely that there exist other important secondary effects. The behavioral consequences of brief intervention study participation itself warrant further study.

Two-year outcome of an intervention program for university students who have parents with alcohol problems: a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Only a few intervention studies aiming to change high-risk drinking behavior have involved university students with heredity for alcohol problems. This study evaluated the effects after 2 years on drinking patterns and coping behavior of intervention programs for students with parents with alcohol problems.

METHOD

In total, 82 university students (57 women and 25 men, average age 25 years) with at least 1 parent with alcohol problems were included in the study. The students were randomly assigned to 1 of the 3 programs: (i) alcohol intervention program, (ii) coping intervention program, or (iii) combination program. All the 3 intervention programs were manual based and individually implemented during 2 2-hour sessions, 4 weeks apart. Before the participants were randomly assigned, all were subjected to an individual baseline assessment. This assessment contained both a face-to-face interview and 6 self-completion questionnaires: the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test, estimated Blood Alcohol Concentration, Short Index of Problems, the Symptom Checklist-90, Coping with Parents' Abuse Questionnaire, and The Interview Schedule for Social Interaction (ISSI). Follow-up interviews were conducted after 1 and 2 years, respectively. The results after 1 year have previously been reported.

RESULTS

All participants finished the baseline assessment, accepted and completed the intervention. Ninety-five percent of the students completed the 24-month follow-up assessment. Only the group receiving the combination program continued to improve their drinking pattern significantly (p < 0.05) from the 12-month follow-up to the 24-month follow-up. The improvements in this group were significantly better than in the other 2 groups. The group receiving only alcohol intervention remained at the level of improvement achieved at the 12-month follow-up. The improvements in coping behavior achieved at the 12-month follow-up remained at the 24-month follow-up for all the 3 groups, i.e., regardless of intervention program.

CONCLUSION

Positive effects of alcohol intervention between 1 and 2 years were found only in the combined intervention group, contrary to the 1-year results with effects of alcohol intervention with or without a combination with coping intervention.

Effectiveness of brief alcohol interventions in primary care populations

BACKGROUND

Many trials reported that brief interventions are effective in reducing excessive drinking. However, some trials have been criticised for being clinically unrepresentative and unable to inform clinical practice.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of brief intervention, delivered in general practice or based primary care, to reduce alcohol consumption

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Drug and Alcohol Group specialised register (February 2006), MEDLINE (1966 to February 2006), EMBASE (1980 to February 2006), CINAHL (1982 to February 2006), PsycINFO (1840 to February 2006), Science Citation Index (1970 to February 2006), Social Science Citation Index (1970 to February 2006), Alcohol and Alcohol Problems Science Database (1972 to 2003), reference lists of articles.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials, patients presenting to primary care not specifically for alcohol treatment; brief intervention of up to four sessions.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently abstracted data and assessed trial quality. Random effects meta-analyses, sub-group, sensitivity analyses, and meta-regression were conducted.

MAIN RESULTS

The meta-analysis included 21 RCTs (7,286 participants), showing that participants receiving brief intervention reduced their alcohol consumption compared to the control group (mean difference: -41 grams/week, 95% CI: -57 to -25), although there was substantial heterogeneity between trials (I2 = 52%). Sub-group analysis (8 studies, 2307 participants) confirmed the benefit of brief intervention in men (mean difference: -57 grams/week, 95% CI: -89 to -25, I2 = 56%), but not in women (mean difference: -10 grams/week, 95% CI: -48 to 29, I2 = 45%). Meta-regression showed a non-significant trend of an increased reduction in alcohol consumption of 1.1, 95%CI: -0.05 to 2.2 grams/week, p=0.06, for each extra minute of treatment exposure, but no relationship between the reduction in alcohol consumption and the efficacy score of the trial. Extended intervention when compared with brief intervention was associated with a non-significantly greater reduction in alcohol consumption (mean difference = -28, 95%CI: -62 to 6 grams/week, I2 = 0%)

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Brief interventions consistently produced reductions in alcohol consumption. When data were available by gender, the effect was clear in men at one year of follow up, but unproven in women. Longer duration of counselling probably has little additional effect. The lack of differences in outcomes between efficacy and effectiveness trials suggests that the current literature had clear relevance to routine primary care. Future trials should focus on women and on delineating the most effective components of interventions.

Brief interventions for high-risk drinkers

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this paper is to explore the literature on brief alcohol intervention and to review the literature that examines the status of the clinic nurse in the delivery of these interventions. The objective is to review critically the literature on brief intervention to create links for nurse developed and delivered brief intervention to high-risk drinkers.

BACKGROUND

Population estimates suggest that more than one-third of North Americans drink excessively with even higher rates for individuals treated in primary care settings. Alcohol use has been identified as the third leading cause of mortality in the United States. This problem is not unique to the US and, worldwide, agencies and governmental offices and ministries have issued recommendations to screen patients for alcohol misuse and deliver brief interventions to individuals considered to be high-risk drinkers. Numerous randomized controlled trials and recent meta-analyses have supported the use of screening and brief intervention for reducing alcohol consumption in primary healthcare settings. The vast majority of studies reporting on brief interventions have focused on the role of the physician with minimal if any involvement of the clinic nurse. A scant number of studies have been conducted that define and assess the role or potential role of the clinic nurse in providing screening and brief intervention to high-risk drinkers in the primary care setting.

METHODS

Systematic review.

RESULTS

Six systematic reviews and meta-analyses from an international base of studies support the use of brief intervention in the primary care setting. Three randomized control trials have highlighted the role of the staff or clinic nurse but there are no meta-analyses addressing nurse-delivered brief interventions. Numerous studies have explored factors effecting the implementation of brief intervention into the primary care setting.

CONCLUSION

Brief intervention is recognized as a legitimate nursing role but little has been done to develop and define the role of the nurse in delivering brief interventions to high-risk drinkers. This represents a major lacuna in both the nursing and alcoholism literature, where only a handful of studies have investigated nurse-delivered brief intervention.

RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE

As health screening and health promotion are hallmarks of nursing care, nurses need to explore the use of brief intervention in their daily practice.

Does socio-economic status influence the acceptability of, attendance for, and outcome of, screening and brief interventions for alcohol misuse: a review

AIMS

To determine whether socio-economic status (SES) influences (i) willingness to participate in brief intervention (BI) research, (ii) attendance to receive BI once allocated, and (iii) treatment outcome.

METHODS

Systematic review of published, randomised controlled trials of BI for non-dependent alcohol misuse in primary health care settings.

RESULTS

Eighteen papers met inclusion criteria. There is evidence that once recruited, and following attendance for intervention, participants' SES does not influence treatment outcome. However, the effect of choosing to participate remains unclear, and the generalizability of results to the whole primary care population remains equivocal. Socio-economic status may influence willingness to participate in BI treatment research, and may influence attendance to receive such interventions where allocated.

CONCLUSION

Brief interventions should remain available to all non-dependent hazardous and harmful drinkers in primary care. However, fidelity to research design is suggested to allow for any participation effects to occur. Benefits of such an approach exist for both clinicians and patients. The characteristics of those who participate in BI trials, compared to those who do not, should be studied in detail. Socio-economic variables should be included as potentially important characteristics. The impact of BI on drinking style as well as consumption needs further attention.

Effectiveness of nurse-led brief alcohol intervention: a cluster randomized controlled trial

AIM

This paper reports an evaluation of the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of nurse-led screening and brief intervention in reducing excessive alcohol consumption among patients in primary health care.

BACKGROUND

Excessive alcohol consumption is a major source of social, economic and health problems. However, such consumption is responsive to brief alcohol intervention. To date, brief intervention research in primary health care has focused on general practitioner-led interventions, and there is only circumstantial evidence of effectiveness in nurse-led interventions. However, nurses are increasingly taking a lead in health promotion work in primary care.

METHODS

A pragmatic cluster-randomized controlled trial was carried out between August 2000 and June 2003 to evaluate the effects of a brief intervention compared with standard advice (control condition). A total of 40 general practice clusters (intervention = 21 and control = 19) recruited 127 patients (intervention = 67 and control = 60) to the trial. Excessive consumption was identified opportunistically via the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test. After baseline assessment, patients received either a 5-10 minutes brief intervention using the 'Drink-Less' protocol or standard advice (control condition). Follow-up occurred at 6 and 12 months postintervention.

RESULTS

Analysis of variance weighted for cluster size revealed no statistically significant differences between intervention and control patients at follow up. A majority of patients in both conditions reduced their alcohol consumption between assessment and subsequent measurement. Economic analysis suggested that the brief intervention led to no statistically significant changes in subsequent health service resource use relative to standard treatment.

CONCLUSION

The brief intervention evaluated in this trial had no effect over standard advice delivered by nurses in primary health care. However, there was a reduction in excessive drinking across both arms of the trial over time. Due to nurse drop-out, this trial was significantly underpowered. Future research should explore barriers to nurses' involvement in research trials, particularly with an alcohol focus. A larger trial is required to evaluate the effectiveness of nurse-led screening and brief alcohol intervention in primary care.

The efficacy of motivational interviewing as a brief intervention for excessive drinking: a meta-analytic review

AIMS

(1) To examine whether or not motivational interviewing (MI) is more efficacious than no intervention in reducing alcohol consumption; (2) to examine whether or not MI is as efficacious as other interventions.

METHOD

A literature search followed by a meta-analytic review of randomized control trials of MI interventions. Aggregated between-group effect sizes and confidence intervals were calculated for each study.

RESULTS

Literature search revealed 22 relevant studies, of which nine compared brief MI with no treatment, and met methodological criteria for inclusion. In these, the aggregate effect size was 0.18 (95% C.I. 0.07, 0.29), but was greater 0.60 (95% C.I. 0.36, 0.83) when, in a post-hoc analysis, the follow-up period was three months or less. Its efficacy also increased when dependent drinkers were excluded. There were nine studies meeting methodological criteria for inclusion which compared brief MI with another treatment (one of a diverse set of interventions), yielding an aggregate effect size of 0.43(95% C.I. 0.17, 0.70). The literature review pointed to several factors which may influence MI's long-term efficacy effectiveness of MI.

CONCLUSIONS

Brief MI is effective. Future studies should focus on possible predictors of efficacy such as gender, age, employment status, marital status, mental health, initial expectations, readiness to change, and whether the population is drawn from treatment-seeking or non-treatment-seeking populations. Also, the components of MI should be compared to determine which are most responsible for maintaining long-term changes.

The BRENDA model: integrating psychosocial treatment and pharmacotherapy for the treatment of alcohol use disorders

While the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved several medications for the treatment of alcohol-related problems, their use has not gained wide acceptance in the United States. Typically, patients with alcohol use disorders are only referred to psychosocial support (e.g., Alcoholics Anonymous). However, the use of pharmacotherapy may complement psychosocial treatments, as evidence shows that pharmacotherapy can improve treatment outcomes. The effectiveness of pharmacotherapy depends on patient compliance with taking the medication and the context in which the medication is administered. BRENDA is a psychosocial program designed specifically to be used by many types of healthcare providers, including primary care clinicians. Designed to enhance medication and treatment compliance, BRENDA is an ideal approach for use in conjunction with pharmacotherapy. The BRENDA approach has 6 components: 1) a biopsychosocial evaluation; 2) a report of findings from the evaluation given to the patient; 3) empathy; 4) addressing patient needs; 5) providing direct advice; and 6) assessing patient reaction to advice and adjusting the treatment plan as needed. This paper describes these components and discusses how the empirical support for each component is linked to the enhancement of medication compliance and the improvement of treatment outcomes.

Efficacy of brief interventions for hazardous drinkers in primary care: systematic review and meta-analyses

BACKGROUND

Because recent research in primary care has challenged the findings of previous reviews on the efficacy of brief interventions (BIs) on hazardous drinkers, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to update the evidence of BIs as applied in the primary care setting.

METHODS

We obtained source material by searching electronic databases and reference lists and hand-searching journals. We selected randomized trials providing frequency data that allowed assessment of the efficacy of BIs on an intention-to-treat basis. Results were summarized by the odds ratio (OR) of response. When appropriate, risk difference (RD) and its inverse (number needed to treat [NNT] to achieve a positive result) were also computed. Fixed and/or random effect models were fitted according to heterogeneity estimates.

RESULTS

Thirteen studies provided data for a dose-effect analysis, 12 for comparison of BIs with reference categories. No clear evidence of a dose-effect relationship was found. BIs outperformed minimal interventions and usual care (random effects model OR = 1.55, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.27-1.90; RD = 0.11, 95% CI = 0.06-0.16; NNT = 10, 95% CI = 7-17). Similar results were obtained when two influential studies were removed (fixed effect model OR = 1.57, 95% CI = 1.32-1.87; RD = 0.11, 95% CI = 0.07-0.15; NNT = 9, 95% CI = 7-15). The heterogeneity between individual estimates was accounted for by the type of hazardous drinkers (heavy versus moderate) and by the characteristics of the included individuals (treatment seekers versus nontreatment seekers). The funnel plot did not show evidence of publication bias.

CONCLUSION

Our results, although indicating smaller effect sizes than previous meta-analyses, do support the moderate efficacy of BIs. Further research is outlined.

Use of biomarkers for alcohol use disorders in clinical practice

BACKGROUND

Biomedical markers may provide additive objective information in screening and confirmation of acute or recent consumption, intoxication, relapse, heavy drinking, hazardous/harmful use/abuse and dependence and alcohol use related organ dysfunction (alcohol use-related disorders: AUDs).

AIMS

To review the use of biomarkers in clinical practice to detect AUDs.

FINDINGS

About one-fifth of the patients seen in clinical practice have AUDs, which offer a variety of treatment options if diagnosed. The diagnosis of AUDs relies on clinical and alcohol-related history, physical examination, questionnaires and laboratory values. No clinical available laboratory test [e.g. for acute abuse: alcohol in blood or breath; for chronic alcohol abuse: gamma-glutamyl transferase (GGT), mean corpuscular volume (MCV), carbohydrate-deficient transferrin (CDT)] is reliable enough on its own to support a diagnosis of alcohol dependence, harmful use or abuse. Sensitivities, specificities and the predictive values may vary considerably according to patient and control group characteristics (e.g. gender, age or related comorbidity). In patient groups with limited cooperation markers may be helpful when considering treatment options.

CONCLUSIONS

More research is needed to determine the value of markers (single or combined, with questionnaires) in the context of clinical decision-making algorithms in defined settings and with defined dichotomous outcome variables.

Screening in brief intervention trials targeting excessive drinkers in general practice: systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To determine the effectiveness of programmes of screening in general practice for excessive alcohol use and providing brief interventions.

DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials that used screening as a precursor to brief intervention.

SETTING

General practice.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Number needed to treat, proportion of patients positive on screening, proportion given brief interventions, and effect of screening.

RESULTS

The eight studies included for meta-analysis all used health questionnaires for screening, and the brief interventions included feedback, information, and advice. The studies contained several sources of bias that might lead to overestimates of the effects of intervention. External validity was compromised because typically three out of four people identified by screening as excessive users of alcohol did not qualify for the intervention after a secondary assessment. Overall, in 1000 screened patients, 90 screened positive and required further assessment, after which 25 qualified for brief intervention; after one year 2.6 (95% confidence interval 1.7 to 3.4) reported they drank less than the maximum recommended level.

CONCLUSIONS

Although even brief advice can reduce excessive drinking, screening in general practice does not seem to be an effective precursor to brief interventions targeting excessive alcohol use. This meta-analysis raises questions about the feasibility of screening in general practice for excessive use of alcohol.

Screening and brief intervention for alcohol problems among college students treated in a university hospital emergency department

The authors evaluated a protocol to screen and provide brief interventions for alcohol problems to college students treated at a university hospital emergency department (ED). Of 2,372 drinkers they approached, 87% gave informed consent. Of those, 54% screened positive for alcohol problems (Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test score < or = 6). One half to two thirds of the students who screened positive drank 2 to 3 times a week, drank 7 or more drinks per typical drinking day, or had experienced alcohol dependence symptoms within the past year. Ninety-six percent of screen-positive students accepted counseling during their ED visit. Three quarters of those questioned at 3-month follow-up reported that counseling had been helpful and that they had decreased their alcohol consumption. The prevalence of alcohol problems, high rates of informed consent and acceptance of counseling, and improved outcomes suggest that the ED is an appropriate venue for engaging students at high risk for alcohol problems.

Obstacles to carrying out brief intervention for heavy drinkers in primary health care: a focus group study

The objective of this study was to identify possible obstacles to carrying out competent early identification and brief intervention (EIBI) of heavy drinkers in primary health care. Qualitative focus group discussion method study applying the deductive framework approach. Six focus groups involving 18 general practitioners and 19 nurses were recruited from primary health care of the City of Tampere, Finland. Possible obstacles are: (1) confusion regarding the content of early-phase heavy drinking, (2) lack of self-efficacy among primary health care professionals, (3) sense of lacking time needed for carrying out brief intervention, (4) not having simple guidelines for brief intervention, (5) sense of difficulty in identifying of early-phase heavy drinkers, and (6) uncertainty about the justification for initiating discussion on alcohol issues with patients. The main actions to be taken to promote brief intervention are to educate professionals about the content of early-phase heavy drinking and to produce directing, but not excessively demanding guidelines for carrying out EIBI. Probably successful personal experiences carrying out EIBI can improve professionals' self-efficacy and give to them final justification for discussion alcohol issues with their patients.