Dataset Information

Alcohol brief intervention for hospitalized veterans with hazardous drinking: protocol for a 3-arm randomized controlled efficacy trial.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Various 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/design

This 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.

Discussion

The 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 registration

NCT01602172.

SUBMITTER: Broyles LM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4480647 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

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: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:AIMS:Unhealthy alcohol use is common among adults, and in particular, Veterans. Routine alcohol screening followed by brief intervention is recommended and considered a prevention priority in primary care settings. While previous studies have found that Veterans enrolled in the Veteran's Health Administration (VA) receive high rates of screening and brief intervention, less than 50% of Veterans receive VA health care. No study has evaluated receipt of these services in a general sample of Veterans. Therefore, in a nationally-representative sample, we examine whether Veteran status was associated with receiving alcohol screening and brief intervention in primary care. METHODS:Using the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's 2014 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System data, we identified adults who endorsed visiting a doctor for routine checkup at least once in the past two years and responded to an optional module assessing alcohol-related care (N?=?92,206; 14.1% Veterans). Multivariable logistic regression was used to assess the association between Veteran status and screening and brief intervention outcomes. We also evaluate differences in alcohol-related care across Veteran status stratified by gender. Models were adjusted for sociodemographic and clinical characteristics likely to confound the association. RESULTS:Overall, Veterans were more likely than non-Veterans to be screened for alcohol quantity and heavy episodic drinking (ps?<?0.05), and more likely to endorse receiving brief intervention advice about alcohol's harmful effects (p?<?.001). Veteran status predicted an increased likelihood of being screened and receipt of advice about alcohol's harmful effects, but did not predict the likelihood of receiving advice to reduce or abstain from drinking (AOR?=?1.00, 95% C.I. [0.80-1.26]). Analyses stratified by gender indicated a similar pattern of results for males as the overall sample. Results among females indicated Veteran status predicted the likelihood of being asked about heavy episodic drinking (AOR?=?1.47, 95% C.I. [1.09-1.99]) and being offered advice about the harmful effects of alcohol (AOR?=?1.62, 95% C.I. [1.06-2.48]). Female Veterans were not more likely than female non-Veterans to be advised to reduce and/or abstain from drinking. CONCLUSIONS:Screening about any alcohol use was common while report of screening for quantity and heavy episodic drinking occurrence and report of brief intervention were less common. Veterans were more likely than non-Veterans to report receiving recommended care, though rates of advice to reduce or abstain from drinking did not differ across groups. Persistent gaps in delivery of recommended alcohol-related care, especially for particularly vulnerable subpopulations such as women Veterans, suggest a need for quality improvement.

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.