Tom Phillips

Alcohol Screening and Brief Intervention for Adolescents: The How, What and Where of Reducing Alcohol Consumption and Related Harm Among Young People

Aim: The aim of the study was to explore the evidence base on alcohol screening and brief intervention for adolescents to determine age appropriate screening tools, effective brief interventions and appropriate locations to undertake these activities. Methods: A review of existing reviews (2003–2013) and a systematic review of recent research not included in earlier reviews. Results: The CRAFFT and AUDIT tools are recommended for identification of ‘at risk’ adolescents. Motivational interventions delivered over one or more sessions and based in health care or educational settings are effective at reducing levels of consumption and alcohol-related harm. Conclusion: Further research to develop age appropriate screening tools needs to be undertaken. Screening and brief intervention activity should be undertaken in settings where young people are likely to present; further assessment at such venues as paediatric emergency departments, sexual health clinics and youth offending teams should be evaluated. The use of electronic (web/smart-phone based) screening and intervention shows promise and should also be the focus of future research.

The Effectiveness of Electronic Screening and Brief Intervention for Reducing Levels of Alcohol Consumption: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background Electronic screening and brief intervention (eSBI) has been shown to reduce alcohol consumption, but its effectiveness over time has not been subject to meta-analysis. Objective The current study aims to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of the available literature to determine the effectiveness of eSBI over time in nontreatment-seeking hazardous/harmful drinkers. Methods A systematic review and meta-analysis of relevant studies identified through searching the electronic databases PsychINFO, Medline, and EMBASE in May 2013. Two members of the study team independently screened studies for inclusion criteria and extracted data. Studies reporting data that could be transformed into grams of ethanol per week were included in the meta-analysis. The mean difference in grams of ethanol per week between eSBI and control groups was weighted using the random-effects method based on the inverse-variance approach to control for differences in sample size between studies. Results There was a statistically significant mean difference in grams of ethanol consumed per week between those receiving an eSBI versus controls at up to 3 months (mean difference –32.74, 95% CI –56.80 to –8.68, z=2.67, P=.01), 3 to less than 6 months (mean difference –17.33, 95% CI –31.82 to –2.84, z=2.34, P=.02), and from 6 months to less than 12 months follow-up (mean difference –14.91, 95% CI –25.56 to –4.26, z=2.74, P=.01). No statistically significant difference was found at a follow-up period of 12 months or greater (mean difference –7.46, 95% CI –25.34 to 10.43, z=0.82, P=.41). Conclusions A significant reduction in weekly alcohol consumption between intervention and control conditions was demonstrated between 3 months and less than 12 months follow-up indicating eSBI is an effective intervention.

The Effectiveness of Alcohol Screening and Brief Intervention in Emergency Departments: A Multicentre Pragmatic Cluster Randomized Controlled Trial

Background Alcohol misuse is common in people attending emergency departments (EDs) and there is some evidence of efficacy of alcohol screening and brief interventions (SBI). This study investigated the effectiveness of SBI approaches of different intensities delivered by ED staff in nine typical EDs in England: the SIPS ED trial. Methods and Findings Pragmatic multicentre cluster randomized controlled trial of SBI for hazardous and harmful drinkers presenting to ED. Nine EDs were randomized to three conditions: a patient information leaflet (PIL), 5 minutes of brief advice (BA), and referral to an alcohol health worker who provided 20 minutes of brief lifestyle counseling (BLC). The primary outcome measure was the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT) status at 6 months. Of 5899 patients aged 18 or more presenting to EDs, 3737 (63·3%) were eligible to participate and 1497 (40·1%) screened positive for hazardous or harmful drinking, of whom 1204 (80·4%) gave consent to participate in the trial. Follow up rates were 72% (n = 863) at six, and 67% (n = 810) at 12 months. There was no evidence of any differences between intervention conditions for AUDIT status or any other outcome measures at months 6 or 12 in an intention to treat analysis. At month 6, compared to the PIL group, the odds ratio of being AUDIT negative for brief advice was 1·103 (95% CI 0·328 to 3·715). The odds ratio comparing BLC to PIL was 1·247 (95% CI 0·315 to 4·939). A per protocol analysis confirmed these findings. Conclusions SBI is difficult to implement in typical EDs. The results do not support widespread implementation of alcohol SBI in ED beyond screening followed by simple clinical feedback and alcohol information, which is likely to be easier and less expensive to implement than more complex interventions. Trial Registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN 93681536

Screening and brief interventions for hazardous alcohol use in accident and emergency departments: A randomised controlled trial protocol

BackgroundThere is a wealth of evidence regarding the detrimental impact of excessive alcohol consumption on the physical, psychological and social health of the population. There also exists a substantial evidence base for the efficacy of brief interventions aimed at reducing alcohol consumption across a range of healthcare settings. Primary research conducted in emergency departments has reinforced the current evidence regarding the potential effectiveness and cost-effectiveness. Within this body of evidence there is marked variation in the intensity of brief intervention delivered, from very minimal interventions to more intensive behavioural or lifestyle counselling approaches. Further the majority of primary research has been conducted in single centre and there is little evidence of the wider issues of generalisability and implementation of brief interventions across emergency departments.Methods/designThe study design is a prospective pragmatic factorial cluster randomised controlled trial. Individual Emergency Departments (ED) (n = 9) are randomised with equal probability to a combination of screening tool (M-SASQ vs FAST vs SIPS-PAT) and an intervention (Minimal intervention vs Brief advice vs Brief lifestyle counselling). The primary hypothesis is that brief lifestyle counselling delivered by an Alcohol Health Worker (AHW) is more effective than Brief Advice or a minimal intervention delivered by ED staff. Secondary hypotheses address whether short screening instruments are more acceptable and as efficient as longer screening instruments and the cost-effectiveness of screening and brief interventions in ED. Individual participants will be followed up at 6 and 12 months after consent. The primary outcome measure is performance using a gold-standard screening test (AUDIT). Secondary outcomes include; quantity and frequency of alcohol consumed, alcohol-related problems, motivation to change, health related quality of life and service utilisation.DiscussionThis paper presents a protocol for a large multi-centre pragmatic factorial cluster randomised trial to evaluate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of screening and brief interventions for hazardous alcohol users attending emergency departments.Trial RegistrationISRCTN 93681536

Alcohol Screening and Brief Interventions for Offenders in the Probation Setting (SIPS Trial): a Pragmatic Multicentre Cluster Randomized Controlled Trial

AIM To evaluate the effectiveness of different brief intervention strategies at reducing hazardous or harmful drinking in the probation setting. Offender managers were randomized to three interventions, each of which built on the previous one: feedback on screening outcome and a client information leaflet control group, 5 min of structured brief advice and 20 min of brief lifestyle counselling. METHODS A pragmatic multicentre factorial cluster randomized controlled trial. The primary outcome was self-reported hazardous or harmful drinking status measured by Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT) at 6 months (negative status was a score of <8). Secondary outcomes were AUDIT status at 12 months, experience of alcohol-related problems, health utility, service utilization, readiness to change and reduction in conviction rates. RESULTS Follow-up rates were 68% at 6 months and 60% at 12 months. At both time points, there was no significant advantage of more intensive interventions compared with the control group in terms of AUDIT status. Those in the brief advice and brief lifestyle counselling intervention groups were statistically significantly less likely to reoffend (36 and 38%, respectively) than those in the client information leaflet group (50%) in the year following intervention. CONCLUSION Brief advice or brief lifestyle counselling provided no additional benefit in reducing hazardous or harmful drinking compared with feedback on screening outcome and a client information leaflet. The impact of more intensive brief intervention on reoffending warrants further research.

The effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of opportunistic screening and stepped care interventions for older hazardous alcohol users in primary care (AESOPS) – A randomised control trial protocol

BackgroundThere is a wealth of evidence regarding the detrimental impact of excessive alcohol consumption. In older populations excessive alcohol consumption is associated with increased risk of coronary heart disease, hypertension, stroke and a range of cancers. Alcohol consumption is also associated with an increased risk of falls, early onset of dementia and other cognitive deficits. Physiological changes that occur as part of the ageing process mean that older people experience alcohol related problems at lower consumption levels. There is a strong evidence base for the effectiveness of brief psychosocial interventions in reducing alcohol consumption in populations identified opportunistically in primary care settings. Stepped care interventions involve the delivery of more intensive interventions only to those in the population who fail to respond to less intensive interventions and provide a potentially resource efficient means of meeting the needs of this population.Methods/designThe study design is a pragmatic prospective multi-centre two arm randomised controlled trial. The primary hypothesis is that stepped care interventions for older hazardous alcohol users reduce alcohol consumption compared with a minimal intervention at 12 months post randomisation. Potential participants are identified using the AUDIT questionnaire. Eligible and consenting participants are randomised with equal probability to either a minimal intervention or a three step treatment approach. The step treatment approach incorporates as step 1 behavioural change counselling, step 2 three sessions of motivational enhancement therapy and step 3 referral to specialist services. The primary outcome is measured using average standard drinks per day and secondary outcome measures include the Drinking Problems Index, health related quality of life and health utility. The study incorporates a comprehensive economic analysis to assess the relative cost-effectiveness of the interventions.DiscussionThe paper presents a protocol for the first pragmatic randomised controlled trial evaluating the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of stepped care interventions for older hazardous alcohol users in primary care.Trial registrationISRCTN52557360

National survey of alcohol treatment agencies in England: Characteristics of treatment agencies

Background: To map and contact all specialist alcohol treatment services in England and to investigate the characteristics of responding agencies. Methods: A national cross-sectional survey of alcohol treatment agencies in England. A questionnaire was designed to gather information about agency characteristics, including the service structure, staffing, modalities of treatment, and associated funding. Results: A total of 696 alcohol treatment agencies were mapped, of which 388 (55.7%) responded to the survey. Variations in agency characteristics were noticed across geographical regions, as well as across sectors. The estimated annual spending on alcohol treatment was £217 million. Conclusions: Whereas the regional variation in agency characteristics has implications for access to particular types of treatment, the inter-sector variation has implications for the allocation of funding. The estimated annual spending of £217 million is greater than previous national estimates. A national framework for alcohol service mapping could benefit identification of areas for improvement and lead to more successful treatment outcomes.

The Perceived Challenges Facing Alcohol Treatment Services in England: a qualitative study of service providers

Background: Although there is currently a high level of need for alcohol treatment in the United Kingdom, there has been a lack of research into alcohol treatment to date. This study reports on what the current challenges to alcohol treatment services in England are, what resources might help to improve services, and which groups are poorly served by alcohol treatment services, as perceived by service providers. Methods: Qualitative data was obtained in three open-ended questions from a sample of 207 alcohol treatment agencies that responded to the national alcohol needs assessment postal survey. Results: Lack of funding, a general lack of resources to provide services, inadequate access to detoxification and rehabilitation services, and a lack of trained staff to deliver services were key challenges presented. More staff, improved access to detoxification and rehabilitation services, better premises, more funding allocation, improved links with other services, and better resources in general to provide services were the key factors reported to improve services. Clients with complex needs (e.g., dual diagnosis, brain damage), women with children, homeless people, and ethnic minorities were perceived to be poorly served by alcohol treatment services. Conclusions: Alcohol treatment services in England face many challenges which should be incorporated into future alcohol treatment service development.

Screening for At-Risk Alcohol Consumption in Primary Care: A Randomized Evaluation of Screening Approaches

Aims The aim of the study was to explore the relative efficiency and effectiveness of targeted versus universal screening for at-risk alcohol use in a primary care population in the UK. Methods The study was a randomized evaluation of screening approach (targeted versus universal) for consecutive attendees at primary care aged 18 years or more. Targeted screening involved screening any patient attending with one of the targeted presentations, conditions associated with excessive alcohol consumption: mental health, gastrointestinal, hypertension, minor injuries or a new patient registration. In the universal arm of the study all presentations in the recruitment period were included. Universal screening included all patients presenting to allocated practices. Results A total of 3562 potential participants were approached. The odds ratio of being screen positive was higher for the targeted group versus the universal group. Yet the vast majority of those screening positive in the universal group of the study would have been missed by a targeted approach. A combination of age and gender was a more efficient approach than targeting by clinical condition or context. Conclusions While screening targeted by age and gender is more efficient than universal screening, targeting by clinical condition or presentation is not. Further universal screening is more effective in identifying the full range of patients who could benefit from brief alcohol interventions, and would therefore have greater public health impact. Trial registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN06145674.

Opportunistic screening for alcohol use problems in adolescents attending emergency departments: an evaluation of screening tools.

Abstract Objective To estimate and compare the optimal cut-off score of Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT) and AUDIT-C in identifying at-risk alcohol consumption, heavy episodic alcohol use, ICD-10 alcohol abuse and alcohol dependence in adolescents attending ED in England. Design Opportunistic cross-sectional survey. Setting 10 emergency departments across England. Participants Adolescents (n = 5377) aged between their 10th and 18th birthday who attended emergency departments between December 2012 and May 2013. Measures Scores on the AUDIT and AUDIT-C. At-risk alcohol consumption and monthly episodic alcohol consumption in the past 3 months were derived using the time-line follow back method. Alcohol abuse and alcohol dependence was assessed in accordance with ICD-10 criteria using the MINI-KID. Findings AUDIT-C with a score of 3 was more effective for at-risk alcohol use (AUC 0.81; sensitivity 87%, specificity 97%), heavy episodic use (0.84; 76%, 98%) and alcohol abuse (0.98; 91%, 90%). AUDIT with a score of 7 was more effective in identifying alcohol dependence (0.92; 96%, 94%). Conclusions The 3-item AUDIT-C is more effective than AUDIT in screening adolescents for at-risk alcohol use, heavy episodic alcohol use and alcohol abuse. AUDIT is more effective than AUDIT-C for the identification of alcohol dependence.