Effectiveness of brief alcohol interventions in primary care populations.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Kaner EF
PROVIDER: S-EPMC6491186 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:Brief interventions have well-established small effects on alcohol consumption among hazardous and harmful drinkers in primary care, and national large-scale programmes are being implemented in many countries for public health reasons.This paper examines data from reviews and draws upon older brief intervention studies and recent developments in the literature on motivational interviewing to consider the capacity of brief interventions to benefit those with problems, including those with severe problems.Effects on alcohol problems have been shown much less consistently, and evidence cannot be claimed to be strong for any outcomes other than reduced consumption. Combinations of advice and motivational interviewing are a promising target for evaluation in trials, and more detailed studies of the conduct of brief interventions are needed.We propose that brief interventions in primary care may be more effective if they offer appropriate content in a person-centred manner, addressing patient concerns more directly.
| S-EPMC4153955 | biostudies-other
Project description:BackgroundAs alcohol-related health problems continue to rise, the attention of policy-makers is increasingly turning to Screening and Brief Intervention (SBI) programmes. The effectiveness of such programmes in primary healthcare is well evidenced, but very few cost-effectiveness analyses have been conducted and none which specifically consider the Italian context.MethodsThe Sheffield Alcohol Policy Model has been used to model the cost-effectiveness of government pricing and public health policies in several countries including England. This study adapts the model using Italian data to evaluate a programme of screening and brief interventions in Italy. Results are reported as Incremental Cost-Effectiveness Ratios (ICERs) of SBI programmes versus a 'do-nothing' scenario.ResultsModel results show such programmes to be highly cost-effective, with estimated ICERs of €550/Quality Adjusted Life Year (QALY) gained for a programme of SBI at next GP registration and €590/QALY for SBI at next GP consultation. A range of sensitivity analyses suggest these results are robust under all but the most pessimistic assumptions.ConclusionsThis study provides strong support for the promotion of a policy of screening and brief interventions throughout Italy, although policy makers should be aware of the resource implications of different implementation options.
| S-EPMC3936801 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionThe efficacy of screening and brief interventions (SBIs) for excessive alcohol use in primary care is well established; however, evidence on their cost-effectiveness is limited. A small number of previous reviews have concluded that SBI programs are likely to be cost-effective but these results are equivocal and important questions around the cost-effectiveness implications of key policy decisions such as staffing choices for delivery of SBIs and the intervention duration remain unanswered.MethodsStudies reporting both the costs and a measure of health outcomes of programs combining SBIs in primary care were identified by searching MEDLINE, EMBASE, Econlit, the Cochrane Library Database (including NHS EED), CINAHL, PsycINFO, Assia and the Social Science Citation Index, and Science Citation Index via Web of Knowledge. Included studies have been stratified both by delivery staff and intervention duration and assessed for quality using the Drummond checklist for economic evaluations.ResultsThe search yielded a total of 23 papers reporting the results of 22 distinct studies. There was significant heterogeneity in methods and outcome measures between studies; however, almost all studies reported SBI programs to be cost-effective. There was no clear evidence that either the duration of the intervention or the delivery staff used had a substantial impact on this result.ConclusionThis review provides strong evidence that SBI programs in primary care are a cost-effective option for tackling alcohol misuse.
| S-EPMC4150206 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo 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.DesignPragmatic cluster randomised controlled trial.SettingPrimary care practices in the north east and south east of England and in London.Participants3562 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.InterventionsPractices 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 measuresThe 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.ResultsPatient 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.ConclusionsAll 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 registrationCurrent Controlled Trials ISRCTN06145674.
| S-EPMC3541471 | biostudies-literature
Project description:To undertake the first randomized controlled trial to evaluate the effectiveness of a brief intervention delivered by community pharmacists to reduce hazardous or harmful drinking.This parallel group randomized trial allocated participants individually to brief alcohol intervention (n?=?205) or a leaflet-only control condition (n?=?202), with follow-up study after 3 months.Sixteen community pharmacies in one London Borough, UK.A total of 407 pharmacy customers (aged 18?years or over) with Alcohol Use Disorder Identification Test (AUDIT) scores 8-19, inclusive.A brief motivational discussion of approximately 10 minutes' duration, for which 17 pharmacists received a half-day of training.Hazardous or harmful drinking was assessed using the AUDIT administered by telephone by a researcher blind to allocation status. The two primary outcomes were: (1) change in AUDIT total scores and (2) the proportions no longer hazardous or harmful drinkers (scoring <?8) at 3?months. The four secondary outcomes were: the three subscale scores of the AUDIT (for consumption, problems and dependence) and health status according to the EQ-5D (a standardized instrument for use as a measure of health outcome).At 3 months 326 (80% overall; 82% intervention, 78% control) participants were followed-up. The difference in reduction in total AUDIT score (intervention minus control) was -0.57, 95% confidence interval (CI)?=?-1.59 to 0.45, P?=?0.28. The odds ratio for AUDIT ??8 (control as reference) was 0.87, 95% CI?=?0.50 to 1.51, P?=?0.61). For two of the four secondary outcomes (dependence score: -0.46, 95% CI?=?-0.82 to -0.09, P?=?0.014; health status score: -0.09, 95% CI?=?-0.16 to -0.02, P?=?0.013) the control group did better, and in the other two there were no differences (consumption score: -0.05, 95% CI?=?-0.54 to 0.44, P?=?0.85; non-dependence problems score: -0.13, 95% CI?=?-0.66 to 0.41). Sensitivity analyses did not change these findings.A brief intervention delivered by community pharmacists appears to have had no effect in reducing hazardous or harmful alcohol consumption.
| S-EPMC4765086 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:Primary care settings are uniquely positioned to reach individuals at risk of alcohol use disorder through technology-delivered behavioral health interventions. Despite emerging effectiveness data, few efforts have been made to summarize the collective findings from these delivery approaches. OBJECTIVE:The aim of this study was to review recent literature on the use of technology to deliver, enhance, or support the implementation of alcohol-related interventions in primary care. We focused on addressing questions related to (1) categorization or target of the intervention, (2) descriptive characteristics and context of delivery, (3) reported efficacy, and (4) factors influencing efficacy. METHODS:We conducted a comprehensive search and systematic review of completed studies at the intersection of primary care, technology, and alcohol-related problems published from January 2000 to December 2018 within EBSCO databases, ProQuest Dissertations, and Cochrane Reviews. Of 2307 initial records, 42 were included and coded independently by 2 investigators. RESULTS:Compared with the years of 2000 to 2009, published studies on technology-based alcohol interventions in primary care nearly tripled during the years of 2010 to 2018. Of the 42 included studies, 28 (64%) were randomized controlled trials. Furthermore, studies were rated on risk of bias and found to be predominantly low risk (n=18), followed by moderate risk (n=16), and high risk (n=8). Of the 24 studies with primary or secondary efficacy outcomes related to drinking and drinking-related harms, 17 (71%) reported reduced drinking or harm in all primary and secondary efficacy outcomes. Furthermore, of the 31 studies with direct comparisons with treatment as usual (TAU), 13 (42%) reported that at least half of the primary and secondary efficacy outcomes of the technology-based interventions were superior to TAU. High efficacy was associated with provider involvement and the reported use of an implementation strategy to deliver the technology-based intervention. CONCLUSIONS:Our systematic review has highlighted a pattern of growth in the number of studies evaluating technology-based alcohol interventions in primary care. Although these interventions appear to be largely beneficial in primary care, outcomes may be enhanced by provider involvement and implementation strategy use. This review enables better understanding of the typologies and efficacy of these interventions and informs recommendations for those developing and implementing technology-based alcohol interventions in primary care settings.
| S-EPMC6475823 | biostudies-other
Project description:The aim of the study was to assess the cumulative evidence on the effectiveness of brief alcohol interventions in primary healthcare in order to highlight key knowledge gaps for further research.An overview of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of the effectiveness of brief alcohol intervention in primary healthcare published between 2002 and 2012.Twenty-four systematic reviews met the eligibility criteria (covering a total of 56 randomized controlled trials reported across 80 papers). Across the included studies, it was consistently reported that brief intervention was effective for addressing hazardous and harmful drinking in primary healthcare, particularly in middle-aged, male drinkers. Evidence gaps included: brief intervention effectiveness in key groups (women, older and younger drinkers, minority ethnic groups, dependent/co-morbid drinkers and those living in transitional and developing countries); and the optimum brief intervention length and frequency to maintain longer-term effectiveness.This overview highlights the large volume of primarily positive evidence supporting brief alcohol intervention effects as well as some unanswered questions with regards to the effectiveness of brief alcohol intervention across different cultural settings and in specific population groups, and in respect of the optimum content of brief interventions that might benefit from further research.
| S-EPMC3865817 | biostudies-other
Project description:BackgroundMotivational interviewing (MI) could be a method for minimizing alcohol-related harm. The study aims to assess the effectiveness of a brief intervention, based on a MI, in patients with risky alcohol use attended in Primary Care (PC).Materials and methodsA cluster-randomized, two-arm parallel, multicenter, open-label, controlled clinical trial. Fifty PC healthcare professionals from the province of Córdoba (Spain) will be randomized to one of the two study groups: (1) Experimental Group (EG): MI-based approach; (2) Control Group (CG): Usual care based on health advice. EG intervention: Professionals will receive a training program focused on MI, consisting of a training workshop and the use of pre- and post-workshop questionnaires to measure knowledge and skills acquired, as well as the degree of empathy, with a videotape of the health professionals with standardized patients, before and after the workshop, and subsequent training feedback. CG intervention: Workshop on the management of risky alcohol use based on health advice; participants will also complete the pre-and post-workshop questionnaires and be videotaped. Study population: Patients ≥ 14 years old with risky alcohol consumption (28 Standard Drink Units-SDU-/week in men and 17 SDU/week in women) or excessive alcohol use (≥ 6 SDU in men or ≥ 4 SDU in women, in less than 2 h). It would be necessary to include 110 subjects/group to find a difference of 20% between the percentage of patients in abstinence between EG (37%) and CG (20%), alpha error of 5%, and statistical power of 80%. Assuming a loss rate of 5% and the cluster design effect, the number of subjects to be recruited is estimated at 197/group. The follow-up period will be 12 months. The primary outcome variables will be the self-reported alcohol use level and the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT) questionnaire score.DiscussionThe study aims to demonstrate the effectiveness of the motivational approach in the comprehensive treatment of the patient with risky alcohol use, improving the empathy of the healthcare professionals and strengthening the healthcare professional-patient relationship to achieve the behavioral change of the patients with this problem in primary care consultations.Clinical trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov.
| S-EPMC9880185 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundPrenatal alcohol exposure (PAE) can result in a range of adverse neonatal outcomes, including Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder (FASD). This systematic review and meta-analysis sought to investigate the effectiveness of brief interventions (BIs) in eliminating or reducing 1) alcohol consumption during pregnancy; and 2) PAE-related adverse neonatal outcomes; and 3) cost-effectiveness of BIs.MethodWe conducted a systematic literature search for original controlled studies (randomized control trials (RCTs); quasi-experimental) in any setting, published from 1987 to 2021. The comparison group was no/minimal intervention, where a measure of alcohol consumption was reported. Studies were critically appraised using the Centre for Evidence-based Medicine Oxford critical appraisal tool for RCTs (1). The certainty in the evidence for each outcome was assessed using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) (2). Meta-analysis of continuous and binary estimates of effect-size for similar outcome measures for BIs versus control groups were pooled and reported as mean difference (MD) Hedges' g and odds ratios (ORs), respectively.ResultsIn total, 26 studies, all from high income countries, met inclusion criteria. Alcohol abstinence outcome available in 12 studies (n = 2620) found modest effects in favor of BIs conditions by increasing the odds of abstinence by 56% (OR = 1.56, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.15-2.13, I2 = 46.75%; p = 0.04). BIs effects for reduction in mean drinks/week (Cohen's d = - 0.21, 95%CI = - 0.78 to 0.36; p = 0.08) and AUDIT scores (g = 0.10, 95%CI = - 0.06 to 0.26; p = 0.17) were not statistically significant. Among seven studies (n = 740) reporting neonatal outcomes, BI receipt was associated with a modest and significant reduction in preterm birth (OR = 0.67, 95% CI = 0.46-0.98, I2 = 0.00%; p = 0.58). No statistically significant differences were observed for mean birthweight or lower likelihood of low birth weight (LBW). Certainty in the evidence was rated as 'low'. No eligible studies were found on cost-effectiveness of BIs.ConclusionBIs are moderately effective in increasing abstinence during pregnancy and preventing preterm birth. More studies on the effectiveness of BIs are needed from low- and middle-income countries, as well as with younger mothers and with a broader range of ethnic groups.
| S-EPMC9872314 | biostudies-literature
Project description:To conduct a meta-analysis summarizing the effectiveness of school-based brief alcohol interventions (BAIs) among adolescents and to examine possible iatrogenic effects due to deviancy training in group-delivered interventions, a systematic search for eligible studies was undertaken, current through December 31, 2012. Studies were eligible for inclusion if they used an experimental/quasi-experimental design; focused on school-based BAIs; enrolled adolescent participants; and reported an alcohol-related outcome measure. Studies were coded for key variables, and outcome effect sizes were analyzed as standardized mean differences adjusted for small samples (Hedges' g). Analyses were conducted using inverse-variance weighted mixed-effects meta-regression models. Sensitivity analyses were also conducted. Across all 17 studies eligible for inclusion, school-based BAIs were associated with significant improvements among adolescents, whereby adolescents in the BAI groups reduced their alcohol consumption relative to the control groups (=?0.34, 95 % CI [0.11, 0.56]). Subgroup analyses indicated that whereas individually-delivered BAIs were effective (=?0.58, 95 % CI [0.23, 0.92]), there was no evidence that group-delivered BAIs were associated with reductions in alcohol use (=?-0.02, 95 % CI [-0.17, 0.14]). Delivery format was confounded with program modality, however, such that motivational enhancement therapy was the most effective modality, but was rarely implemented in group-delivered interventions. Some school-based BAIs are effective in reducing adolescent alcohol consumption, but may be ineffective if delivered in group settings. Future research should explore whether group-delivered BAIs that use motivational enhancement therapy components may yield beneficial outcomes like those observed in individually-delivered programs.
| S-EPMC4636019 | biostudies-literature