A randomized controlled trial of different methods of alcohol screening and brief intervention in routine accident and emergency department care: 12-month outcomes

Paolo Deluca, Colin Drummond, Simon Coulton, Eileen Kaner, Dorothy Newbury-Birch, Tom Philips, Katherine Perryman, Nick Heather, Christine Godfrey

Research output: Contribution to journalMeeting AbstractResearchpeer-review

19 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

There is a wealth of evidence on the detrimental impact of excessive alcohol consumption on physical, psychological, and social health. There also exists a substantial evidence base for the efficacy of alcohol brief intervention (BI) aimed at reducing consumption across a range of settings. Research conducted in emergency departments (EDs) has reinforced the current evidence regarding the potential effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of BI. However, the majority of this research has been conducted in a single center, and there is little evidence of the generalizability of SBI implementation across EDs. This pragmatic cluster randomized controlled trial randomized nine EDs to a combination of screening tools (the Modified Single Alcohol Screening Question [M-SASQ], the Fast Alcohol Screening Test [FAST], or the Screening and Intervention Program for Sensible Drinking modified Paddington Alcohol Test [SIPS-PAT]) and interventions (patient intervention leaflet [PIL], brief advice [BA], or brief lifestyle counseling [BLC]). The primary hypothesis was that BLC delivered by an alcohol health worker would be more effective than BA or PIL delivered by ED staff. Outcomes were assessed at six and 12 months. Overall, 5992 patients were screened for eligibility in 9 EDs; of these, 3737 (62%) were found eligible, and 1491 screened positive for an alcohol use disorder (40%). Of those who screened positive, 1204 (81%) consented to participate in the trial. The mean age of participants was 35 years, and the mean AUDIT score at baseline was 12.4. The majority of the sample was male (65%) and white (88%). At 12 months, 803 (67%) of participants were followed up. No significant differences in follow-up rates were observed between intervention groups. Overall, the proportion of participants positive for an alcohol use disorder reduced significantly by 16.3%. This reflected a significant decrease of 18.8% in the PIL group and 15.1% in both the BLC and BA groups. An adjusted logistic regression model found no significant effects of intervention group, screening approach, or baseline AUDIT score.
Original languageEnglish
Article numberA80
JournalAddiction science & clinical practice
Volume7
Issue number(Suppl 1)
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 9 Oct 2012

Fingerprint

Emergency Medical Services
Hospital Emergency Service
Randomized Controlled Trials
Alcohols
Life Style
Counseling
Logistic Models
Health
Research
Alcohol Drinking
Drinking
Cost-Benefit Analysis
Psychology

Cite this

Deluca, Paolo ; Drummond, Colin ; Coulton, Simon ; Kaner, Eileen ; Newbury-Birch, Dorothy ; Philips, Tom ; Perryman, Katherine ; Heather, Nick ; Godfrey, Christine. / A randomized controlled trial of different methods of alcohol screening and brief intervention in routine accident and emergency department care: 12-month outcomes. In: Addiction science & clinical practice. 2012 ; Vol. 7, No. (Suppl 1).
@article{ff235fadf0dc44fcb736545ac7ff3e79,
title = "A randomized controlled trial of different methods of alcohol screening and brief intervention in routine accident and emergency department care: 12-month outcomes",
abstract = "There is a wealth of evidence on the detrimental impact of excessive alcohol consumption on physical, psychological, and social health. There also exists a substantial evidence base for the efficacy of alcohol brief intervention (BI) aimed at reducing consumption across a range of settings. Research conducted in emergency departments (EDs) has reinforced the current evidence regarding the potential effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of BI. However, the majority of this research has been conducted in a single center, and there is little evidence of the generalizability of SBI implementation across EDs. This pragmatic cluster randomized controlled trial randomized nine EDs to a combination of screening tools (the Modified Single Alcohol Screening Question [M-SASQ], the Fast Alcohol Screening Test [FAST], or the Screening and Intervention Program for Sensible Drinking modified Paddington Alcohol Test [SIPS-PAT]) and interventions (patient intervention leaflet [PIL], brief advice [BA], or brief lifestyle counseling [BLC]). The primary hypothesis was that BLC delivered by an alcohol health worker would be more effective than BA or PIL delivered by ED staff. Outcomes were assessed at six and 12 months. Overall, 5992 patients were screened for eligibility in 9 EDs; of these, 3737 (62{\%}) were found eligible, and 1491 screened positive for an alcohol use disorder (40{\%}). Of those who screened positive, 1204 (81{\%}) consented to participate in the trial. The mean age of participants was 35 years, and the mean AUDIT score at baseline was 12.4. The majority of the sample was male (65{\%}) and white (88{\%}). At 12 months, 803 (67{\%}) of participants were followed up. No significant differences in follow-up rates were observed between intervention groups. Overall, the proportion of participants positive for an alcohol use disorder reduced significantly by 16.3{\%}. This reflected a significant decrease of 18.8{\%} in the PIL group and 15.1{\%} in both the BLC and BA groups. An adjusted logistic regression model found no significant effects of intervention group, screening approach, or baseline AUDIT score.",
author = "Paolo Deluca and Colin Drummond and Simon Coulton and Eileen Kaner and Dorothy Newbury-Birch and Tom Philips and Katherine Perryman and Nick Heather and Christine Godfrey",
year = "2012",
month = "10",
day = "9",
doi = "10.1186/1940-0640-7-S1-A80",
language = "English",
volume = "7",
journal = "Addiction science & clinical practice",
issn = "1940-0632",
publisher = "BioMed Central Ltd.",
number = "(Suppl 1)",

}

A randomized controlled trial of different methods of alcohol screening and brief intervention in routine accident and emergency department care: 12-month outcomes. / Deluca, Paolo; Drummond, Colin; Coulton, Simon; Kaner, Eileen; Newbury-Birch, Dorothy; Philips, Tom; Perryman, Katherine; Heather, Nick; Godfrey, Christine.

In: Addiction science & clinical practice, Vol. 7, No. (Suppl 1), A80, 09.10.2012.

Research output: Contribution to journalMeeting AbstractResearchpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - A randomized controlled trial of different methods of alcohol screening and brief intervention in routine accident and emergency department care: 12-month outcomes

AU - Deluca, Paolo

AU - Drummond, Colin

AU - Coulton, Simon

AU - Kaner, Eileen

AU - Newbury-Birch, Dorothy

AU - Philips, Tom

AU - Perryman, Katherine

AU - Heather, Nick

AU - Godfrey, Christine

PY - 2012/10/9

Y1 - 2012/10/9

N2 - There is a wealth of evidence on the detrimental impact of excessive alcohol consumption on physical, psychological, and social health. There also exists a substantial evidence base for the efficacy of alcohol brief intervention (BI) aimed at reducing consumption across a range of settings. Research conducted in emergency departments (EDs) has reinforced the current evidence regarding the potential effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of BI. However, the majority of this research has been conducted in a single center, and there is little evidence of the generalizability of SBI implementation across EDs. This pragmatic cluster randomized controlled trial randomized nine EDs to a combination of screening tools (the Modified Single Alcohol Screening Question [M-SASQ], the Fast Alcohol Screening Test [FAST], or the Screening and Intervention Program for Sensible Drinking modified Paddington Alcohol Test [SIPS-PAT]) and interventions (patient intervention leaflet [PIL], brief advice [BA], or brief lifestyle counseling [BLC]). The primary hypothesis was that BLC delivered by an alcohol health worker would be more effective than BA or PIL delivered by ED staff. Outcomes were assessed at six and 12 months. Overall, 5992 patients were screened for eligibility in 9 EDs; of these, 3737 (62%) were found eligible, and 1491 screened positive for an alcohol use disorder (40%). Of those who screened positive, 1204 (81%) consented to participate in the trial. The mean age of participants was 35 years, and the mean AUDIT score at baseline was 12.4. The majority of the sample was male (65%) and white (88%). At 12 months, 803 (67%) of participants were followed up. No significant differences in follow-up rates were observed between intervention groups. Overall, the proportion of participants positive for an alcohol use disorder reduced significantly by 16.3%. This reflected a significant decrease of 18.8% in the PIL group and 15.1% in both the BLC and BA groups. An adjusted logistic regression model found no significant effects of intervention group, screening approach, or baseline AUDIT score.

AB - There is a wealth of evidence on the detrimental impact of excessive alcohol consumption on physical, psychological, and social health. There also exists a substantial evidence base for the efficacy of alcohol brief intervention (BI) aimed at reducing consumption across a range of settings. Research conducted in emergency departments (EDs) has reinforced the current evidence regarding the potential effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of BI. However, the majority of this research has been conducted in a single center, and there is little evidence of the generalizability of SBI implementation across EDs. This pragmatic cluster randomized controlled trial randomized nine EDs to a combination of screening tools (the Modified Single Alcohol Screening Question [M-SASQ], the Fast Alcohol Screening Test [FAST], or the Screening and Intervention Program for Sensible Drinking modified Paddington Alcohol Test [SIPS-PAT]) and interventions (patient intervention leaflet [PIL], brief advice [BA], or brief lifestyle counseling [BLC]). The primary hypothesis was that BLC delivered by an alcohol health worker would be more effective than BA or PIL delivered by ED staff. Outcomes were assessed at six and 12 months. Overall, 5992 patients were screened for eligibility in 9 EDs; of these, 3737 (62%) were found eligible, and 1491 screened positive for an alcohol use disorder (40%). Of those who screened positive, 1204 (81%) consented to participate in the trial. The mean age of participants was 35 years, and the mean AUDIT score at baseline was 12.4. The majority of the sample was male (65%) and white (88%). At 12 months, 803 (67%) of participants were followed up. No significant differences in follow-up rates were observed between intervention groups. Overall, the proportion of participants positive for an alcohol use disorder reduced significantly by 16.3%. This reflected a significant decrease of 18.8% in the PIL group and 15.1% in both the BLC and BA groups. An adjusted logistic regression model found no significant effects of intervention group, screening approach, or baseline AUDIT score.

U2 - 10.1186/1940-0640-7-S1-A80

DO - 10.1186/1940-0640-7-S1-A80

M3 - Meeting Abstract

VL - 7

JO - Addiction science & clinical practice

JF - Addiction science & clinical practice

SN - 1940-0632

IS - (Suppl 1)

M1 - A80

ER -