Search

Your search keyword '"Boniface, Sadie"' showing total 84 results
Start Over Author "Boniface, Sadie"
84 results on '"Boniface, Sadie"'

51. Multicentre individual randomised controlled trial of screening and brief alcohol intervention to prevent risky drinking in young people aged 14-15 in a high school setting (SIPS JR-HIGH):Study protocol

Author

Giles, Emma L., Coulton, Simon, Deluca, Paolo, Drummond, Colin, Howel, Denise, Kaner, Eileen, McColl, Elaine, McGovern, Ruth, Scott, Stephanie, Stamp, Elaine, Sumnall, Harry, Tate, Les, Todd, Liz, Vale, Luke, Albani, Viviana, Boniface, Sadie, Ferguson, Jennifer, Frankham, Jo, Gilvarry, Eilish, Hendrie, Nadine, Howe, Nicola, McGeechan, Grant J, Stanley, Grant, and Newbury-Birch, Dorothy

Subjects
Counseling, Male, Adolescent, Alcohol Drinking, School Setting, education, Health Promotion, Brief Intervention, Risk-Taking, RA0421, Surveys and Questionnaires, London, Protocol, Humans, Mass Screening, Students, School Health Services, Schools, Mentors, Alcoholism, England, Adolescent Behavior, Research Design, Female, Public Health, HV5001, Alcohol, Alcoholic Intoxication, Randomised Controlled Trial
Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Drinking has adverse impacts on health, well-being, education and social outcomes for adolescents. Adolescents in England are among the heaviest drinkers in Europe. Recently, the proportion of adolescents who drink alcohol has fallen, although consumption among those who do drink has actually increased. This trial seeks to investigate how effective and efficient an alcohol brief intervention is with 11-15 years olds to encourage lower alcohol consumption. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This is an individually randomised two-armed trial incorporating a control arm of usual school-based practice and a leaflet on a healthy lifestyle (excl. alcohol), and an intervention arm that combines usual practice with a 30 min brief intervention delivered by school learning mentors and a leaflet on alcohol. At least 30 schools will be recruited from four regions in England (North East, North West, London, Kent and Medway) to follow-up 235 per arm. The primary outcome is total alcohol consumed in the last 28 days, using the 28 day Timeline Follow Back questionnaire measured at the 12-month follow-up. The analysis of the intervention will consider effectiveness and cost-effectiveness. A qualitative study will explore, via 1:1 in-depth interviews with (n=80) parents, young people and school staff, intervention experience, intervention fidelity and acceptability issues, using thematic narrative synthesis to report qualitative data. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval was granted by Teesside University. Dissemination plans include academic publications, conference presentations, disseminating to local and national education departments and the wider public health community, including via Fuse, and engaging with school staff and young people to comment on whether and how the project can be improved. TRIAL REGISTRATION TRIAL: ISRCTN45691494; Pre-results.

Published
2016

53. Opportunistic screening for alcohol use problems in adolescents attending emergency departments: an evaluation of screening tools

Author

Coulton, Simon, primary, Alam, M Fasihul, additional, Boniface, Sadie, additional, Deluca, Paolo, additional, Donoghue, Kim, additional, Gilvarry, Eilish, additional, Kaner, Eileen, additional, Lynch, Ellen, additional, Maconochie, Ian, additional, McArdle, Paul, additional, McGovern, Ruth, additional, Newbury-Birch, Dorothy, additional, Patton, Robert, additional, Phillips, Ceri J, additional, Phillips, Thomas, additional, Rose, Hannah, additional, Russell, Ian, additional, Strang, John, additional, and Drummond, Colin, additional

Published
2018
Full Text
View/download PDF

55. Do older adults drink alcohol whilst taking alcohol-interactive medication? Prevalence and ten-year mortality risk: findings from the UK Whitehall II cohort study.

Author

Wu, Yuxuan, Evans, Eloise, Boniface, Sadie, and Britton, Annie

Subjects
*ALCOHOLISM, *OLDER people, *ALCOHOL drinking, *COHORT analysis, *MORTALITY
Abstract

AbstractBackgroundAimsMethodsResultsConclusionOlder people commonly take prescribed medications, some of which are contra-indicated with alcohol. Few population-based studies have assessed the relationship between taking these medicines, different levels of alcohol use, and potential harm.To investigate the prevalence of taking alcohol-interactive (AI) medication and alcohol consumption among older adults and to compare the ten-year mortality risk among different categories of drinkers.Data were obtained from 6220 participants (mean age 70, 71% male) within the UK Whitehall II cohort study of civil servants from phase 11 (2012–2013) who were followed up for mortality over ten years. Alcohol use was based on volume of consumption in self-reported drinks per week, and hazardous pattern of consumption was assessed with the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test – Consumption (AUDIT-C). AI medications were coded from self-reported medication use. Deaths were obtained from the NHS central registry (2012–2022).55% of participants took AI medication and of these, 73% also consumed alcohol, and 43% drank hazardously. These participants were more likely to be male, older, and belong to lower socioeconomic groups. Among those taking AI medication, there was a significantly higher mortality hazard for ex-drinkers (HR =1.43 CI 1.14, 1.80) and nondrinkers (HR= 2.09 CI 1.33, 3.27) compared to moderate drinkers but no significant difference for higher risk/hazardous drinkers after adjusting for confounding factors.In these older adults, there was a high prevalence of taking alcohol-interactive medication and drinking alcohol. Whilst there was no increased mortality risk other non-fatal outcomes should be considered. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Published
2024
Full Text
View/download PDF

57. Pragmatic randomized controlled trial to evaluate the effectiveness and cost effectiveness of a multi-component intervention to reduce substance use and risk-taking behavior in adolescents involved in the criminal justice system: A trial protocol (RISKIT-CJS)

Author

Coulton, Simon, Stockdale, Kelly, Marchand, Catherine, Hendrie, Nadine, Billings, Jenny, Boniface, Sadie, Butler, Steve, Deluca, Paolo, Drummond, Colin, Newbury-Birch, Dorothy, Pellatt-Higgins, Tracy, Stevens, Alex, Sutherland, Alex, Wilson, Ed, Coulton, Simon, Stockdale, Kelly, Marchand, Catherine, Hendrie, Nadine, Billings, Jenny, Boniface, Sadie, Butler, Steve, Deluca, Paolo, Drummond, Colin, Newbury-Birch, Dorothy, Pellatt-Higgins, Tracy, Stevens, Alex, Sutherland, Alex, and Wilson, Ed

Abstract

Background: Adolescence is a critical developmental stage when young people make lifestyle choices that have the potential to impact on their current and future health and social wellbeing. The relationship between substance use and criminal activity is complex but there is clear evidence that the prevalence of problematic substance use is far higher among adolescent offenders than the general adolescent population. Adolescent offenders are a marginalized and vulnerable population who are significantly more likely to experience health and social inequalities in later life than their non-offending peers. There is a paucity of evidence on effective interventions to address substance use and risk-taking behaviours in adolescent offender populations but it is clear that preventative or abstinence orientated interventions are not effective. RISKIT-CJS is an intervention developed in collaboration with young people taking account of the current best evidence. Feasibility and pilot studies have found the intervention addresses the needs of adolescents, is acceptable and has demonstrated potential in reducing substance use and risk-taking behavior. Methods: The study is a mixed method, two-armed, prospective, pragmatic randomized controlled trial with individual randomisation to either treatment as usual alone or the RISKIT-CJS intervention in addition to treatment as usual. Adolescents, aged 13 to 17 years inclusive, engaged with the criminal justice system who are identified as having problematic substance use are eligible to participate. The study will be conducted across three geographical areas; South and South East England, London and North East England between March 2017 and February 2019. Discussion: The study represents an ambitious programme of work to address an area of need for a marginalized and vulnerable population.

Published
2017

58. Alcohol Consumption, Early-Onset Drinking, and Health-Related Consequences in Adolescents Presenting at Emergency Departments in England

Author

Donaghue, Kim, Rose, Hannah, Boniface, Sadie, Deluca, Paolo, Coulton, Simon, Fasihul Alam, M., Gilvarry, Eilish, Kaner, Eileen, Lynch, Ellen, Maconochie, Ian, McArdle, Paul, McGovern, Ruth, Newbury-Birch, Dorothy, Patton, Robert, Phillips, Ceri J., Thomas, Phillips, Russell, Ian, Strang, John, Drummond, Colin, Donaghue, Kim, Rose, Hannah, Boniface, Sadie, Deluca, Paolo, Coulton, Simon, Fasihul Alam, M., Gilvarry, Eilish, Kaner, Eileen, Lynch, Ellen, Maconochie, Ian, McArdle, Paul, McGovern, Ruth, Newbury-Birch, Dorothy, Patton, Robert, Phillips, Ceri J., Thomas, Phillips, Russell, Ian, Strang, John, and Drummond, Colin

Abstract

Purpose: Globally, alcohol use is the leading cause of ill health and life years lost in adolescents, although its clinical impact is often overlooked, particularly in England where most research is based in schools. This study aims to examine the prevalence of alcohol consumption and the association between alcohol consumption and age of onset with health and social consequences among adolescents presenting to emergency departments (EDs). Methods: Consecutive attenders (n = 5,576) aged 10–17 years at 10 EDs were included. Information was collected on general health and functioning, quality of life, alcohol use, and alcohol-related health and social consequences. Results: Nearly 40% of adolescents reported the consumption of alcohol that was more than a sip in their lifetime. Age of the first alcohol consumption before the age of 15 years was associated with tobacco use (p < .001), lower quality of life (p = .003), and evidence of an alcohol use disorder (p = .002). It was also associated with general social functioning (problems with conduct p = .001 and hyperactivity p = .001) and alcohol-related health and social consequences (accident p = .046, problems with a parent p = .017, school p = .0117, or police p = .012). Conclusions: Rates of alcohol consumption in adolescents presenting to the ED were similar to those reported in schools in England and globally. Associations of alcohol consumption and earlier onset of drinking with poorer health and social functioning were observed. The ED can offer an opportunity for the identification of hazardous alcohol use in adolescents.

Published
2017

59. Variance in the Efficacy of Brief Interventions to Reduce Hazardous and Harmful Alcohol Consumption Between Injury and Noninjury Patients in Emergency Departments : A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Author

Zerbi, Catherine El, Donoghue, Kim, Boniface, Sadie, Drummond, Colin, Zerbi, Catherine El, Donoghue, Kim, Boniface, Sadie, and Drummond, Colin

Abstract

Study objective: We adopt a comparative framework to measure the extent to which variance in the efficacy of alcohol brief interventions to reduce hazardous and harmful drinking at less than or equal to 5-, 6-, and 12-month follow-up in emergency department settings can be determined by differences between study populations (targeted injury and noninjury specific). Methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials published before September 2016 was undertaken. Twenty-three high-quality and methodologically similar randomized controlled trials were eligible, with a total number of 15,173 participants included. Primary outcome measure was efficacy of brief intervention compared with a control group in reducing quantity of alcohol consumed. An inverse variance model was applied to measure the effect of treatment in standard mean differences for brief intervention and control groups. Results: At 6-month follow-up, an effect in favor of brief intervention over control was identified for targeted injury studies (standardized mean difference=–0.10; 95% confidence interval [CI] –0.17 to –0.02; I2=0%). For pooled noninjury-specific studies, small benefits of brief intervention were evident at less than or equal to 5-month follow-up (standardized mean difference=–0.15; 95% CI –0.24 to –0.07; I2=0%), at 6-month follow–up (standardized mean difference=–0.08; 95% CI –0.14 to –0.01; I2=1%), and at 12-month follow-up (standardized mean difference=–0.08; 95% CI –0.15 to –0.01; I2=0%). Conclusion: Meta-analysis identified noninjury-specific studies as associated with better response to brief intervention than targeted injury studies. However, the inclusion of injured patients with noninjured ones in the experimental and control groups of noninjury-specific studies limited the interpretation of this finding.

Published
2017

60. Proceedings of the 14th annual conference of INEBRIA

Author

Holloway, Aisha S., primary, Ferguson, Jennifer, additional, Landale, Sarah, additional, Cariola, Laura, additional, Newbury-Birch, Dorothy, additional, Flynn, Amy, additional, Knight, John R., additional, Sherritt, Lon, additional, Harris, Sion K., additional, O’Donnell, Amy J., additional, Kaner, Eileen, additional, Hanratty, Barbara, additional, Loree, Amy M., additional, Yonkers, Kimberly A., additional, Ondersma, Steven J., additional, Gilstead-Hayden, Kate, additional, Martino, Steve, additional, Adam, Angeline, additional, Schwartz, Robert P., additional, Wu, Li-Tzy, additional, Subramaniam, Geetha, additional, Sharma, Gaurav, additional, McNeely, Jennifer, additional, Berman, Anne H., additional, Kolaas, Karoline, additional, Petersén, Elisabeth, additional, Bendtsen, Preben, additional, Hedman, Erik, additional, Linderoth, Catharina, additional, Müssener, Ulrika, additional, Sinadinovic, Kristina, additional, Spak, Fredrik, additional, Gremyr, Ida, additional, Thurang, Anna, additional, Mitchell, Ann M., additional, Finnell, Deborah, additional, Savage, Christine L., additional, Mahmoud, Khadejah F., additional, Riordan, Benjamin C., additional, Conner, Tamlin S., additional, Flett, Jayde A. M., additional, Scarf, Damian, additional, McRee, Bonnie, additional, Vendetti, Janice, additional, Gallucci, Karen Steinberg, additional, Robaina, Kate, additional, Clark, Brendan J., additional, Jones, Jacqueline, additional, Reed, Kathryne D., additional, Hodapp, Rachel M., additional, Douglas, Ivor, additional, Burnham, Ellen L., additional, Aagaard, Laura, additional, Cook, Paul F., additional, Harris, Brett R., additional, Yu, Jiang, additional, Wolff, Margaret, additional, Rogers, Meighan, additional, Barbosa, Carolina, additional, Wedehase, Brendan J., additional, Dunlap, Laura J., additional, Mitchell, Shannon G., additional, Dusek, Kristi A., additional, Gryczynski, Jan, additional, Kirk, Arethusa S., additional, Oros, Marla T., additional, Hosler, Colleen, additional, O’Grady, Kevin E., additional, Brown, Barry S., additional, Angus, Colin, additional, Sherborne, Sidney, additional, Gillespie, Duncan, additional, Meier, Petra, additional, Brennan, Alan, additional, de Vargas, Divane, additional, Soares, Janaina, additional, Castelblanco, Donna, additional, Doran, Kelly M., additional, Wittman, Ian, additional, Shelley, Donna, additional, Rotrosen, John, additional, Gelberg, Lillian, additional, Edelman, E. Jennifer, additional, Maisto, Stephen A., additional, Hansen, Nathan B., additional, Cutter, Christopher J., additional, Deng, Yanhong, additional, Dziura, James, additional, Fiellin, Lynn E., additional, O’Connor, Patrick G., additional, Bedimo, Roger, additional, Gibert, Cynthia, additional, Marconi, Vincent C., additional, Rimland, David, additional, Rodriguez-Barradas, Maria C., additional, Simberkoff, Michael S., additional, Justice, Amy C., additional, Bryant, Kendall J., additional, Fiellin, David A., additional, Giles, Emma L., additional, Coulton, Simon, additional, Deluca, Paolo, additional, Drummond, Colin, additional, Howel, Denise, additional, McColl, Elaine, additional, McGovern, Ruth, additional, Scott, Stephanie, additional, Stamp, Elaine, additional, Sumnall, Harry, additional, Vale, Luke, additional, Alabani, Viviana, additional, Atkinson, Amanda, additional, Boniface, Sadie, additional, Frankham, Jo, additional, Gilvarry, Eilish, additional, Hendrie, Nadine, additional, Howe, Nicola, additional, McGeechan, Grant J., additional, Ramsey, Amy, additional, Stanley, Grant, additional, Clephane, Justine, additional, Gardiner, David, additional, Holmes, John, additional, Martin, Neil, additional, Shevills, Colin, additional, Soutar, Melanie, additional, Chi, Felicia W., additional, Weisner, Constance, additional, Ross, Thekla B., additional, Mertens, Jennifer, additional, Sterling, Stacy A., additional, Shorter, Gillian W., additional, Heather, Nick, additional, Bray, Jeremy, additional, Cohen, Hildie A., additional, McPherson, Tracy L., additional, Adam, Cyrille, additional, López-Pelayo, Hugo, additional, Gual, Antoni, additional, Segura-Garcia, Lidia, additional, Colom, Joan, additional, Ornelas, India J., additional, Doyle, Suzanne, additional, Donovan, Dennis, additional, Duran, Bonnie, additional, Torres, Vanessa, additional, Gaume, Jacques, additional, Grazioli, Véronique, additional, Fortini, Cristiana, additional, Paroz, Sophie, additional, Bertholet, Nicolas, additional, Daeppen, Jean-Bernard, additional, Satterfield, Jason M., additional, Gregorich, Steven, additional, Alvarado, Nicholas J., additional, Muñoz, Ricardo, additional, Kulieva, Gozel, additional, Vijayaraghavan, Maya, additional, Adam, Angéline, additional, Cunningham, John A., additional, Díaz, Estela, additional, Palacio-Vieira, Jorge, additional, Godinho, Alexandra, additional, Kushir, Vladyslav, additional, O’Brien, Kimberly H. M., additional, Aguinaldo, Laika D., additional, Sellers, Christina M., additional, Spirito, Anthony, additional, Chang, Grace, additional, Blake-Lamb, Tiffany, additional, LaFave, Lea R. Ayers, additional, Thies, Kathleen M., additional, Pepin, Amy L., additional, Sprangers, Kara E., additional, Bradley, Martha, additional, Jorgensen, Shasta, additional, Catano, Nico A., additional, Murray, Adelaide R., additional, Schachter, Deborah, additional, Andersen, Ronald M., additional, Rey, Guillermina Natera, additional, Vahidi, Mani, additional, Rico, Melvin W., additional, Baumeister, Sebastian E., additional, Johansson, Magnus, additional, Sinadinovic, Christina, additional, Hermansson, Ulric, additional, Andreasson, Sven, additional, O’Grady, Megan A., additional, Kapoor, Sandeep, additional, Akkari, Cherine, additional, Bernal, Camila, additional, Pappacena, Kristen, additional, Morley, Jeanne, additional, Auerbach, Mark, additional, Neighbors, Charles J., additional, Kwon, Nancy, additional, Conigliaro, Joseph, additional, Morgenstern, Jon, additional, Magill, Molly, additional, Apodaca, Timothy R., additional, Borsari, Brian, additional, Hoadley, Ariel, additional, Scott Tonigan, J., additional, Moyers, Theresa, additional, Fitzgerald, Niamh M., additional, Schölin, Lisa, additional, Barticevic, Nicolas, additional, Zuzulich, Soledad, additional, Poblete, Fernando, additional, Norambuena, Pablo, additional, Sacco, Paul, additional, Ting, Laura, additional, Beaulieu, Michele, additional, Wallace, Paul George, additional, Andrews, Matthew, additional, Daley, Kate, additional, Shenker, Don, additional, Gallagher, Louise, additional, Watson, Rod, additional, Weaver, Tim, additional, Bruguera, Pol, additional, Oliveras, Clara, additional, Gavotti, Carolina, additional, Barrio, Pablo, additional, Braddick, Fleur, additional, Miquel, Laia, additional, Suárez, Montse, additional, Bruguera, Carla, additional, Brown, Richard L., additional, Capell, Julie Whelan, additional, Paul Moberg, D., additional, Maslowsky, Julie, additional, Saunders, Laura A., additional, McCormack, Ryan P., additional, Scheidell, Joy, additional, Gonzalez, Mirelis, additional, Bauroth, Sabrina, additional, Liu, Weiwei, additional, Lindsay, Dawn L., additional, Lincoln, Piper, additional, Hagle, Holly, additional, Wallhed Finn, Sara, additional, Hammarberg, Anders, additional, Andréasson, Sven, additional, King, Sarah E., additional, Vargo, Rachael, additional, Kameg, Brayden N., additional, Acquavita, Shauna P., additional, Van Loon, Ruth Anne, additional, Smith, Rachel, additional, Brehm, Bonnie J., additional, Diers, Tiffiny, additional, Kim, Karissa, additional, Barker, Andrea, additional, Jones, Ashley L., additional, Skinner, Asheley C., additional, Hinman, Agatha, additional, Svikis, Dace S., additional, Thacker, Casey L., additional, Resnicow, Ken, additional, Beatty, Jessica R., additional, Janisse, James, additional, Puder, Karoline, additional, Bakshi, Ann-Sofie, additional, Milward, Joanna M., additional, Kimergard, Andreas, additional, Garnett, Claire V., additional, Crane, David, additional, Brown, Jamie, additional, West, Robert, additional, Michie, Susan, additional, Rosendahl, Ingvar, additional, Andersson, Claes, additional, Gajecki, Mikael, additional, Blankers, Matthijs, additional, Donoghue, Kim, additional, Lynch, Ellen, additional, Maconochie, Ian, additional, Phillips, Ceri, additional, Pockett, Rhys, additional, Phillips, Tom, additional, Patton, R., additional, Russell, Ian, additional, Strang, John, additional, Stewart, Maureen T., additional, Quinn, Amity E., additional, Brolin, Mary, additional, Evans, Brooke, additional, Horgan, Constance M., additional, Liu, Junqing, additional, McCree, Fern, additional, Kanovsky, Doug, additional, Oberlander, Tyler, additional, Zhang, Huan, additional, Hamlin, Ben, additional, Saunders, Robert, additional, Barton, Mary B., additional, Scholle, Sarah H., additional, Santora, Patricia, additional, Bhatt, Chirag, additional, Ahmed, Kazi, additional, Hodgkin, Dominic, additional, Gao, Wenwu, additional, Merrick, Elizabeth L., additional, Drebing, Charles E., additional, Larson, Mary Jo, additional, Sharma, Monica, additional, Petry, Nancy M., additional, Saitz, Richard, additional, Weisner, Constance M., additional, Young-Wolff, Kelly C., additional, Lu, Wendy Y., additional, Blosnich, John R., additional, Lehavot, Keren, additional, Glass, Joseph E., additional, Williams, Emily C., additional, Bensley, Kara M., additional, Chan, Gary, additional, Dombrowski, Julie, additional, Fortney, John, additional, Rubinsky, Anna D., additional, Lapham, Gwen T., additional, Forray, Ariadna, additional, Olmstead, Todd A., additional, Gilstad-Hayden, Kathryn, additional, Kershaw, Trace, additional, Dillon, Pamela, additional, Weaver, Michael F., additional, Grekin, Emily R., additional, Ellis, Jennifer D., additional, and McGoron, Lucy, additional

Published
2017
Full Text
View/download PDF

61. Pragmatic randomised controlled trial to evaluate the effectiveness and cost effectiveness of a multi-component intervention to reduce substance use and risk-taking behaviour in adolescents involved in the criminal justice system: A trial protocol (RISKIT-CJS)

Author

Coulton, Simon, primary, Stockdale, Kelly, additional, Marchand, Catherine, additional, Hendrie, Nadine, additional, Billings, Jenny, additional, Boniface, Sadie, additional, Butler, Steve, additional, Deluca, Paolo, additional, Drummond, Colin, additional, Newbury-Birch, Dorothy, additional, Pellatt-Higgins, Tracy, additional, Stevens, Alex, additional, Sutherland, Alex, additional, and Wilson, Ed, additional

Published
2017
Full Text
View/download PDF

63. Multicentre individual randomised controlled trial of screening and brief alcohol intervention to prevent risky drinking in young people aged 14–15 in a high school setting (SIPS JR-HIGH): study protocol

Author

Giles, Emma L, primary, Coulton, Simon, additional, Deluca, Paolo, additional, Drummond, Colin, additional, Howel, Denise, additional, Kaner, Eileen, additional, McColl, Elaine, additional, McGovern, Ruth, additional, Scott, Stephanie, additional, Stamp, Elaine, additional, Sumnall, Harry, additional, Tate, Les, additional, Todd, Liz, additional, Vale, Luke, additional, Albani, Viviana, additional, Boniface, Sadie, additional, Ferguson, Jennifer, additional, Frankham, Jo, additional, Gilvarry, Eilish, additional, Hendrie, Nadine, additional, Howe, Nicola, additional, McGeechan, Grant J, additional, Stanley, Grant, additional, and Newbury-Birch, Dorothy, additional

Published
2016
Full Text
View/download PDF

64. The Effect of Brief Interventions for Alcohol Among People with Comorbid Mental Health Conditions: A Systematic Review of Randomized Trials and Narrative Synthesis.

Author

Boniface, Sadie, Malet-Lambert, Isabella, Coleman, Rachel, Deluca, Paolo, Donoghue, Kim, Drummond, Colin, and Khadjesari, Zarnie

Subjects
*ALCOHOLISM treatment, *COGNITIVE therapy, *MENTAL illness, *SYSTEMATIC reviews, *COMORBIDITY, *MOTIVATIONAL interviewing, *TREATMENT effectiveness
Abstract

Aims To review the evidence on the effect of brief interventions (BIs) for alcohol among adults with risky alcohol consumption and comorbid mental health conditions. Methods A systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published before May 2016 was undertaken and reported according to PRISMA guidelines. The findings were combined in a narrative synthesis. The risk of bias was assessed for included trials. Results Seventeen RCTs were included in the review and narrative synthesis: 11 in common mental health problems, and 6 in severe mental illness. There was considerable heterogeneity in study populations, BI delivery mode and intensity, outcome measures and risk of bias. Where BI was compared with a minimally active control, BI was associated with a significant reduction in alcohol consumption in four out of nine RCTs in common mental disorders and two out of five RCTs in severe mental illness. Where BI was compared with active comparator groups (such as motivational interviewing or cognitive behavioural therapy), findings were also mixed. Differences in the findings may be partly due to differences in study design, such as the intensity of BI and possibly the risk of bias. Conclusions Overall, the evidence is mixed regarding the effects of alcohol BI in participants with comorbid mental health conditions. Future well-designed research is required to answer this question more definitively. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Published
2019
Full Text
View/download PDF

67. The Effect of Brief Interventions for Alcohol Among People with Comorbid Mental Health Conditions: A Systematic Review of Randomized Trials and Narrative Synthesis.

Author

Boniface, Sadie, Malet-Lambert, Isabella, Coleman, Rachel, Deluca, Paolo, Donoghue, Kim, Drummond, Colin, and Khadjesari, Zarnie

Subjects
*ALCOHOL-induced disorders, *BRIEF psychotherapy, *COGNITIVE therapy, *COMPARATIVE studies, *DRINKING behavior, *MENTAL illness, *HEALTH outcome assessment, *RISK assessment, *SYSTEMATIC reviews, *COMORBIDITY, *RANDOMIZED controlled trials, *MOTIVATIONAL interviewing, *ADULTS, *THERAPEUTICS
Abstract

Aims: To review the evidence on the effect of brief interventions (BIs) for alcohol among adults with risky alcohol consumption and comorbid mental health conditions. Methods: A systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published before May 2016 was undertaken and reported according to PRISMA guidelines. The findings were combined in a narrative synthesis. The risk of bias was assessed for included trials. Results: Seventeen RCTs were included in the review and narrative synthesis: 11 in common mental health problems, and 6 in severe mental illness. There was considerable heterogeneity in study populations, BI delivery mode and intensity, outcome measures and risk of bias. Where BI was compared with a minimally active control, BI was associated with a significant reduction in alcohol consumption in four out of nine RCTs in common mental disorders and two out of five RCTs in severe mental illness. Where BI was compared with active comparator groups (such as motivational interviewing or cognitive behavioural therapy), findings were also mixed. Differences in the findings may be partly due to differences in study design, such as the intensity of BI and possibly the risk of bias. Conclusions: Overall, the evidence is mixed regarding the effects of alcohol BI in participants with comorbid mental health conditions. Future well-designed research is required to answer this question more definitively. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Published
2018
Full Text
View/download PDF

72. Evaluating and establishing national norms for mental wellbeing using the short Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-being Scale (SWEMWBS): findings from the Health Survey for England.

Author

Linda Ng Fat, Scholes, Shaun, Boniface, Sadie, Mindell, Jennifer, Stewart-Brown, Sarah, and Ng Fat, Linda

Subjects
MENTAL health, RANK correlation (Statistics), GENDER differences (Psychology), COHEN'S kappa coefficient (Statistics), SUBGROUP analysis (Experimental design), QUALITY of life, PSYCHOMETRICS, QUESTIONNAIRES, SURVEYS, STANDARDS
Abstract

Purpose: The Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-being Scale (WEMWBS), 14 positively worded statements, is a validated instrument to measure mental wellbeing on a population level. Less is known about the population distribution of the shorter seven-item version (SWEMWBS) or its performance as an instrument to measure wellbeing.Methods: Using the Health Survey for England 2010-2013 (n = 27,169 adults aged 16+, nationally representative of the population), age- and sex-specific norms were estimated using means and percentiles. Criterion validity was examined using: (1) Spearman correlations (ρ) for SWEMWBS with General Health Questionnaire (GHQ-12), happiness index, EQ-VAS (2) a multinomial logit model with SWEMWBS (low, medium and high wellbeing) as the outcome and demographic, social and health behaviours as explanatory variables. Relative validity was examined by comparing SWEMWBS with WEMWBS using: (1) Spearman correlations (continuous data), and (2) the weighted kappa statistic (categorical), within population subgroups.Results: Mean (median) SWEMWBS was 23.7 (23.2) for men and 23.2 (23.2) for women (p = 0.100). Spearman correlations were moderately sized for the happiness index (ρ = 0.53, P < 0.001), GHQ-12 (ρ = -0.52, p < 0.001) and EQ-VAS (ρ = 0.40, p < 0.001). Participants consuming <1 portion of fruit and vegetables a day versus ≥5 (odds ratio = 1.43 95% Confidence Interval = (1.22-1.66)) and current smokers versus non-smokers (1.28 (1.15-1.41)) were more likely to have low vs medium wellbeing. Participants who binge drank versus non-drinkers were less likely to have high versus medium wellbeing (0.81 (0.71-0.92)). Spearman correlations between SWEMWBS and WEMWBS were above 0.95; weighted kappa statistics showed almost perfect agreement (0.79-0.85).Conclusion: SWEMWBS distinguishes mental wellbeing between subgroups, similarly to WEMWBS, but is less sensitive to gender differences. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Published
2017
Full Text
View/download PDF

76. Drinking pattern is more strongly associated with under-reporting of alcohol consumption than sociodemographic factors: evidence from a mixedmethods study.

Author

Boniface, Sadie, Kneale, James, and Shelton, Nicola

Subjects
*ALCOHOL drinking, *SOCIODEMOGRAPHIC factors, *HEALTH surveys, *PUBLIC health, *SELF-perception
Abstract

Background Under-reporting of alcohol consumption is widespread; surveys typically capture 40-60% of alcohol sales. However the population distribution of under-reporting is not well understood. Methods Mixed-methods study to identify factors associated with under-reporting, using the nationally-representative Health Survey for England (HSE) 2011 (overall response rate 66%). Comparison of retrospective computer-assisted personal interview and seven-day drinking diary (n = 3,774 adults 18+, 50% women, diary response rate 69%) to identify factors associated with diary responses exceeding those of the interview using multivariable linear regression for three outcomes: drinking days in the week recorded, volume consumed on heaviest drinking day in the week recorded, and weekly alcohol consumption. Qualitative semi-structured interviews (n = 10) explored reasons for under-reporting in further detail. Results Number of drinking days was slightly greater in the diary than the interview (P < 0.001). Reported consumption was higher in the diary than in the interview for heaviest drinking day in the week recorded (0.7 units greater among men, 1.2 units among women, P < 0.001), and weekly alcohol consumption in women only (1.1 units among women, P = 0.003). Participants who drank more frequently, more heavily, and had a more varied drinking pattern with respect to the types of drink consumed or choice of drinking venues had a larger difference between their diary week and their interview week. The qualitative interviews identified having a non-routine drinking pattern, self-perception as a non-frequent drinker, and usually tracking drinking using experiential approaches as linked to more drinking being reported in the diary than the retrospective interview. Conclusions Heavy drinking and non-routine drinking patterns may be associated with greater underreporting of alcohol consumption. Estimates of drinking above recommended levels are likely to be disproportionately under-estimated. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Published
2014
Full Text
View/download PDF

79. Unravelling the alcohol harm paradox: a population-based study of social gradients across very heavy drinking thresholds

Author

Lewer, Dan, Meier, Petra, Beard, Emma, Boniface, Sadie, and Kaner, Eileen

Subjects
Adult, Male, Alcohol Drinking, lcsh:Public aspects of medicine, Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health, lcsh:RA1-1270, Middle Aged, Health Surveys, Alcoholism, Cross-Sectional Studies, England, Social Class, Humans, Female, Self Report, Aged, Research Article
Abstract

Background: There is consistent evidence that individuals in higher socioeconomic status groups are more likely to\ud report exceeding recommended drinking limits, but those in lower socioeconomic status groups experience more\ud alcohol-related harm. This has been called the ‘alcohol harm paradox’. Such studies typically use standard cut-offs\ud to define heavy drinking, which are exceeded by a large proportion of adults. Our study pools data from six years\ud (2008–2013) of the population-based Health Survey for England to test whether the socioeconomic distribution of\ud more extreme levels of drinking could help explain the paradox.\ud \ud Methods: The study included 51,498 adults from a representative sample of the adult population of England for\ud a cross-sectional analysis of associations between socioeconomic status and self-reported drinking. Heavy weekly\ud drinking was measured at four thresholds, ranging from 112 g+/168 g + (alcohol for women/men, or 14/21 UK\ud standard units) to 680 g+/880 g + (or 85/110 UK standard units) per week. Heavy episodic drinking was also\ud measured at four thresholds, from 48 g+/64 g + (or 6/8 UK standard units) to 192 g+/256 g + (or 24/32 UK standard\ud units) in one day. Socioeconomic status indicators were equivalised household income, education, occupation and\ud neighbourhood deprivation.\ud \ud Results: Lower socioeconomic status was associated with lower likelihoods of exceeding recommended limits\ud for weekly and episodic drinking, and higher likelihoods of exceeding more extreme thresholds. For example,\ud participants in routine or manual occupations had 0.65 (95 % CI 0.57–0.74) times the odds of exceeding the\ud recommended weekly limit compared to those in ‘higher managerial’ occupations, and 2.15 (95 % CI 1.06–4.36)\ud times the odds of exceeding the highest threshold. Similarly, participants in the lowest income quintile had 0.60\ud (95 % CI 0.52–0.69) times the odds of exceeding the recommended weekly limit when compared to the highest\ud quintile, and 2.30 (95 % CI 1.28–4.13) times the odds of exceeding the highest threshold.\ud \ud Conclusions: Low socioeconomic status groups are more likely to drink at extreme levels, which may partially\ud explain the alcohol harm paradox. Policies that address alcohol-related health inequalities need to consider extreme\ud drinking levels in some sub-groups that may be associated with multiple markers of deprivation. This will require a\ud more disaggregated understanding of drinking practices

Full Text
View/download PDF

80. Drinking pattern is more strongly associated with under-reporting of alcohol consumption than socio-demographic factors: evidence from a mixed-methods study

Author

Boniface, Sadie, Kneale, James, and Shelton, Nicola

Subjects
Adult, Aged, 80 and over, Male, Alcohol Drinking, Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health, Middle Aged, Health Surveys, Self Concept, Cross-Sectional Studies, England, Socioeconomic Factors, Humans, Female, Aged, Retrospective Studies
Abstract

BACKGROUND: Under-reporting of alcohol consumption is widespread; surveys typically capture 40-60% of alcohol sales. However the population distribution of under-reporting is not well understood.METHODS: Mixed-methods study to identify factors associated with under-reporting, using the nationally-representative Health Survey for England (HSE) 2011 (overall response rate 66%). Comparison of retrospective computer-assisted personal interview and seven-day drinking diary (n = 3,774 adults 18+, 50% women, diary response rate 69%) to identify factors associated with diary responses exceeding those of the interview using multivariable linear regression for three outcomes: drinking days in the week recorded, volume consumed on heaviest drinking day in the week recorded, and weekly alcohol consumption. Qualitative semi-structured interviews (n = 10) explored reasons for under-reporting in further detail.RESULTS: Number of drinking days was slightly greater in the diary than the interview (P < 0.001). Reported consumption was higher in the diary than in the interview for heaviest drinking day in the week recorded (0.7 units greater among men, 1.2 units among women, P < 0.001), and weekly alcohol consumption in women only (1.1 units among women, P = 0.003). Participants who drank more frequently, more heavily, and had a more varied drinking pattern with respect to the types of drink consumed or choice of drinking venues had a larger difference between their diary week and their interview week.The qualitative interviews identified having a non-routine drinking pattern, self-perception as a non-frequent drinker, and usually tracking drinking using experiential approaches as linked to more drinking being reported in the diary than the retrospective interview.CONCLUSIONS: Heavy drinking and non-routine drinking patterns may be associated with greater under-reporting of alcohol consumption. Estimates of drinking above recommended levels are likely to be disproportionately under-estimated.

Full Text
View/download PDF

82. WHO concludes there's "no place for cheap alcohol".

Author

Boniface S

Subjects
Humans, World Health Organization, Ethanol
Abstract

Competing Interests: Competing interests: I have read and understood BMJ policy on declaration of interests and declare I work at the Institute of Alcohol Studies, which receives funding from the Alliance House Foundation, a charity with roots in the temperance movement. Provenance and peer review: Commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

Published
2022
Full Text
View/download PDF

83. Screening and brief interventions for adolescent alcohol use disorders presenting through emergency departments: a research programme including two RCTs

Author

Deluca P, Coulton S, Alam MF, Boniface S, Donoghue K, Gilvarry E, Kaner E, Lynch E, Maconochie I, McArdle P, McGovern R, Newbury-Birch D, Patton R, Pellatt-Higgins T, Phillips C, Phillips T, Pockett R, Russell IT, Strang J, and Drummond C

Abstract

Background: Alcohol consumption and related harm increase steeply from the ages of 12–20 years. Adolescents in the UK are among the heaviest drinkers in Europe. Excessive drinking in adolescents is associated with increased risk of accidents, injuries, self-harm, unprotected or regretted sex, violence and disorder, poisoning and accidental death. However, there is lack of clear evidence for the most clinically effective and cost-effective screening and brief interventions for reducing or preventing alcohol consumption in adolescents attending emergency departments (EDs)., Objectives: To estimate the distribution of alcohol consumption, alcohol-related problems and alcohol use disorders in adolescents attending EDs; to develop age-appropriate alcohol screening and brief intervention tools; and to evaluate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of these interventions., Design: The research has been conducted in three linked stages: (1) a prevalence study, (2) intervention development and (3) two linked randomised controlled trials (RCTs)., Setting: Twelve EDs in England (London, North East, and Yorkshire and The Humber)., Participants: A total of 5376 participants in the prevalence study [mean age 13.0 years, standard deviation (SD) 2.0 years; 46.2% female] and 1640 participants in the two linked RCTs (mean age 15.6 years, SD 1.0 years; 50.7% female)., Interventions: Personalised feedback and brief advice (PFBA) and personalised feedback plus electronic brief intervention (eBI), compared with alcohol screening alone. These age-appropriate alcohol interventions were developed in collaboration with the target audience through a series of focus groups and evaluations during stage 2 of the research programme and following two literature reviews., Main Outcome Measures: Total alcohol consumed in standard UK units (1 unit = 8 g of ethanol) over the previous 3 months at 12-month follow-up, assessed using the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test, Consumption (3 items) (AUDIT-C)., Results: In the prevalence study, 2112 participants (39.5%) reported having had a drink of alcohol that was more than a sip in their lifetime, with prevalence increasing steadily with age and reaching 89.5% at the age of 17 years. The prevalence of at-risk alcohol consumption was 15% [95% confidence interval (CI) 14% to 16%] and the optimum cut-off point of the AUDIT-C in identifying at-risk drinking was ≥ 3. Associations of alcohol consumption and early onset of drinking with poorer health and social functioning were also found. In the RCT, the analysis of the primary outcome (average weekly alcohol consumption at month 12) identified no significant differences in effect between the three groups in both trials. In the high-risk drinking trial, the mean difference compared with control was 0.57 (95% CI –0.36 to 1.70) for PFBA and 0.19 (95% CI –0.71 to 1.30) for eBI. In the low-risk drinking trial, the mean difference compared with control was 0.03 (95% CI –0.07 to 0.13) for PFBA and 0.01 (95% CI –0.10 to 0.11) for eBI. The health economic analysis showed that eBI and PFBA were not more cost-effective than screening alone., Conclusions: The ED can offer an opportunity for the identification of at-risk alcohol use in adolescents. A simple, short, self-completed screening instrument, the AUDIT-C, is an effective tool for identifying adolescents who are at risk of alcohol-related problems. Associations of alcohol consumption and earlier onset of drinking with poorer health and social functioning were observed in the prevalence study. The trials were feasible to implement and exceeded the recruitment target and minimum follow-up rates. However, PFBA and eBI were not found to be more effective than screening alone in reducing or preventing alcohol consumption in 14- to 17-year-olds attending EDs., Limitations and Future Work: Only one-third of participants engaged with the application program; this is likely to have limited the effect of the intervention. We recommend that future research should focus on methods to maximise engagement with digital interventions and evaluate the effect of such engagement on clinical outcomes., Trial Registration: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN45300218., Funding: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Programme Grants for Applied Research programme and will be published in full in Programme Grants for Applied Research ; Vol. 8, No. 2. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information., (Copyright © Queen’s Printer and Controller of HMSO 2020. This work was produced by Deluca et al. under the terms of a commissioning contract issued by the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care. This issue may be freely reproduced for the purposes of private research and study and extracts (or indeed, the full report) may be included in professional journals provided that suitable acknowledgement is made and the reproduction is not associated with any form of advertising. Applications for commercial reproduction should be addressed to: NIHR Journals Library, National Institute for Health Research, Evaluation, Trials and Studies Coordinating Centre, Alpha House, University of Southampton Science Park, Southampton SO16 7NS, UK.)

Published
2020
Full Text
View/download PDF

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

Author

Giles EL, McGeechan GJ, Coulton S, Deluca P, Drummond C, Howel D, Kaner E, McColl E, McGovern R, Scott S, Stamp E, Sumnall H, Todd L, Vale L, Albani V, Boniface S, Ferguson J, Gilvarry E, Hendrie N, Howe N, Mossop H, Ramsay A, Stanley G, and Newbury-Birch D

Abstract

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., (Copyright © Queen’s Printer and Controller of HMSO 2019. This work was produced by Giles et al. under the terms of a commissioning contract issued by the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care. This issue may be freely reproduced for the purposes of private research and study and extracts (or indeed, the full report) may be included in professional journals provided that suitable acknowledgement is made and the reproduction is not associated with any form of advertising. Applications for commercial reproduction should be addressed to: NIHR Journals Library, National Institute for Health Research, Evaluation, Trials and Studies Coordinating Centre, Alpha House, University of Southampton Science Park, Southampton SO16 7NS, UK.)

Published
2019
Full Text
View/download PDF

Catalog

Books, media, physical & digital resources
See catalog results