Search

Background: Electronic screening and brief intervention (e-SBI) is a promising alternative to screening and brief intervention by health-care providers, but its efficacy in the hospital outpatient setting, which serves a large proportion of the population, has not been established. The aim of this study is to estimate the effect of e-SBI in hospital outpatients with hazardous or harmful drinking. Methods/Design: This randomized controlled trial will be conducted in the outpatient department of a large tertiary referral hospital in Newcastle (population 540,000), Australia. Some 772 adults with appointments at a broad range of medical and surgical outpatient clinics who score 5-9 inclusive on the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test-Consumption (AUDIT-C) subscale will be randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to electronic alcohol screening alone (control) or to e-SBI. As randomization will be effected by computer, researchers and participants (who will be invited to participate in a study of alcohol use over time) will be blinded to group assignment. The primary analysis will be based on the intention-to-treat principle and compare weekly volume (grams of alcohol) and the full AUDIT score with a six-month reference period between the groups six months post randomization. Secondary outcomes, assessed six and 12 months after randomization, will include drinking frequency, typical occasion quantity, proportion who report binge drinking, proportion who report heavy drinking, and health-care utilization. Discussion: If e-SBI is efficacious in outpatient settings, it offers the prospect of systematically and sustainably reaching a large number of hazardous and harmful drinkers, many of whom do not otherwise seek or receive help. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims Like many indigenous peoples, New Zealand Māori bear a heavy burden of alcohol-related harm relative to their non-indigenous compatriots, and disparities are greatest among young adults. We tested the effectiveness of web-based alcohol screening and brief intervention (e- SBI) for reducing hazardous drinking among Māori university students. Design Parallel, double-blind, multi-site, randomized controlled trial. Setting Seven of New Zealand's eight universities. Participants In April 2010, we sent e-mail invitations to all 6697 17-24-year-old Māori students to complete a brief web questionnaire including the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test ( AUDIT)- C, a screening tool for hazardous and harmful drinking. Those screening positive were computer randomized to: <10 minutes of web-based alcohol assessment and personalized feedback (intervention) or screening alone (control). Measurements We conducted a fully automated 5-month follow-up assessment with observers and participants blinded to study hypotheses, design and intervention delivery. Pre-determined primary outcomes were: (i) frequency of drinking, (ii) amount consumed per typical drinking occasion, (iii) overall volume of alcohol consumed and (iv) academic problems. Findings Of the participants, 1789 were hazardous or harmful drinkers ( AUDIT- C ≥ 4) and were randomized: 850 to control, 939 to intervention. Follow-up assessments were completed by 682 controls (80%) and 733 intervention group members (78%). Relative to controls, participants receiving intervention drank less often [ RR = 0.89; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.82-0.97], less per drinking occasion ( RR = 0.92; 95% CI: 0.84-1.00), less overall ( RR = 0.78; 95% CI: 0.69-0.89) and had fewer academic problems ( RR = 0.81; 95% CI: 0.69-0.95). Conclusions Web-based screening and brief intervention reduced hazardous and harmful drinking among non-help-seeking Māori students in a large-scale pragmatic trial. The study has wider implications for behavioural intervention in the important but neglected area of indigenous health. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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 (I2 = 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. [Kaner EFS, Dickinson HO, Beyer F, Pienaar E, Schlesinger C, Campbell F, Saunders JB, Burnand B, Heather N. The effectiveness of brief alcohol interventions in primary care settings: A systematic review. Drug Alcohol Rev 2009;28:301–323] [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Context The concept that assessment of a person's health status without subsequent intervention has beneficial effects in itself has stimulated much interest in underlying psychological mechanisms, methodological implications and its public health potential. There have, however, been few experimental studies of assessment effects. Aim To test the hypothesis that assessment in itself produces a reduction in hazardous drinking. Design and setting Two conditions (group A, leaflet only and group B, leaflet and assessment but no intervention) of a four-arm randomized controlled trial with enrolment in March–April 2003. Participants A total of 975 students (17–29 years) attending a primary health-care clinic completed a web-based Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT) questionnaire. Of 599 who scored ≥ 8576 consented to follow-up and were included in the full four-arm trial, of whom 293 (153 women) were assigned to groups A and B. Intervention Group A received an information leaflet at baseline. Group B received the information leaflet and 10 minutes of web-based assessment 4 weeks later. Measurements Drinking frequency, typical quantity, heavy episode frequency, personal problems and academic problems. Findings Baseline mean AUDIT scores were 15.0 (SD = 5.4) and 14.9 (SD = 5.0) in groups A and B, respectively. Twelve months after baseline, relative to group A, group B reported lower overall consumption (geometric means ratio 0.82, 95% CI: 0.68–0.98), fewer heavy drinking episodes (0.66, 0.47–0.91), fewer problems (0.81, 0.67–0.99) and lower AUDIT scores (beta = −1.63, −0.62 to −2.65). Conclusions Brief assessment appeared to reduce hazardous drinking. Controlled trials that rely on assessment may therefore underestimate treatment effects. Limitations include the possibility of measurement artefact due to social desirability bias. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The present study sought to replicate and extend a small pilot study conducted by Baker, Boggs&Lewin (2001) which demonstrated that brief interventions consisting of motivational interviewing and cognitive-behaviour therapy (CBT) were feasible and associated with better outcomes compared with a control condition.Randomized controlled trial (RCT).Greater Brisbane Region of Queensland and Newcastle, NSW, Australia.The study was conducted among 214 regular amphetamine users.Demographic characteristics, past and present alcohol and other drug use and mental health, treatment, amphetamine-related harms and severity of dependence.The main finding of this study was that there was a significant increase in the likelihood of abstinence from amphetamines among those receiving two or more treatment sessions. In addition, the number of treatment sessions attended had a significant short-term beneficial effect on level of depression. There were no intervention effects on any other variables (HIV risk-taking, crime, social functioning and health). Overall, there was a marked reduction in amphetamine use among this sample over time and, apart from abstinence rates and short-term effects on depression level, this was not differential by treatment group. Reduction in amphetamine use was accompanied by significant improvements in stage of change, benzodiazepine use, tobacco smoking, polydrug use, injecting risk-taking behaviour, criminal activity level, and psychiatric distress and depression level.A stepped-care approach is recommended. The first step in providing an effective intervention among many regular amphetamine users, particularly those attending non-treatment settings, may include provision of: a structured assessment of amphetamine use and related problems; self-help material; and regular monitoring of amphetamine use and related harms. Regular amphetamine users who present to treatment settings could be offered two sessions of CBT, while people with moderate to severe levels of depression may best be offered four sessions of CBT for amphetamine use from the outset, with further treatment for amphetamine use and/or depression depending on response. Pharmacotherapy and/or longer-term psychotherapy may be suitable for non-responders. An RCT of a stepped-care approach among regular amphetamine users is suggested. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Strong evidence exists for the efficacy of screening and brief intervention for reducing hazardous drinking. However, problems have been highlighted with respect to its implementation in health-care systems, not least of which is a reluctance of some doctors to discuss alcohol proactively with their patients.To determine the efficacy of a novel web-based screening and brief intervention (e-SBI) to reduce hazardous drinking.A double-blind randomized controlled trial.A university student health service.A total of 167 students (17–26 years) were recruited in the reception area and completed a 3-minute web-based screen including the Alcohol Use Disorder Identifiation Test (AUDIT) questionnaire. Of these, 112 tested positive, and 104 (52 females) who consented to follow-up were included in the trial.Drinking frequency, typical occasion quantity, total volume, heavy episode frequency (females>80 g ethanol, males>120 g ethanol), number of personal problems, an academic problems score.Participants were randomized to 10–15 minutes of web-based assessment and personalized feedback on their drinking (intervention,n = 51) or to a leaflet-only control group (n = 53).Mean baseline AUDIT scores for control and intervention groups were 16.6 (SD = 6.0) and 16.6 (SD = 5.7). At 6 weeks, participants receiving e-SBI reported significantly lower total consumption (geometric mean ratio = 0.74; 95% confidence interval: 0.56–0.96), lower heavy episode frequency (0.63; 0.42–0.92) and fewer personal problems (0.70; 0.54–0.91). At 6 months personal problems remained lower (0.76; 0.60–0.97), although consumption did not differ significantly. At 6 months, academic problems were lower in the intervention group relative to controls (0.72; 0.51–1.02).e-SBI reduced hazardous drinking among university students, to an extent similar to that found for practitioner-delivered brief interventions in the general population. e-SBI offers promise as a strategy to reduce alcohol-related harm in a way that is non-intrusive, appealing to the target group, and capable of being incorporated into primary care. Research is required to replicate the findings, to determine the duration of intervention effects, and to investigate the mechanisms by which the intervention operates. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Substance misuse is common in early psychosis, and impacts negatively on outcomes. Little is known about effective interventions for this population. We report a pilot study of brief intervention for substance misuse in early psychosis (Start Over and Survive: SOS), comparing it with Standard Care (SC). Twenty-five in-patients aged 18 - 35 years with early psychosis and current misuse of non-opioid drugs were allocated randomly to conditions. Substance use and related problems were assessed at baseline, 6 weeks and 3, 6 and 12 months. Final assessments were blind to condition. All 13 SOS participants who proceeded to motivational interviewing reported less substance use at 6 months, compared with 58% (7/12) in SC alone. Effects were well maintained to 12 months. However, more SOS participants lived with a relative or partner, and this also was associated with better outcomes. Engagement remained challenging: 39% (16/41) declined participation and 38% (5/13) in SOS only received rapport building. Further research will increase sample size, and address both engagement and potential confounds. [Kavanagh DJ, Young R, White A, Saunders JB, Wallis J, Shockley N, Jenner L, Clair A. A brief motivational intervention for substance misuse in recent-onset psychosis. Drug Alcohol Rev 2004;23:151 - 155] [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Most trials of electronic alcohol screening and brief intervention (e-SBI) have been conducted in young people. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of e-SBI in adults with hazardous or harmful drinking.Methods: This individually randomized, parallel, two-group, double-blind controlled trial was conducted in the outpatient department of a large public hospital in Australia. Consenting adults who scored 5-9 on the AUDIT-C (837/3225; 26%) were randomized in a 1:1 ratio by computer to screening alone (442/837; 53%) or to 10 min of assessment and personalized feedback on their alcohol consumption (comparisons with medical guidelines and age and sex-specific norms), peak blood alcohol concentration, expenditure on alcohol, and risk of alcohol dependence (395/837; 47%). The two primary outcomes, assessed six months after randomization, were the number of standard drinks (10 g ethanol) consumed by participants in the last seven days and their AUDIT score.Results: 693/837 (83%) and 635/837 (76%) participants were followed-up at 6 and 12 months, respectively. There was no statistically significant difference between the groups in the median number of standard drinks consumed in the last seven days (intervention: 12; control: 10.5; rate ratio, 1.12 [95% confidence interval, 0.96-1.31]; P = .17) or in their median AUDIT score (intervention: 7; control: 7; mean difference, 0.28 [-0.42 to 0.98]; P = .44).Conclusion: These results do not support the implementation of an e-SBI program comprising personalized feedback and normative feedback for adults with hazardous or harmful drinking in the hospital outpatient setting. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: A large proportion of hospital outpatients are alcohol dependent (AD) but few are engaged in treatment for their drinking. Brief intervention, designed to raise patients' awareness of their drinking, might encourage uptake of referral to specialty treatment. We assessed the feasibility of conducting a randomized trial evaluating the effectiveness of electronic brief intervention on the uptake of specialty treatment in hospital outpatients with likely AD.Methods: This study was conducted in the outpatient department of a large public hospital in Newcastle, Australia. We randomly assigned adults who scored ≥10 on the AUDIT-C and were not currently receiving treatment for their drinking to electronic brief intervention (comprising an assessment of their drinking and personalized feedback) and referral (n = 59), or to referral alone (n = 64). We pre-specified two co-primary outcomes as the proportions of patients who (1) accepted and (2) attended a Drug and Alcohol outpatient clinic appointment. We interviewed 15 study participants to investigate why they had declined the appointment and what sort of help they might prefer to receive.Results: Ten patients (five in each group) accepted an appointment, and one patient (control) attended. Most interviewees' did not see their drinking as a problem or were confident they could manage it by themselves. Those who identified a preferred source of help expressed a preference for treatment by a GP.Conclusion: Uptake of specialty treatment in hospital outpatients with likely AD was low regardless of whether they received brief intervention. Accordingly, a large randomized trial does not appear to be feasible. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]