Dataset Information

Emergency department-based brief intervention to reduce risky driving and hazardous/harmful drinking in young adults: a randomized controlled trial.

ABSTRACT: Risky 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.We 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.Outcomes 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.Our 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.

SUBMITTER: Sommers MS

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4106279 | biostudies-literature | 2013 Oct

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Emergency department-based brief intervention to reduce risky driving and hazardous/harmful drinking in young adults: a randomized controlled trial.

Sommers Marilyn S MS Lyons Michael S MS Fargo Jamison D JD Sommers Benjamin D BD McDonald Catherine C CC Shope Jean T JT Fleming Michael F MF

Alcoholism, clinical and experimental research 20130626 10

<h4>Background</h4>Risky 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.<h4>Methods</h4>We determined the efficacy of a Screening, B ...[more]

PMID: 23802878

Similar Datasets

Project description: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.

Project description:BackgroundRisky drinking in pregnancy by UK women is likely to result in many alcohol-exposed pregnancies. Studies from the USA suggest that brief intervention has promise for alcohol risk reduction in antenatal care. However, further research is needed to establish whether this evidence from the USA is applicable to the UK. This pilot study aims to investigate whether pregnant women can be recruited and retained in a randomized controlled trial of brief intervention aimed at reducing risky drinking in women receiving antenatal care.MethodsThe trial will rehearse the parallel-group, non-blinded design and procedures of a subsequent definitive trial. Over 8 months, women aged 18 years and over (target number 2,742) attending their booking appointment with a community midwife (n = 31) in north-east England will be screened for alcohol consumption using the consumption questions of the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT-C). Those screening positive, without a history of substance use or alcohol dependence, with no pregnancy complication, and able to give informed consent, will be invited to participate in the trial (target number 120). Midwives will be randomized in a 1:1 ratio to deliver either treatment as usual (control) or structured brief advice and referral for a 20-minute motivational interviewing session with an alcohol health worker (intervention). As well as demographic and health information, baseline measures will include two 7-day time line follow-back questionnaires and the EuroQoL EQ-5D-3 L questionnaire. Measures will be repeated in telephone follow-ups in the third trimester and at 6 months post-partum, when a questionnaire on use of National Health Service and social care resources will also be completed. Information on pregnancy outcomes and stillbirths will be accessed from central health service records before the follow-ups. Primary outcomes will be rates of eligibility, recruitment, intervention delivery, and retention in the study population, to inform power calculations for a definitive trial. The health-economics component will establish how cost-effectiveness will be assessed, and examine which data on health service resource use should be collected in a main trial. Participants' views on instruments and procedures will be sought to confirm their acceptability.DiscussionThe study will produce a full trial protocol with robust sample-size calculations to extend evidence on effectiveness of screening and brief intervention.Trial registrationCurrent Controlled Trials ISRCTN43218782.

Project description:ObjectiveThis study piloted procedures and obtained data on intervention acceptability to determine the feasibility of a definitive randomised controlled trial (RCT) of the effectiveness of a computer-based brief intervention in the emergency department (ED).DesignTwo-arm, multi-site, pilot RCT.Setting and participantsAdolescents aged 12-17 years presenting to three Canadian pediatric EDs from July 2010 to January 2013 for an alcohol-related complaint.InterventionsStandard medical care plus computer-based screening and personalised assessment feedback (experimental group) or standard care plus computer-based sham (control group). ED and research staff, and adolescents were blinded to allocation.OutcomesMain: change in alcohol consumption from baseline to 1- and 3 months post-intervention. Secondary: recruitment and retention rates, intervention acceptability and feasibility, perception of group allocation among ED and research staff, and change in health and social services utilisation.ResultsOf the 340 adolescents screened, 117 adolescents were eligible and 44 participated in the study (37.6% recruitment rate). Adolescents allocated to the intervention found it easy, quick and informative, but were divided on the credibility of the feedback provided (agreed it was credible: 44.4%, disagreed: 16.7%, unsure: 16.7%, no response: 22.2%). We found no evidence of a statistically significant relationship between which interventions adolescents were allocated to and which interventions staff thought they received. Alcohol consumption, and health and social services data were largely incomplete due to modest study retention rates of 47.7% and 40.9% at 1- and 3 months post-intervention, respectively.ConclusionsA computer-based intervention was acceptable to adolescents and delivery was feasible in the ED in terms of time to use and ease of use. However, adjustments are needed to the intervention to improve its credibility. A definitive RCT will be feasible if protocol adjustments are made to improve recruitment and retention rates; and increase the number of study sites and research staff.Trial registrationclinicaltrials.gov NCT01146665.

Project description:Adolescents in their late teens and early 20s have the highest alcohol consumption in the United States; binge drinking peaks at age 21-25 years. Underage drinking is associated with many negative consequences, including academic problems and risk of intentional and unintentional injuries. This study tested the effectiveness of pediatric emergency department (PED) screening and brief intervention to reduce alcohol consumption and associated risks.A three-group randomized assignment trial was structured to test differences between intervention (I) and standard assessed control (AC) groups in alcohol consumption and alcohol-related behaviors from baseline to 12 months and to compare the AC group with a minimally assessed control (MAC) group to adjust for the effect of assessment reactivity on control group behavior. Patients aged 14-21 years were eligible if they screened positive on the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT) or for binge drinking or high-risk behaviors. The MAC group received a resource handout, written advice about alcohol-related risks, and a 12-month follow-up appointment. Patients in the AC group were assessed using standardized instruments in addition to the MAC protocol. The I group received a peer-conducted motivational intervention, referral to community resources and treatment if indicated, and a 10-day booster in addition to assessment. Measurements included 30-day self-report of alcohol consumption and alcohol-related behaviors, screens for depression and posttraumatic stress disorder, and self-report of attempts to quit, cut back, or change conditions of use, all repeated at follow-up. Motor vehicle records and medical records were also analyzed for changes from baseline to 1-year follow-up.Among 7,807 PED patients screened, 1,202 were eligible; 853 enrolled (I, n = 283; AC, n = 284; MAC, n = 286), with a 12-month follow-up rate of 72%. At 12 months, more than half of enrollees in Reaching Adolescents for Prevention (RAP) attempted to cut back on drinking, and over a third tried to quit. A significantly larger proportion of the I group made efforts to quit drinking and to be careful about situations when drinking compared to AC enrollees, and there was a numerically but not significantly greater likelihood (p = 0.065) among the I group for efforts to cut back on drinking. At 3 months, the likelihood of the I group making attempts to cut back was almost triple that of ACs. For efforts to quit, it was double, and for trying to be careful about situations when drinking, there was a 72% increase in the odds ratio (OR) for the I group. Three-month results for attempts were sustained at 12 months for quit attempts and efforts to be careful. Consumption declined in both groups from baseline to 3 months to 12 months, but there were no significant between-group differences in alcohol-related consequences at 12 months or in alcohol-related risk behaviors. We found a pattern suggestive of assessment reactivity in only one variable at 12 months: the attempt to cut back (73.3% for the I group vs. 64.9% among the AC group and 54.8% among the MAC group).Brief motivational intervention resulted in significant efforts to change behavior (quit drinking and be careful about situations while drinking) but did not alter between-group consumption or consequences.

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:BackgroundComputer technologies hold promise for implementing alcohol screening, brief intervention, and referral to treatment (SBIRT). Questions concerning the most effective and appropriate SBIRT model remain.ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of a computerized SBIRT system called the Health Evaluation and Referral Assistant (HERA) on risky alcohol use treatment initiation.MethodsAlcohol users (N=319) presenting to an emergency department (ED) were considered for enrollment. Those enrolled (n=212) were randomly assigned to the HERA, to complete a patient-administered assessment using a tablet computer, or a minimal-treatment control, and were followed for 3 months. Analyses compared alcohol treatment provider contact, treatment initiation, treatment completion, and alcohol use across condition using univariate comparisons, generalized estimating equations (GEEs), and post hoc chi-square analyses.ResultsHERA participants (n=212; control=115; intervention=97) did not differ between conditions on initial contact with an alcohol treatment provider, treatment initiation, treatment completion, or change in risky alcohol use behavior. Subanalyses indicated that HERA participants, who accepted a faxed referral, were more likely to initiate contact with a treatment provider and initiate treatment for risky alcohol use, but were not more likely to continue engaging in treatment, or to complete treatment and change risky alcohol use behavior over the 3-month period following the ED visit.ConclusionsThe HERA promoted initial contact with an alcohol treatment provider and initiation of treatment for those who accepted the faxed referral, but it did not lead to reduced risky alcohol use behavior. Factors which may have limited the HERA's impact include lack of support for the intervention by clinical staff, the low intensity of the brief and stand-alone design of the intervention, and barriers related to patient follow-through, (eg, a lack of transportation or childcare, fees for services, or schedule conflicts).Trial registrationInternational Standard Randomized Controlled Trial Number (ISRCTN): NCT01153373; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01153373 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/6pHQEpuIF).

Dataset Information

Emergency department-based brief intervention to reduce risky driving and hazardous/harmful drinking in young adults: a randomized controlled trial.

Publications

Emergency department-based brief intervention to reduce risky driving and hazardous/harmful drinking in young adults: a randomized controlled trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets