Screening and brief interventions for hazardous and harmful alcohol use in probation services: a cluster randomised controlled trial protocol

Cost-effectiveness analysis of public health interventions with impacts on health and criminal justice: An applied cross-sectoral analysis of an alcohol misuse intervention

Cost-effectiveness analyses of health care programs often focus on maximizing health and ignore nonhealth impacts. Assessing the cost-effectiveness of public health interventions from a narrow health care perspective would likely underestimate their full impact, and potentially lead to inefficient decisions about funding. The aim of this study is to provide a practical application of a recently proposed framework for the economic evaluation of public health interventions, evaluating an intervention to reduce alcohol misuse in criminal offenders. This cross-sectoral analysis distinguishes benefits and opportunity costs for different sectors, makes explicit the value judgments required to consider alternative perspectives, and can inform heterogeneous decision makers with different objectives in a transparent manner. Three interventions of increasing intensity are compared: client information leaflet, brief advice, and brief lifestyle counseling. Health outcomes are measured in quality-adjusted life-years and criminal justice outcomes in reconvictions. Costs considered include intervention costs, costs to the NHS and costs to the criminal justice system. The results are presented for four different perspectives: "narrow" health care perspective; criminal justice system perspective; "full" health care perspective; and joint "full" health and criminal justice perspective. Conclusions and recommendations differ according to the normative judgment on the appropriate perspective for the evaluation.

Structure and longitudinal invariance of the Short Alcohol and Alcohol Problems Perception Questionnaire

Many studies have employed the Short Alcohol Attitudes Problem Perception Questionnaire (SAAPPQ) to measure professionals' attitudes toward working with people experiencing alcohol problems. However, research has not confirmed the internal structure of the SAAPPQ, leaving open the possibility that scale scores are not valid empirical proxies for underlying attitudes. It is also unclear if measurement invariance holds over time or across groups. This is an important gap in light of evidence that (a) experiences can change the structure of scales and (b) structures of some popular scales differ dramatically between groups. Thus, measurement bias may confound comparisons of composite SAAPPQ scores between measurement occasions or groups. To address these gaps in the literature, we conducted a longitudinal examination of the psychometrics of the SAAPPQ using data from 241 human services professionals-in-training. We found a four-factor structure, rather than the previously reported five factors. Configural, metric, and a strong degree of scalar invariance held longitudinally. Few factor intercorrelations were significant at time one and they strengthened over time, suggesting that the SAAPPQ should not be aggregated at higher-order levels (i.e., global scores should not be used). Findings suggest four SAAPPQ subscale scores may be used as valid proxies for attitudes toward alcohol users; however, additional confirmatory studies are needed to ensure that measurement bias does not compromise inferences based on SAAPPQ scores.

Preoperative behavioural intervention to reduce drinking before elective orthopaedic surgery: the PRE-OP BIRDS feasibility RCT

BACKGROUND

Heavy alcohol consumption is associated with an increased risk of postoperative complications and extended hospital stay. Alcohol consumption therefore represents a modifiable risk factor for surgical outcomes. Brief behavioural interventions have been shown to be effective in reducing alcohol consumption among increased risk and risky drinkers in other health-care settings and may offer a method of addressing preoperative alcohol consumption.

OBJECTIVES

To investigate the feasibility of introducing a screening process to assess adult preoperative drinking levels and to deliver a brief behavioural intervention adapted for the target population group. To conduct a two-arm (brief behavioural intervention plus standard preoperative care vs. standard preoperative care alone), multicentre, pilot randomised controlled trial to assess the feasibility of proceeding to a definitive trial. To conduct focus groups and a national web-based survey to establish current treatment as usual for alcohol screening and intervention in preoperative assessment.

DESIGN

A single-centre, qualitative, feasibility study was followed by a multicentre, two-arm (brief behavioural intervention vs. treatment as usual), individually randomised controlled pilot trial with an embedded qualitative process evaluation. Focus groups and a quantitative survey were employed to characterise treatment as usual in preoperative assessment.

SETTING

The feasibility study took place at a secondary care hospital in the north-east of England. The pilot trial was conducted at three large secondary care centres in the north-east of England.

PARTICIPANTS

Nine health-care professionals and 15 patients (mean age 70.5 years, 86.7% male) participated in the feasibility study. Eleven health-care professionals and 68 patients (mean age 66.2 years, 80.9% male) participated in the pilot randomised trial. An additional 19 health-care professionals were recruited to one of three focus groups, while 62 completed an electronic survey to characterise treatment as usual.

INTERVENTIONS

The brief behavioural intervention comprised two sessions. The first session, delivered face to face in the preoperative assessment clinic, involved 5 minutes of structured brief advice followed by 15-20 minutes of behaviour change counselling, including goal-setting, problem-solving and identifying sources of social support. The second session, an optional booster, took place approximately 1 week before surgery and offered the opportunity to assess progress and boost self-efficacy.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Feasibility was assessed using rates of eligibility, recruitment and retention. The progression criteria for a definitive trial were recruitment of ≥ 40% of eligible patients and retention of ≥ 70% at 6-month follow-up. Acceptability was assessed using themes identified in qualitative data.

RESULTS

The initial recruitment of eligible patients was low but improved with the optimisation of recruitment processes. The recruitment of eligible participants to the pilot trial (34%) fell short of the progression criteria but was mitigated by very high retention (96%) at the 6-month follow-up. Multimethod analyses identified the methods as acceptable to the patients and professionals involved and offers recommendations of ways to further improve recruitment.

CONCLUSIONS

The evidence supports the feasibility of a definitive trial to assess the effectiveness of brief behavioural intervention in reducing preoperative alcohol consumption and for secondary outcomes of surgical complications if recommendations for further improvements are adopted.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN36257982.

FUNDING

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 24, No. 12. See the National Institute for Health Research Journals Library website for further project information.

Individual health trainers to support health and well-being for people under community supervision in the criminal justice system: the STRENGTHEN pilot RCT

Background

Little is known about the effectiveness or cost-effectiveness of interventions, such as health trainer support, to improve the health and well-being of people recently released from prison or serving a community sentence, because of the challenges in recruiting participants and following them up.

Objectives

This pilot trial aimed to assess the acceptability and feasibility of the trial methods and intervention (and associated costs) for a randomised trial to assess the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of health trainer support versus usual care.

Design

This trial involved a pilot multicentre, parallel, two-group randomised controlled trial recruiting 120 participants with 1 : 1 individual allocation to receive support from a health trainer and usual care or usual care alone, with a mixed-methods process evaluation, in 2017–18.

Setting

Participants were identified, screened and recruited in Community Rehabilitation Companies in Plymouth and Manchester or the National Probation Service in Plymouth. The intervention was delivered in the community.

Participants

Those who had been out of prison for at least 2 months (to allow community stabilisation), with at least 7 months of a community sentence remaining, were invited to participate; those who may have posed an unacceptable risk to the researchers and health trainers and those who were not interested in the trial or intervention support were excluded.

Interventions

The intervention group received, in addition to usual care, our person-centred health trainer support in one-to-one sessions for up to 14 weeks, either in person or via telephone. Health trainers aimed to empower participants to make healthy lifestyle changes (particularly in alcohol use, smoking, diet and physical activity) and take on the Five Ways to Well-being [Foresight Projects. Mental Capital and Wellbeing: Final Project Report. 2008. URL: www.gov.uk/government/publications/mental-capital-and-wellbeing-making-the-most-of-ourselves-in-the-21st-century (accessed 24 January 2019).], and also signposted to other options for support. The control group received treatment as usual, defined by available community and public service options for improving health and well-being.

Main outcome measures

The main outcomes included the Warwick–Edinburgh Mental Well-being Scale scores, alcohol use, smoking behaviour, dietary behaviour, physical activity, substance use, resource use, quality of life, intervention costs, intervention engagement and feasibility and acceptability of trial methods and the intervention.

Results

A great deal about recruitment was learned and the target of 120 participants was achieved. The minimum trial retention target at 6 months (60%) was met. Among those offered health trainer support, 62% had at least two sessions. The mixed-methods process evaluation generally supported the trial methods and intervention acceptability and feasibility. The proposed primary outcome, the Warwick–Edinburgh Mental Well-being Scale scores, provided us with valuable data to estimate the sample size for a full trial in which to test the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the intervention.

Conclusions

Based on the findings from this pilot trial, a full trial (with some modifications) seems justified, with a sample size of around 900 participants to detect between-group differences in the Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-being Scale scores at a 6-month follow-up.

Future work

A number of recruitment, trial retention, intervention engagement and blinding issues were identified in this pilot and recommendations are made in preparation of and within a full trial.

Trial registration

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN80475744.

Funding

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research Public Health Research programme and will be published in full in Public Health Research; Vol. 7, No. 20. See the National Institute for Health Research Journals Library website for further project information.

Brief alcohol intervention for risky drinking in young people aged 14–15 years in secondary schools: the SIPS JR-HIGH RCT

Background

Adverse effects from young people’s alcohol consumption manifest in a range of physical and psychosocial factors, including neurological issues, cognitive impairment and risk-taking behaviours. The SIPS JR-HIGH pilot trial showed alcohol screening and brief intervention (ASBI) to be acceptable to young people and schools in the north-east of England.

Objectives

To conduct a two-arm, individually randomised controlled trial to evaluate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of ASBI for risky drinking in young people aged 14–15 years in the school setting, to monitor the fidelity of ASBI and to explore the barriers to, and facilitators of, implementation with staff, young people and parents.

Design

A baseline survey with a 12-month follow-up. Interviews with 30 school staff, 21 learning mentors and nine teachers, and 33 young people and two parents.

Setting

Thirty state schools in four areas of England: north-east, north-west, Kent and London.

Participants

Year 10 school pupils who consented to the study (aged 14–15 years, recruited between November 2015 and June 2016), school-based staff and parents of the young people who took part in the study.

Interventions

Young people who screened positively on a single alcohol screening question and consented were randomised to the intervention or control arm (blinded). The intervention was a 30-minute one-to-one structured brief intervention with a trained learning mentor and an alcohol leaflet. The control group received a healthy lifestyle leaflet (no alcohol information).

Main outcome measures

The primary outcome measure was total alcohol consumed in the last 28 days. Secondary outcomes related to risky drinking, general psychological health, sexual risk-taking, energy drink consumption, age of first smoking, quality of life, quality-adjusted life-years, service utilisation and demographic information.

Results

A total of 4523 young people completed the baseline survey, with 1064 screening positively (24%) and 443 being eligible to take part in the trial. Of those 443, 233 (53%) were randomised to the control arm and 210 were randomised to the intervention arm. Of the 443, 374 (84%) were successfully followed up at 12 months (intervention, n = 178; control, n = 196). The results were that the intervention showed no evidence of benefit for any alcohol-related measure when compared with the control arm. At 12 months we found a reduction from 61.9% to 43.3% using the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test cut-off point of 8 and cut-off point of 4 (69.0% to 60.7%). These results were not significant. A cost-effectiveness analysis showed that the average net cost saving of the brief intervention was £2865 (95% confidence interval –£11,272 to £2707) per year compared with usual practice, with the intervention showing a 76% probability of being cost saving compared with usual practice. The interview findings showed that school was an acceptable setting to carry out ASBI among staff and young people.

Limitations

Recruitment of parents to take part in interviews was poor. Only 18 ASBI sessions were recorded, making it difficult to assess internal validity.

Conclusions

Although the intervention was ineffective in reducing risky drinking in young people aged 14–15 years, it was well received by the young people and school staff who participated.

Future work

Uniform reporting of the outcomes used for ASBI would generate more robust conclusions on the effectiveness of ASBI in the future. Pilot feasibility studies should include more than one geographical area. Future work on involving parents is needed.

Trial registration

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN45691494.

Funding

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Public Health Research programme and will be published in full in Public Health Research; Vol. 7, No. 9. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Health trainer-led motivational intervention plus usual care for people under community supervision compared with usual care alone: a study protocol for a parallel-group pilot randomised controlled trial (STRENGTHEN)

INTRODUCTION

People with experience of the criminal justice system typically have worse physical and mental health, lower levels of mental well-being and have less healthy lifestyles than the general population. Health trainers have worked with offenders in the community to provide support for lifestyle change, enhance mental well-being and signpost to appropriate services. There has been no rigorous evaluation of the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of providing such community support. This study aims to determine the feasibility and acceptability of conducting a randomised trial and delivering a health trainer intervention to people receiving community supervision in the UK.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

A multicentre, parallel, two-group randomised controlled trial recruiting 120 participants with 1:1 individual allocation to receive support from a health trainer and usual care or usual care alone, with mixed methods process evaluation. Participants receive community supervision from an offender manager in either a Community Rehabilitation Company or the National Probation Service. If they have served a custodial sentence, then they have to have been released for at least 2 months. The supervision period must have at least 7 months left at recruitment. Participants are interested in receiving support to change diet, physical activity, alcohol use and smoking and/or improve mental well-being. The primary outcome is mental well-being with secondary outcomes related to smoking, physical activity, alcohol consumption and diet. The primary outcome will inform sample size calculations for a definitive trial.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The study has been approved by the Health and Care Research Wales Ethics Committee (REC reference 16/WA/0171). Dissemination will include publication of the intervention development process and findings for the stated outcomes, parallel process evaluation and economic evaluation in peer-reviewed journals. Results will also be disseminated to stakeholders and trial participants.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBERS

ISRCTN80475744; Pre-results.

Using Bayes factors to evaluate evidence for no effect: examples from the SIPS project

AIMS

To illustrate how Bayes factors are important for determining the effectiveness of interventions.

METHOD

We consider a case where inappropriate conclusions were drawn publicly based on significance testing, namely the SIPS project (Screening and Intervention Programme for Sensible drinking), a pragmatic, cluster-randomized controlled trial in each of two health-care settings and in the criminal justice system. We show how Bayes factors can disambiguate the non-significant findings from the SIPS project and thus determine whether the findings represent evidence of absence or absence of evidence. We show how to model the sort of effects that could be expected, and how to check the robustness of the Bayes factors.

RESULTS

The findings from the three SIPS trials taken individually are largely uninformative but, when data from these trials are combined, there is moderate evidence for a null hypothesis (H0) and thus for a lack of effect of brief intervention compared with simple clinical feedback and an alcohol information leaflet (B = 0.24, P = 0.43).

CONCLUSION

Scientists who find non-significant results should suspend judgement-unless they calculate a Bayes factor to indicate either that there is evidence for a null hypothesis (H0) over a (well-justified) alternative hypothesis (H1), or that more data are needed.

Alcohol screening and brief intervention in workplace settings and social services: a comparison of literature

BACKGROUND

The robust evidence base for the effectiveness of alcohol screening and brief interventions (ASBIs) in primary health care (PHC) suggests that a widespread expansion of ASBI in non-medical settings could be beneficial. Social service and criminal justice settings work frequently with persons with alcohol use disorders, and workplace settings can be an appropriate setting for the implementation of alcohol prevention programs, as a considerable part of their social interactions takes place in this context.

METHODS

Update of two systematic reviews on ASBI effectiveness in workplaces, social service, and criminal justice settings. Review to identify implementation barriers and facilitators and future research needs of ASBI in non-medical settings.

RESULTS

We found a limited number of randomized controlled trials in non-medical settings with an equivocal evidence of effectiveness of ASBI. In terms of barriers and facilitators to implementation, the heterogeneity of non-medical settings makes it challenging to draw overarching conclusions. In the workplace, employee concerns with regard to the consequences of self-disclosure appear to be key. For social services, the complexity of certain client needs suggest that a stepped and carefully tailored approach is likely to be required.

DISCUSSION

Compared to PHC, the reviewed settings are far more heterogeneous in terms of client groups, external conditions, and the focus on substance use disorders. Thus, future research should try to systematize these differences, and consider their implications for the deliverability, acceptance, and potential effectiveness of ASBI for different target groups, organizational frameworks, and professionals.

Alcohol screening and brief interventions for offenders in the probation setting (SIPS Trial): a pragmatic multicentre cluster randomized controlled trial

AIM

To evaluate the effectiveness of different brief intervention strategies at reducing hazardous or harmful drinking in the probation setting. Offender managers were randomized to three interventions, each of which built on the previous one: feedback on screening outcome and a client information leaflet control group, 5 min of structured brief advice and 20 min of brief lifestyle counselling.

METHODS

A pragmatic multicentre factorial cluster randomized controlled trial. The primary outcome was self-reported hazardous or harmful drinking status measured by Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT) at 6 months (negative status was a score of <8). Secondary outcomes were AUDIT status at 12 months, experience of alcohol-related problems, health utility, service utilization, readiness to change and reduction in conviction rates.

RESULTS

Follow-up rates were 68% at 6 months and 60% at 12 months. At both time points, there was no significant advantage of more intensive interventions compared with the control group in terms of AUDIT status. Those in the brief advice and brief lifestyle counselling intervention groups were statistically significantly less likely to reoffend (36 and 38%, respectively) than those in the client information leaflet group (50%) in the year following intervention.

CONCLUSION

Brief advice or brief lifestyle counselling provided no additional benefit in reducing hazardous or harmful drinking compared with feedback on screening outcome and a client information leaflet. The impact of more intensive brief intervention on reoffending warrants further research.

The effectiveness of alcohol screening and brief intervention in emergency departments: a multicentre pragmatic cluster randomized controlled trial

Background

Alcohol misuse is common in people attending emergency departments (EDs) and there is some evidence of efficacy of alcohol screening and brief interventions (SBI). This study investigated the effectiveness of SBI approaches of different intensities delivered by ED staff in nine typical EDs in England: the SIPS ED trial.

Methods and Findings

Pragmatic multicentre cluster randomized controlled trial of SBI for hazardous and harmful drinkers presenting to ED. Nine EDs were randomized to three conditions: a patient information leaflet (PIL), 5 minutes of brief advice (BA), and referral to an alcohol health worker who provided 20 minutes of brief lifestyle counseling (BLC). The primary outcome measure was the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT) status at 6 months. Of 5899 patients aged 18 or more presenting to EDs, 3737 (63·3%) were eligible to participate and 1497 (40·1%) screened positive for hazardous or harmful drinking, of whom 1204 (80·4%) gave consent to participate in the trial. Follow up rates were 72% (n = 863) at six, and 67% (n = 810) at 12 months. There was no evidence of any differences between intervention conditions for AUDIT status or any other outcome measures at months 6 or 12 in an intention to treat analysis. At month 6, compared to the PIL group, the odds ratio of being AUDIT negative for brief advice was 1·103 (95% CI 0·328 to 3·715). The odds ratio comparing BLC to PIL was 1·247 (95% CI 0·315 to 4·939). A per protocol analysis confirmed these findings.

Conclusions

SBI is difficult to implement in typical EDs. The results do not support widespread implementation of alcohol SBI in ED beyond screening followed by simple clinical feedback and alcohol information, which is likely to be easier and less expensive to implement than more complex interventions.

Trial Registration

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN 93681536

Alcohol education and training in pre-registration nursing: a national survey to determine curriculum content in the United Kingdom (UK)

BACKGROUND

Alcohol-related harm impacts significantly on the health of the population. Nurses are often among the first health professionals that many patients with alcohol-related problems come into contact with and have been identified as playing a key role but may be ill-prepared to respond. Future nurses need to have the skills, knowledge and clinical confidence to respond to patients suffering from alcohol-related harm. A pre-registration curriculum that ensures a nursing workforce fit for practice in responding to alcohol-related harm is necessary.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the level of alcohol education and training content in the pre-registration curriculum for nursing in the United Kingdom (UK). To establish whether there are variations in the pre-registration curriculum content across the UK.

DESIGN

A descriptive study.

SETTING

All 68 UK Higher Education Institutions offering a total of 111 pre-registration courses for nurses were invited to participate in the study.

PARTICIPANTS

Twenty nine completed questionnaires were returned, a response rate of 26%. The largest number of identified responders were from England (n=15), with 3 from Scotland and 1 each from Wales and Northern Ireland. Nine Universities chose not to identify themselves.

METHODS

An online semi-structured questionnaire survey was used to collect the study data.

RESULTS

Teaching of alcohol and alcohol related harm was mainly delivered during the second year of a pre-registration nursing programme provided mainly to adult and mental health students. Overall, the majority of alcohol related content that is provided within the responding pre-registration nursing courses relates to biophysiology, aetiology, and pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions.

CONCLUSION

This study highlights the need for a greater and more relevant focus of alcohol education to pre-registration nursing students of all fields of practice incorporating an integrated approach across all years of study.

Health on the web: randomised trial of work-based online screening and brief intervention for hazardous and harmful drinking

Background

Alcohol misuse is a significant international public health problem. Screening and brief intervention (SBI) in primary care reduces alcohol consumption by about 15 – 30%, sustained over 12 months in hazardous or harmful drinkers but implementation has proved difficult leading to growing interest in exploring the effectiveness of SBI in other settings, including the workplace. Computerised interventions for alcohol misuse can be as effective as traditional face-to-face interventions and may have advantages, including anonymity, convenience and availability.

Methods/design

Individually randomised controlled trial to determine the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of offering online screening and brief intervention for alcohol misuse in a workplace. Participants: adults (aged 18 or over) employed by participating employers scoring 5 or more on a three item screen for alcohol misuse (the AUDIT-C) indicating possible hazardous or harmful alcohol consumption, recruited through the offer of an online health check providing screening for a range of health behaviours with personalised feedback. Participants who accept the health check and score 5 or more on the alcohol screen will be randomised to receiving immediate feedback on their alcohol consumption and access to an online intervention offering support in reducing alcohol consumption (Down Your Drink) or delayed feedback and access to Down Your Drink after completion of follow-up data at three months. All employees who take the online health check will receive personalised feedback on other screened health behaviours including diet, physical activity, smoking, and body mass index. The primary outcome is alcohol consumption in the past week at three months; secondary outcomes are the AUDIT, EQ-5D, days off work, number and duration of hospital admissions, costs and use of the intervention. A sample size of 1,472 participants (736 in each arm) provides 90% power with 5% significance to determine a 20% reduction in alcohol consumption. Outcomes between groups at three months will be compared following the intention to treat principle and economic analyses will follow NICE guidance.

Discussion

This innovative design avoids recruitment bias by not mentioning alcohol in the invitation and avoids reactivity of assessment by not collecting baseline data on alcohol consumption.

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.

Brief intervention to prevent hazardous drinking in young people aged 14-15 in a high school setting (SIPS JR-HIGH): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Background

Whilst the overall proportion of young people drinking alcohol in the United Kingdom has decreased in recent years, those who do drink appear to drink a larger amount, and more frequently. Early and heavy drinking by younger adolescents is a significant public health problem linked to intellectual impairment, increased risk of injuries, mental health issues, unprotected or regretted sexual experience, violence, and sometimes accidental death, which leads to high social and economic costs. This feasibility pilot trial aims to explore the feasibility of delivering brief alcohol intervention in a school setting with adolescents aged 14 and 15 and to examine the acceptability of study measures to school staff, young people and parents.

Methods and design

Seven schools across one geographical area in the North East of England will be recruited. Schools will be randomly allocated to one of three conditions: provision of an advice leaflet (control condition, n = 2 schools); a 30-minute brief interactive session, which combines structured advice and motivational interviewing techniques delivered by the school learning mentor (level 1 condition, n = 2 schools); and a 60-minute session involving family members delivered by the school learning mentor (level 2 condition, n = 3 schools). Participants will be year 10 school pupils (aged 14 and 15) who screen positively on a single alcohol screening question and who consent to take part in the trial. Year 10 pupils in all seven schools will be followed up at 6 and 12 months. Secondary outcome measures include the ten-question Alcohol-Use Disorders Identification Test. The EQ-5D-Y and a modified short service use questionnaire will inform the health and social resource costs for any future economic evaluation.

Young people recruited into the trial will also complete a 28-day timeline follow back questionnaire at 12-month follow-up. A qualitative evaluation (with young people, school staff, learning mentors, and parents) will examine facilitators and barriers to the use of screening and brief intervention approaches in the school setting in this age group.

Trial registration

Trial reference number ISRCTN07073105

Individual-level interventions for alcohol-related violence: a rapid evidence assessment

BACKGROUND

Alcohol-related violence is of major concern to society. Around half of all violent crimes are alcohol related, and yet interventions for alcohol-related violence are under-developed. Often, offenders receive treatment for substance use or violence, but not the two in nexus.

AIM

My aim was to conduct a Rapid Evidence Assessment of interventions with a focus on treating established nonsexual violence in the context of alcohol use, to describe the content of these interventions, where they take place and their effectiveness in reducing alcohol problems and/or violence.

METHODS

The electronic databases Embase, Medline, National Criminal Justice Reference Service, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature were searched together with the Campbell Collaboration; Cochrane Reviews and selected government websites using terms for alcohol, violence and treatment/interventions. The search excluded sexual and intimate partner violence. The focus was on psychosocial interventions with people already in difficulties, not prevention. All empirical study types with people of any age and in any setting (criminal justice, health, social services or education) were included. The principal outcomes of interest were change in alcohol use, violence and alcohol-related violence.

RESULTS

Only four studies of two different interventions were identified. Control of Violence for Angry Impulsive Drinkers has been evaluated with small samples using a nonequivalent comparison group and a single case methodology. Changes were evident on measures of alcohol-related aggression. In a randomised controlled trial, SafERteens participants showed greater improvements in attitudes to alcohol and violence compared with a leaflet only condition.

DISCUSSION

Directions for developing interventions based on alcohol and aggression research are discussed. Interventions targeting primarily alcohol consumption, primarily violence and alcohol-related violence in nexus should be compared. In evaluating these interventions, robust outcome measures should be used across studies to allow comparisons to be made.

CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS

Skills for coping with perceived provocation may be taught, so that nonviolent options are available and so that they become more accessible when people are under the influence of alcohol. Alcohol's effect on reducing self-awareness may be counteracted by teaching mindfulness techniques and the ability to 'act sober' in provocative situations. Setting individual implementation intentions may facilitate harm avoidance in high-risk social situations through preplanning of specific sensible behavioural strategies.

The case for extended brief interventions

Brief interventions directed against hazardous and harmful drinking have become popular in recent years, both among researchers and, to some extent, among general practitioners and other health professionals. There is a strong evidence-base, at least in primary health care, to justify this popularity. But there is often confusion about what exactly alcohol brief intervention consists of. In fact, the term ‘brief intervention’ does not describe a single, well-defined activity but rather a family of interventions that differ in a range of ways. Although they all share the characteristics of being briefer than most formal treatment programmes for alcohol problems and of being aimed at drinkers with less severe problems and levels of dependence than those typically attending specialized treatment services, brief interventions differ among themselves in duration over time, number of scheduled sessions, procedures and accompanying materials, styles of interaction, delivery personnel and settings, and the underlying theoretical approach on which they are based.