Dataset Information

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

ABSTRACT:

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.

SUBMITTER: Kaner E

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3541471 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Implementation research is concerned with bridging the gap between evidence and practice through the study of methods to promote the uptake of research into routine practice. Good quality evidence has been summarised into guideline recommendations to show that peri-operative fasting times could be considerably shorter than patients currently experience. The objective of this trial was to evaluate the effectiveness of three strategies for the implementation of recommendations about peri-operative fasting.A pragmatic cluster randomised trial underpinned by the PARIHS framework was conducted during 2006 to 2009 with a national sample of UK hospitals using time series with mixed methods process evaluation and cost analysis. Hospitals were randomised to one of three interventions: standard dissemination (SD) of a guideline package, SD plus a web-based resource championed by an opinion leader, and SD plus plan-do-study-act (PDSA). The primary outcome was duration of fluid fast prior to induction of anaesthesia. Secondary outcomes included duration of food fast, patients' experiences, and stakeholders' experiences of implementation, including influences. ANOVA was used to test differences over time and interventions.Nineteen acute NHS hospitals participated. Across timepoints, 3,505 duration of fasting observations were recorded. No significant effect of the interventions was observed for either fluid or food fasting times. The effect size was 0.33 for the web-based intervention compared to SD alone for the change in fluid fasting and was 0.12 for PDSA compared to SD alone. The process evaluation showed different types of impact, including changes to practices, policies, and attitudes. A rich picture of the implementation challenges emerged, including inter-professional tensions and a lack of clarity for decision-making authority and responsibility.This was a large, complex study and one of the first national randomised controlled trials conducted within acute care in implementation research. The evidence base for fasting practice was accepted by those participating in this study and the messages from it simple; however, implementation and practical challenges influenced the interventions' impact. A set of conditions for implementation emerges from the findings of this study, which are presented as theoretically transferable propositions that have international relevance.ISRCTN18046709--Peri-operative Implementation Study Evaluation (POISE).

Project description:ObjectivesInitiation of tobacco, alcohol and illicit substance use typically occurs during adolescence, with the school setting recommended to reduce adolescent substance use. Strengthening individual (eg, problem solving) and environmental (eg, caring relationships at school) resilience protective factors of adolescents has been suggested as a strategy for reducing substance use by adolescents; however, few studies have examined this potential. A study was conducted to investigate the effectiveness of a pragmatic school-based universal 'resilience' intervention in reducing the prevalence of tobacco, alcohol and illicit substance use, and increasing the individual and environmental protective factors of students.DesignA cluster-randomised controlled trial.SettingThirty-two Australian secondary schools (20 intervention; 12 control).ParticipantsCohort of grade 7 students followed-up in grade 10 (2014; aged 15-16 years).InterventionA pragmatic intervention involving school staff selection and implementation of available programmes and resources targeting individual and environmental 'resilience' protective factors for all grade 7-10 students was implemented in schools (2012-2014). School staff were provided implementation support.MeasurementsAn online survey collected baseline and follow-up data for primary outcomes: tobacco (ever, recent) and alcohol (ever, recent, 'risk') use, and secondary outcomes: marijuana and other illicit substance use, and individual (six-factor subscales, aggregate) and environmental (three-factor subscales, aggregate) protective factor scores. Generalised and linear mixed models examined follow-up differences between groups.ResultsFollow-up data from 2105 students (intervention=1261; control=844; 69% of baseline cohort) were analysed. No significant differences were found between intervention and control students for any primary (ever tobacco: OR 1.25, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.68, p=0.14; recent tobacco: OR 1.39, 95% CI 0.84 to 2.31, p=0.19; recent ever alcohol: OR 1.11, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.48, p=0.46; alcohol: OR 1.13, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.62, p=0.51; 'risk' alcohol: OR 0.98, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.36, p=0.89) or secondary outcomes (marijuana: OR 1.12, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.68, p=0.57; other illicit substance: OR 1.19, 95% CI 0.67 to 2.10, p=0.54; individual protective factors: MD=0, 95% CI -0.07 to 0.06, p=0.89; environmental protective factors: MD: -0.02, 95% CI -0.09 to 0.06, p=0.65).ConclusionsThe universally implemented pragmatic school-based intervention was not effective in reducing the prevalence of tobacco, alcohol or illicit substance use, or in increasing the protective factors of students.Trial registrationAustralia and New Zealand Clinical Trials Register reference: ACTRN12611000606987.

Project description:BackgroundAlcohol misuse in England costs around £7.3 billion (US$12.2 billion) annually from lost productivity and absenteeism. Delivering brief alcohol interventions to employees as part of a health check may be acceptable, particularly with online delivery which can provide privacy for this stigmatised behaviour. Research to support this approach is limited and methodologically weak. The aim was to determine the effectiveness of online screening and personalised feedback on alcohol consumption, delivered in a workplace as part of a health check.Methods and findingsThis two-group online individually randomised controlled trial recruited employees from a UK-based private sector organisation (approx. 100,000 employees). 3,375 employees completed the online health check in the three week recruitment period. Of these, 1,330 (39%) scored five or more on the AUDIT-C (indicating alcohol misuse) and were randomised to receive personalised feedback on their alcohol intake, alongside feedback on other health behaviours (n = 659), or to receive feedback on all health behaviours except alcohol intake (n = 671). Participants were mostly male (75%), with a median age of 48 years and half were in managerial positions (55%). Median Body Mass Index was 26, 12% were smokers, median time undertaking moderate/vigorous physical activity a week was 173 minutes and median fruit and vegetable consumption was three portions a day. Eighty percent (n = 1,066) of participants completed follow-up questionnaires at three months. An intention to treat analysis found no difference between experimental groups for past week drinking (primary outcome) (5.6% increase associated with the intervention (95% CI -4.7% to 16.9%; p = .30)), AUDIT (measure of alcohol-related harm) and health utility (EQ-5D).ConclusionsThere was no evidence to support the use of personalised feedback within an online health check for reducing alcohol consumption among employees in this organisation. Further research is needed on how to engage a larger proportion of employees in screening.Trial registrationInternational Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number Register ISRCTN50658915.

Project description:BackgroundThe evidence suggests that brief alcohol-focused interventions, directed at hazardous and harmful drinkers in non-specialist settings such as primary care are effective in reducing alcohol consumption. However, there is a need for further research in the hospital setting. This is a randomised controlled trial to investigate the effectiveness of a 10-minute brief intervention amongst 'at risk' drinkers admitted to general hospital wards. Unlike some previous trials, this trial is randomised, used blinded assessors, includes an intention-to-treat analysis, included female subjects and excluded people with alcohol dependence.MethodsA total of 250 'at risk' drinkers admitted to King's College Hospital were identified using the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT). Some 154 subjects entered the study and were randomly allocated to the control and intervention groups. Subjects in the control group received no advice about their drinking whilst subjects in the intervention group received 10 minutes of simple advice on reducing alcohol consumption. Recruitment took place between 1995 and 1997. The primary outcome was the AUDIT questionnaire at 12 months. Secondary outcomes were a previous week's Drinks Diary, questionnaires (General Health Questionnaire, Alcohol Problems Questionnaire and the Severity of Alcohol Dependence Questionnaire) and laboratory blood tests (gamma glutamyl transferase, mean cell volume and haemoglobin).ResultsAt 3-month and 12-month follow-up, all participants were included in the intention-to-treat analysis. At both time points there was no evidence of an intervention effect that could be attributed to the brief intervention. Both the intervention and control groups had an improved AUDIT score and reduced levels of alcohol consumption as measured by a subjective Drinks Diary at 3 months which was maintained at 12 months.ConclusionsThis study has added further evidence on brief interventions in the hospital setting. In contrast to the recent Cochrane review by McQueen et al., the results of this study do not support the effectiveness of a brief alcohol intervention in general hospital wards. However our study was underpowered and there were flaws in the statistical analyses, and these limitations temper the strength of our conclusions.