Dataset Information

Screening and concurrent brief intervention of conjoint hazardous or harmful alcohol and tobacco use in hospital out-patients in Thailand: a randomized controlled trial.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to conduct a cluster randomized control trial to assess the efficacy of screening and brief intervention (SBI) for conjoint alcohol and tobacco use among hospital out-patients. METHOD: In all 620 hospital out-patients who screened positive for both tobacco and alcohol moderate risk in four hospitals were randomized into 2 control and 1 intervention condition using the hospital as a unit of randomization (2 intervention and 2 control hospitals) to 405 patients in the two control groups (tobacco only intervention, n=199, and alcohol only intervention, n=206) and 215 in the intervention group. The intervention or control consisted of three counselling sessions. RESULTS: Results of the interaction (Group?×?Time) effects using GEE indicated that there were statistically significant differences between the three study groups over the 6-month follow-up on the ASSIST tobacco score (Wald ?(2)?=?8.43, P=0.004), and past week tobacco use abstinence (Wald ?(2)=7.34, P=0.007). Although there were no significant interaction effects on the other outcomes (Alcohol ASSIST score, low alcohol risk score, past week tobacco abstinence or low alcohol risk score, and past week tobacco abstinence and low alcohol risk score), the scores in all of the six outcome measures showed consistent improvements. For past week tobacco abstinence the tobacco only intervention was more effective than the alcohol only intervention and the integrated alcohol and tobacco intervention. For the outcome of low alcohol risk, the alcohol only intervention and the integrated alcohol and tobacco intervention was more effective than the tobacco only or alcohol only intervention. CONCLUSIONS: The study found that for past week tobacco abstinence the tobacco only intervention was more effective than the alcohol only intervention and the polydrug use (alcohol and tobacco) integrated intervention.

SUBMITTER: Pengpid S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4448213 | biostudies-literature | 2015

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Screening and concurrent brief intervention of conjoint hazardous or harmful alcohol and tobacco use in hospital out-patients in Thailand: a randomized controlled trial.

Pengpid Supa S Peltzer Karl K Puckpinyo Apa A Viripiromgool Somchai S Thamma-Aphiphol Kriengsak K Suthisukhon Kawinarat K Dumee Dussanee D Kongtapan Thiprada T

Substance abuse treatment, prevention, and policy 20150527

<h4>Background</h4>The aim of this study was to conduct a cluster randomized control trial to assess the efficacy of screening and brief intervention (SBI) for conjoint alcohol and tobacco use among hospital out-patients.<h4>Method</h4>In all 620 hospital out-patients who screened positive for both tobacco and alcohol moderate risk in four hospitals were randomized into 2 control and 1 intervention condition using the hospital as a unit of randomization (2 intervention and 2 control hospitals) t ...[more]

PMID: 26013537

Similar Datasets

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:Study objectiveBrief 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.MethodsWe 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.ResultsThe 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%).ConclusionEmergency 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:IntroductionLow-resourced settings often lack personnel and infrastructure for alcohol use disorder treatment. We culturally adapted a Brief Negotiational Interview (BNI) for Emergency Department injury patients, the "Punguza Pombe Kwa Afya Yako (PPKAY)" ("Reduce Alcohol For Your Health") in Tanzania. This study aimed to evaluate the feasibility of a pragmatic randomized adaptive controlled trial of the PPKAY intervention.Materials and methodsThis feasibility trial piloted a single-blind, parallel, adaptive, and multi-stage, block-randomized controlled trial, which will subsequently be used to determine the most effective intervention, with or without text message booster, to reduce alcohol use among injury patients. We reported our feasibility pilot study using the Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, Maintenance (RE-AIM) framework, with recruitment and retention rates being our primary and secondary outcomes. We enrolled adult patients seeking care for an acute injury at the Kilimanjaro Christian Medical Center in Tanzania if they (1) exhibited an Alcohol Use Disorder Identification Test (AUDIT) ≥8, (2) disclosed alcohol use prior to injury, or (3) had a breathalyzer ≥0.0 on arrival. Intervention arms were usual care (UC), PPKAY, PPKAY with standard text booster, or a PPKAY with a personalized text booster.ResultsOverall, 181 patients were screened and 75 enrolled with 80% 6-week, 82.7% 3-month and 84% 6-month follow-up rates showing appropriate Reach and retention. Adoption measures showed an overwhelmingly positive patient acceptance with 100% of patients perceiving a positive impact on their behavior. The Implementation and trial processes were performed with high rates of PPKAY fidelity (76%) and SMS delivery (74%). Intervention nurses believed Maintenance and sustainability of this 30-minute, low-cost intervention and adaptive clinical trial were feasible.ConclusionsOur intervention and trial design are feasible and acceptable, have evidence of good fidelity, and did not show problematic deviations in protocol. Results suggest support for undertaking a full trial to evaluate the effectiveness of the PPKAY, a nurse-driven BNI in a low-income country.Trial registrationTrial registration number NCT02828267. https://classic.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02828267.

Project description:BackgroundThis study estimated the cost-effectiveness of four strategies enhancing the quality and accessibility of Brief Intervention (BI) service for smoking cessation in Thailand during 2022-2030: (1) current-BI (status quo), (2) the effective-training standard-BI, (3) the current-BI plus the village health volunteers (VHV) mobilization, and (4) the effective-training BI plus VHV mobilization.MethodsBy interviewing five public health officers, nine healthcare professionals aiding these services, and fifteen BI service experts, we explored the status quo situation of the Thai smoking cessation service system, including main activities, their quantity assumptions, and activities' unit prices needed to operate the current cessation service system. Then, we modeled additional activities needed to implement the other three simulated scenarios. We estimated the costs and impacts of implementing these strategies over a nine-year operating horizon (2022-2030), covering 3 years of service system preparation and 6 years of full implementation. The modeled costs of these four strategies included intervention and program costs. The study focused on current smokers age 15 years or older. The assessed impact parameters encompassed smoking prevalence, deaths averted, and healthy life-years gained. An Incremental Cost-Effectiveness Analysis compared the four simulated strategies was employed. Data analysis was performed using the One Health Tool software, which the World Health Organization developed.ResultsThe findings of this investigation reveal that all three intervention strategies exhibited cost-effectiveness compared to the prevailing status quo. Among these strategies, Strategy 2, enhancing BI service quality, emerged as the most efficient and efficacious option. Therefore, the expansion of quality services should be synergistically aligned with augmented training, service delivery optimization, and managerial enhancements.ConclusionThis approach is particularly poised to enhance accessibility to and the efficacy of smoking cessation interventions across Thailand.

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.

Dataset Information

Screening and concurrent brief intervention of conjoint hazardous or harmful alcohol and tobacco use in hospital out-patients in Thailand: a randomized controlled trial.

Publications

Screening and concurrent brief intervention of conjoint hazardous or harmful alcohol and tobacco use in hospital out-patients in Thailand: a randomized controlled trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets