Dataset Information

A brief intervention reduces hazardous and harmful drinking in emergency department patients.

ABSTRACT: Brief interventions have been shown to reduce alcohol use and improve outcomes in hazardous and harmful drinkers, but evidence to support their use in emergency department (ED) patients is limited. The use of research assessments in studies of brief interventions may contribute to uncertainty about their effectiveness. Therefore we seek to determine (1) if an emergency practitioner-performed Brief Negotiation Interview or a Brief Negotiation Interview with a booster reduces alcohol consumption compared with standard care; and (2) the impact of research assessments on drinking outcomes using a standard care-no-assessment group.We randomized 889 adult ED patients with hazardous and harmful drinking. A total of 740 received an emergency practitioner-performed Brief Negotiation Interview (n=297), a Brief Negotiation Interview with a 1-month follow-up telephone booster (Brief Negotiation Interview with booster) (n=295), or standard care (n=148). We also included a standard care with no assessments (n=149) group to examine the effect of assessments on drinking outcomes. Primary outcomes analyzed with mixed-models procedures included past 7-day alcohol consumption and 28-day binge episodes at 6 and 12 months, collected by interactive voice response. Secondary outcomes included negative health behaviors and consequences collected by telephone surveys.The reduction in mean number of drinks in the past 7 days from baseline to 6 and 12 months was significantly greater in the Brief Negotiation Interview with booster (from 20.4 [95% confidence interval {CI} 18.8 to 22.0] to 11.6 [95% CI 9.7 to 13.5] to 13.0 [95% CI 10.5 to 15.5]) and Brief Negotiation Interview (from 19.8 [95% CI 18.3 to 21.4] to 12.7 [95% CI 10.8 to 14.6] to 14.3 [95% CI 11.9 to 16.8]) than in standard care (from 20.9 [95% CI 18.7 to 23.2] to 14.2 [95% CI 11.2 to 17.1] to 17.6 [95% CI 14.1 to 21.2]). The reduction in 28-day binge episodes was also greater in the Brief Negotiation Interview with booster (from 7.5 [95% CI 6.8 to 8.2] to 4.4 [95% CI 3.6 to 5.2] to 4.7 [95% CI 3.9 to 5.6]) and Brief Negotiation Interview (from 7.2 [95% CI 6.5 to 7.9] to 4.8 [95% CI 4.0 to 5.6] to 5.1 [95% CI 4.2 to 5.9]) than in standard care (from 7.2 [95% CI 6.2 to 8.2] to 5.7 [95% CI 4.5 to 6.9] to 5.8 [95% CI 4.6 to 7.0]). The Brief Negotiation Interview with booster offered no significant benefit over the Brief Negotiation Interview alone. There were no differences in drinking outcomes between the standard care and standard care-no assessment groups. The reductions in rates of driving after drinking more than 3 drinks from baseline to 12 months were greater in the Brief Negotiation Interview (38% to 29%) and Brief Negotiation Interview with booster (39% to 31%) groups than in the standard care group (43% to 42%).Emergency practitioner-performed brief interventions can reduce alcohol consumption and episodes of driving after drinking in hazardous and harmful drinkers. These results support the use of brief interventions in ED settings.

SUBMITTER: D'Onofrio G

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3811141 | biostudies-literature | 2012 Aug

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

A brief intervention reduces hazardous and harmful drinking in emergency department patients.

D'Onofrio Gail G Fiellin David A DA Pantalon Michael V MV Chawarski Marek C MC Owens Patricia H PH Degutis Linda C LC Busch Susan H SH Bernstein Steven L SL O'Connor Patrick G PG

Annals of emergency medicine 20120328 2

<h4>Study objective</h4>Brief interventions have been shown to reduce alcohol use and improve outcomes in hazardous and harmful drinkers, but evidence to support their use in emergency department (ED) patients is limited. The use of research assessments in studies of brief interventions may contribute to uncertainty about their effectiveness. Therefore we seek to determine (1) if an emergency practitioner-performed Brief Negotiation Interview or a Brief Negotiation Interview with a booster reduc ...[more]

PMID: 22459448

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundRisky driving and hazardous drinking are associated with significant human and economic costs. Brief interventions for more than one risky behavior have the potential to reduce health-compromising behaviors in populations with multiple risk-taking behaviors such as young adults. Emergency department (ED) visits provide a window of opportunity for interventions meant to reduce both risky driving and hazardous drinking.MethodsWe determined the efficacy of a Screening, Brief Intervention, and Referral to Treatment (SBIRT) protocol addressing risky driving and hazardous drinking. We used a randomized controlled trial design with follow-ups through 12 months. ED patients aged 18 to 44 who screened positive for both behaviors (n = 476) were randomized to brief intervention (BIG), contact control (CCG), or no-contact control (NCG) groups. The BIG (n = 150) received a 20-minute assessment and two 20-minute interventions. The CCG (n = 162) received a 20-minute assessment at baseline and no intervention. The NCG (n = 164) were asked for contact information at baseline and had no assessment or intervention. Outcomes at 3, 6, 9, and 12 months were self-reported driving behaviors and alcohol consumption.ResultsOutcomes were significantly lower in BIG compared with CCG through 6 or 9 months, but not at 12 months: Safety belt use at 3 months (adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 0.22; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.08 to 0.65); 6 months (AOR, 0.13; 95% CI, 0.04 to 0.42); and 9 months (AOR, 0.18; 95% CI, 0.06 to 0.56); binge drinking at 3 months (adjusted rate ratio [ARR] 0.84; 95% CI, 0.74 to 0.97) and 6 months (ARR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.67 to 0.97); and ≥5 standard drinks/d at 3 months (AOR, 0.43; 95% CI, 0.20 to 0.91) and 6 months (AOR, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.17 to 0.98). No substantial differences were observed between BIG and NCG at 12 months.ConclusionsOur findings indicate that SBIRT reduced risky driving and hazardous drinking in young adults, but its effects did not persist after 9 months. Future research should explore methods for extending the intervention effect.

Project description:Intimate partner violence (IPV) and heavy drinking are co-occurring public health problems, but integrated brief interventions for these conditions have not been tested.To determine whether a brief motivational intervention provided at the time of an emergency department (ED) visit reduces IPV and heavy drinking.A randomized clinical trial conducted at 2 US academic urban EDs between January 2011 and December 2014 to assess the effectiveness of a motivational intervention for IPV-involved female ED patients (ages: 18-64 years; N?=?600) who exceeded sex-specific safe drinking limits. All received social service referrals; 2:2:1 to brief intervention (n?=?242), assessed control (n?=?237), or no-contact control (n?=?121).A 20- to 30-minute manual-guided motivational intervention (recorded and monitored for fidelity) delivered by master's-level therapists with a follow-up telephone booster. The assessed control group received the same number of assessments as the brief intervention group; the no-contact control group was assessed only once at 3 months.Incidents of heavy drinking and experiencing IPV measured over prespecified, 12 weekly assessments using an interactive voice response system.Of 600 participants, 80% were black women with a mean age of 32 years. Retention was 89% for 2 or more interactive voice response system calls. Seventy-eight percent of women completed the 3-month interview, 79% at 6 months, and 71% at 12 months. During the 12-week period following the brief motivational intervention, there were no significant differences between the intervention group and the assessed control group on weekly assessments for experiencing IPV (odds ratio [OR], 1.02; 95% CI, 0.98-1.06) or heavy drinking (OR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.96-1.03). From baseline to 12 weeks, the number of women with any IPV in the past week decreased from 57% (134 of 237) in the intervention group to 43% (83 of 194) and from 63% (145 of 231) in the assessed control group to 41% (77 of 187) (absolute difference of 8%). From baseline to 12 weeks, the number of women with past week heavy drinking decreased from 51% (120 of 236) in the intervention group to 43% (83 of 194) and from 46% (107 of 231) in the assessed control group to 41% (77 of 187) (absolute difference of 3%). At 12 months, 43% (71 of 165) of the intervention group and 47% (78 of 165) of the assessed control group reported no IPV during the previous 3 months and 19% (29 of 152) of the intervention group and 24% (37 of 153) of the control group had reduced their alcohol consumption to sex-specific National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism safe drinking levels.For women experiencing IPV and heavy drinking, the use of a brief motivational intervention in the ED compared with assessed and no-contact controls did not significantly reduce the days of heavy drinking or incidents of IPV. These findings do not support a brief motivational intervention in this setting.clinicaltrials.gov Identifer: NCT01207258.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Due to a resurgent debate on the misuse of P values, the Journal of Medical Internet Research is hosting a standing theme issue inviting the reanalysis of (primarily digital health) trial data using a Bayesian framework. This first paper in this series focuses on an electronic screening and brief intervention (eSBI), targeting harmful and hazardous alcohol consumption, which student health care centers across Sweden have routinely administerd to all students during the past decade. The second Alcohol Email Assessment and Feedback Study Dismantling Effectiveness for University Students (AMADEUS-2) trial aimed to assess the effect of the eSBI on alcohol consumption among students who were harmful and hazardous drinkers. A two-arm randomized controlled trial design was employed, randomizing eligible participants to either a waiting list or direct access to an eSBI. Follow-up assessments were conducted 2 months after randomization. Subsequent analysis of the trial followed the conventional null hypothesis approach, and no statistical significance was found between groups at follow-up with respect to the number of standard drinks consumed weekly. However, in an unspecified sensitivity analysis, it was discovered that removing three potential outliers made the difference between the groups significant. OBJECTIVE:The objective of this study is to reperform the primary and sensitivity analysis of the AMADEUS-2 trial using a Bayesian framework and to compare the results with those of the original analysis. METHODS:The same regression models used in the original analysis were employed in this reanalysis (negative binomial regression). Model parameters were given uniform priors. Markov chain Monte Carlo was used for Bayesian inference, and posterior probabilities were calculated for prespecified thresholds of interest. RESULTS:Null hypothesis tests did not identify a statistically significant difference between the intervention and control groups, potentially due to a few extreme data points. The Bayesian analysis indicated a 93.6% probability that there was a difference in grams of alcohol consumed at follow-up between the intervention and control groups and a 71.5% probability that the incidence rate ratio was <0.96. Posterior probabilities increased when excluding three potential outliers, yet such post hoc analyses were not necessary to show the preference toward offering an eSBI to harmful and hazardous drinkers among university students. CONCLUSIONS:The null hypothesis framework relies on point estimates of parameters. P values can therefore swing heavily, depending on a single or few data points alone, casting doubt on the value of the analysis. Bayesian analysis results in a distribution over parameter values and is therefore less sensitive to outliers and extreme values. Results from analyses of trials of interventions where small-to-modest effect sizes are expected can be more robust in a Bayesian framework, making this a potentially better approach for analyzing digital health research data. TRIAL REGISTRATION:International Standard Randomized Controlled Trial Number (ISRCTN) 02335307; http://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN02335307.

Project description:BackgroundAlcohol Brief Intervention (ABI) uses a motivational counselling approach to support individuals to reduce excessive alcohol consumption. There is growing evidence on ABI's use within various health care settings, although how they work and which components enhance success is largely unknown. This paper reports on the qualitative part of a mixed methods study. It explores enablers and barriers associated with alcohol reduction following an ABI. It focuses on alcohol's place within participants' lives and their personal perspectives on reducing consumption. There are a number of randomised controlled trials in this field though few ABI studies have addressed the experiences of hazardous/harmful drinkers. This study examines factors associated with alcohol reduction in harmful/hazardous drinkers following ABI.MethodsThis qualitative study was underpinned by a realist evaluation approach and involved semi-structured interviews with ten harmful or hazardous alcohol drinkers. Participants (n = 10) were from the intervention arm of a randomised controlled trial (n = 124). All had received ABI, a 20 min motivational counselling interview, six months previously, and had reduced their alcohol consumption. Interviews were recorded, transcribed verbatim and thematically analysed.ResultsParticipants described their views on alcohol, its' place in their lives, their personal perspectives on reducing their consumption and future aspirations.ConclusionsThe findings provide an insight into participants' views on alcohol, ABI, and the barriers and enablers to change. Participants described a cost benefit analysis, with some conscious consideration of the advantages and disadvantages of reducing intake or abstaining from alcohol. Findings suggest that, whilst hospital admission can act as a catalyst, encouraging individuals to reflect on their alcohol consumption through ABI may consolidate this, turning this reflective moment into action. Sustainability may be enhanced by the presence of a 'significant other' who encourages and experiences benefit. In addition having a purpose or structure with activities linked to employment and/or social and leisure pursuits offers the potential to enhance and sustain reduced alcohol consumption.Trial registrationTrial registration number TRN NCT00982306 September 22nd 2009.

Project description:BackgroundVarious hospital accreditation and quality assurance entities in the United States have approved and endorsed performance measures promoting alcohol brief intervention (BI) for hospitalized individuals who screen positive for unhealthy alcohol use, the spectrum of use ranging from hazardous use to alcohol use disorders. These performance measures have been controversial due to the limited and equivocal evidence for the efficacy of BI among hospitalized individuals. The few BI trials conducted with hospital inpatients vary widely in methodological quality. While the majority of these studies indicate limited to no effects of BI in this population, none have been designed to account for the most pervasive methodological issue in BI studies presumed to drive study findings towards the null: assessment reactivity (AR).Methods/designThis is a three-arm, single-site, randomized controlled trial of BI for hospitalized patients at a large academic medical center affiliated with the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs who use alcohol at hazardous levels but do not have an alcohol use disorder. Participants are randomized to one of three study conditions. Study Arm 1 receives a three-part alcohol BI. Study Arm 2 receives attention control. To account for potential AR, Study Arm 3 receives AC with limited assessment. Primary outcomes will include the number of standard drinks/week and binge drinking episodes reported in the 30-day period prior to a final measurement visit obtained 6 months after hospital discharge. Additional outcomes will include readiness to change drinking behavior and number of adverse consequences of alcohol use. To assess differences in primary outcomes across the three arms, we will use mixed-effects regression models that account for a patient's repeated measures over the timepoints and clustering within medical units. Intervention implementation will be assessed by: a) review of intervention audio recordings to characterize barriers to intervention fidelity; and b) feasibility of participant recruitment, enrollment, and follow-up.DiscussionThe results of this methodologically rigorous trial will provide greater justification for or against the use of BI performance measures in the inpatient setting and inform organizational responses to BI-related hospital accreditation and performance measures.Trial registrationNCT01602172.

Project description:BackgroundViolent injury is the leading cause of death among urban youth. Emergency department (ED) visits represent an opportunity to deliver a brief intervention (BI) to reduce violence among youth seeking medical care in high-risk communities.ObjectiveThe objective was to determine the efficacy of a universally applied BI addressing violence behaviors among youth presenting to an urban ED.MethodsED youth (14 to 20 years old) seeking medical or injury-related care in a Level I ED (October 2011-March 2015) and screening positive for a home address within the intervention or comparison neighborhood of a larger youth violence project were enrolled in this quasi-experimental study. Based on home address, participants were assigned to receive either the 30-minute therapist-delivered BI (Project Sync) or a resource brochure (enhanced usual care [EUC] condition). The Project Sync BI combined motivational interviewing and cognitive skills training, including a review of participant goals, tailored feedback, decisional balance exercises, role-playing exercises, and linkage to community resources. Participants completed validated survey measures at baseline and a 2-month follow-up assessment. Main outcome measures included self-report of physical victimization, aggression, and self-efficacy to avoid fighting. Poisson and zero-inflated Poisson regression analyses analyzed the effects of the BI, compared to the EUC condition, on primary outcomes.ResultsA total of 409 eligible youth (82% participation) were enrolled and assigned to receive either the BI (n = 263) or the EUC condition (n = 146). Two-month follow-up was 91% (n = 373). There were no significant baseline differences between study conditions. Among the entire sample, mean (±SD) age was 17.7 (±1.9) years, 60% were female, 93% were African American, and 79% reported receipt of public assistance. Of participants, 9% presented for a violent injury, 9% reported recent firearm carriage, 20% reported recent alcohol use, and 39% reported recent marijuana use. Compared with the EUC group, participants in the therapist BI group showed self-reported reductions in frequency of violent aggression (therapist, -46.8%; EUC, -36.9%; incident rate ratio [IRR] = 0.87; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.76 to 0.99) and increased self-efficacy for avoiding fighting (therapist, +7.2%; EUC, -1.3%; IRR = 1.09; 95% CI = 1.02 to 1.15). No significant changes were noted for victimization.ConclusionsAmong youth seeking ED care in a high-risk community, a brief, universally applied BI shows promise in increased self-efficacy for avoiding fighting and a decrease in the frequency of violent aggression.

Dataset Information

A brief intervention reduces hazardous and harmful drinking in emergency department patients.

Publications

A brief intervention reduces hazardous and harmful drinking in emergency department patients.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets