Search

Background Acamprosate is an effective and cost-effective medication for alcohol relapse prevention but poor adherence can limit its full benefit. Effective interventions to support adherence to acamprosate are therefore needed. Objectives To determine the effectiveness of Medication Management, with and without Contingency Management, compared to Standard Support alone in enhancing adherence to acamprosate and the impact of adherence to acamprosate on abstinence and reduced alcohol consumption. Design Multicentre, three-arm, parallel-group, randomised controlled clinical trial. Setting Specialist alcohol treatment services in five regions of England (South East London, Central and North West London, Wessex, Yorkshire and Humber and West Midlands). Participants Adults (aged 18 years or more), an International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, Tenth Revision, diagnosis of alcohol dependence, abstinent from alcohol at baseline assessment, in receipt of a prescription for acamprosate. Interventions (1) Standard Support, (2) Standard Support with adjunctive Medication Management provided by pharmacists via a clinical contact centre (12 sessions over 6 months), (3) Standard Support with adjunctive Medication Management plus Contingency Management that consisted of vouchers (up to £120) to reinforce participation in Medication Management. Consenting participants were randomised in a 2 : 1 : 1 ratio to one of the three groups using a stratified random permuted block method using a remote system. Participants and researchers were not blind to treatment allocation. Main outcome measures Primary outcome: self-reported percentage of medication taken in the previous 28 days at 6 months post randomisation. Economic outcome: EuroQol-5 Dimensions, a five-level version, used to calculate quality-adjusted life-years, with costs estimated using the Adult Service Use Schedule. Results Of the 1459 potential participants approached, 1019 (70%) were assessed and 739 (73 consented to participate in the study, 372 (50%) were allocated to Standard Support, 182 (25%) to Standard Support with Medication Management and 185 (25%) to Standard Support and Medication Management with Contingency Management. Data were available for 518 (70%) of participants at 6-month follow-up, 255 (68.5%) allocated to Standard Support, 122 (67.0%) to Standard Support and Medication Management and 141 (76.2%) to Standard Support and Medication Management with Contingency Management. The mean difference of per cent adherence to acamprosate was higher for those who received Standard Support and Medication Management with Contingency Management (10.6%, 95% confidence interval 19.6% to 1.6%) compared to Standard Support alone, at the primary end point (6-month follow-up). There was no significant difference in per cent days adherent when comparing Standard Support and Medication Management with Standard Support alone 3.1% (95% confidence interval 12.8% to −6.5%) or comparing Standard Support and Medication Management with Standard Support and Medication Management with Contingency Management 7.9% (95% confidence interval 18.7% to −2.8%). The primary economic analysis at 6 months found that Standard Support and Medication Management with Contingency Management was cost-effective compared to Standard Support alone, achieving small gains in quality-adjusted life-years at a lower cost per participant. Cost-effectiveness was not observed for adjunctive Medication Management compared to Standard Support alone. There were no serious adverse events related to the trial interventions reported. Limitations The trial’s primary outcome measure changed substantially due to data collection difficulties and therefore relied on a measure of self-reported adherence. A lower than anticipated follow-up rate at 12 months may have lowered the statistical power to detect differences in the secondary analyses, although the primary analysis was not impacted. Conclusions Medication Management enhanced with Contingency Management is beneficial to patients for supporting them to take acamprosate. Future work Given our findings in relation to Contingency Management enhancing Medication Management adherence, future trials should be developed to explore its effectiveness and cost-effectiveness with other alcohol interventions where there is evidence of poor adherence. Trial registration This trial is registered as ISRCTN17083622 https://doi.org/10.1186/ISRCTN17083622. Funding This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 27, No. 22. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information. Plain language summary What is the problem? Many people who are trying to stop drinking alcohol can find it difficult to remain alcohol free. There is a medication called acamprosate (Campral) that can reduce cravings thereby increasing the likelihood of abstinence. However, some people have trouble taking the right amount of acamprosate tablets needed every day at the right time, preferably at mealtimes. This means the medication is not as effective. We have tested some new ways to help support people taking acamprosate. What did we do? We tested three different strategies to find the best way to support people taking acamprosate. We recruited 739 people aged 18 and over who were receiving alcohol treatment to stop drinking and were taking acamprosate. We randomly allocated these people to three groups. The first was Standard Support, the usual support people receive when taking acamprosate. The second group received Standard Support plus Medication Management. This consisted of 12 telephone calls over 6 months with a trained pharmacist to discuss the importance of taking the right amount of the medication, how the medication works and strategies to help people take the medication correctly. The third group received Standard Support, Medication Management and Contingency Management. This involved giving people shopping vouchers for participating with Medication Management calls. The maximum value of vouchers per person was £120. What did we find out? People who were in the group receiving Medication Management and Contingency Management took a greater number of acamprosate tablets. We also found that Medication Management plus Contingency Management was more cost-effective; there were greater gains in health with a smaller cost per person compared to Standard Support alone. This shows that there is likely to be a benefit to patients of Medication Management plus Contingency Management for supporting people taking acamprosate. Scientific summary Background Alcohol is a significant risk factor for morbidity and mortality. In the UK there has been an increase in harm related to alcohol while also a reduction in funding to public health budgets, including alcohol services. While some individuals do successfully complete alcohol treatment, the majority will undergo frequent episodes of relapse. Providing effective treatment can reduce relapse rates and associated harms thus having a positive impact on cost-effectiveness. The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) recommends acamprosate in combination with psychological intervention as a first-line treatment for relapse prevention in alcohol dependence, however, acamprosate adherence poses a problem for its effectiveness in clinical practice. The reasons for non-adherence are complex and often due to multiple influences. Currently there is insufficient evidence as to which forms of intervention are effective in increasing adherence. Psychosocial interventions to support medication adherence have the potential to promote positive beliefs about medication and any concerns. Medication Management (MM) is a psychosocial intervention which aims to improve medication and treatment adherence by providing education, support, and practical advice about drinking behaviour and medication. There has also been an increasing focus on extending the role of the community pharmacist and the delivery of MM to improve medication adherence compliments this expanding role. Engagement in psychological interventions and retention in treatment is often poor in alcohol dependence but there is evidence that Contingency Management (CM) improves engagement and retention in substance use disorder treatment. There is currently limited evidence of its effectiveness within alcohol treatment but if shown to be effective it has the potential to also be adopted within the NHS and community pharmacies. Objectives Our aim was to evaluate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of adjunctive MM with and without CM in improving adherence to acamprosate for relapse prevention in alcohol dependence. To conduct a definitive three-arm, randomised controlled trial (RCT) of the effectiveness of MM with and without CM compared to Standard Support (SS) alone in enhancing adherence to acamprosate in alcohol dependence relapse prevention. To estimate the cost-effectiveness of MM with and without CM compared to SS alone in enhancing adherence to acamprosate in alcohol dependence relapse prevention. To assess the impact of adherence to acamprosate for alcohol dependence relapse prevention on abstinence and reduced alcohol consumption. Methods Trial design This was a three-arm, parallel-group, pragmatic RCT, which began with an internal pilot phase to demonstrate recruitment, randomisation and interventions could be implemented as planned. Eligibility and recruitment Participants presenting to alcohol services in one of the trial sites (London, Southampton, Birmingham, Yorkshire and Humber) who met the trial inclusion criteria were recruited via service staff. Participants Inclusion criteria were: (1) adults, aged 18 years and over; (2) an International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, Tenth Revision, diagnosis of alcohol dependence; (3) abstinent from alcohol at baseline assessment; (4) in receipt of a prescription of acamprosate; and (5) willing and able to provide informed consent. Exclusion criteria were: (1) a diagnosis of a severe physical/mental illness likely to preclude active participation in treatment or follow-up, (2) unable to understand verbal English at a level necessary to engage in the intervention and follow-up and (3) concurrent dependence on an illicit substance (other than cannabis). Randomisation and interventions Participants were randomised in a 2 : 1 : 1 ratio to SS, SS + MM or SS + MM + CM using a stratified random permuted block method using a remote system. Participants and researchers were not blind to treatment allocation. SS typically comprised of monthly dispensing of prescribed acamprosate, monthly monitoring of the service user for 3 months by the specialist alcohol service, and then returned to the care of their GP for monthly monitoring in accordance with NICE guidelines and current clinical NHS clinical practice. SS + MM participants followed the same care pathway as those in SS, with the addition of MM delivered by a central telephone support service by trained pharmacists. MM was delivered once a week for the first 6 weeks, reducing to once a fortnight for the following 6 weeks, and then monthly for 3 months. SS + MM + CM participants followed the same care pathway as those in the SS + MM arm but with the addition of CM. Incentives in the form of vouchers were provided to reinforce attendance at MM sessions, up to a total of £120. Outcomes The primary outcome measure was the self-reported per cent of medication taken as prescribed during the 6-month target phase of prescribing, post randomisation. Data collection Data were collected at baseline, 2, 4, 6 and 12 months. Following an amendment, the 12-month follow-up was removed to maximise participant recruitment, and the recruitment period was extended without extending the trial end date. Data that had been collected at the 12-month follow-up were still included in the trial analysis plan. The primary outcome was collected at the 6-month follow-up. Sample size The sample size aimed to detect a clinically important effect size difference of 0.3, about 13% difference in per cent adherence. In order to make the study cost-efficient, we proposed to allocate twice as many to the SS group than to the SS + MM and SS + MM + CM groups. With power at 80%, alpha of 0.05 and a two-sided test, this required 524 to be followed up at the primary end point, 262 in the SS group and 131 in each of the other groups. We anticipated a loss to follow-up at month 6 of 30% and inflated the required sample at baseline to 748 to account for this. Sample sizes were calculated using Stata 12 (StataCorp LP, College Station, TX, USA). Statistical methods The primary analysis was an analysis by treatment allocated (ATA) and was based on all available data for participants who were randomised, irrespective of whether they complied with their allocation or not. The primary analysis was based on the ATA. Secondary analyses examined treatment effects under different scenarios for compliance with allocation/treatment: complier average causal effects (CACE). Two scenarios of compliance were defined in this trial. The first compliance for those in the SS + MM and SS + MM + CM group was defined as adhering to at least 50% of the MM calls. In the second, the threshold was increased to 100%. Both scenarios are modelled in the analysis. We considered missing data as being missing at random (MAR) or missing not at random (MNAR). We conducted a multiple imputation to address MAR and a sensitivity analysis to address MNAR. Fractional regression was conducted to model the relationship between pre-randomisation factors and per cent adherence to acamprosate and per cent days abstinent from alcohol at month 6. Interaction terms with treatment allocation were included in the model and a significance level of 0.1 was used as a threshold to determine which variables were maintained in the final model reported. Baseline variables included initially in the model include age, gender, marital status, ethnicity, employment status, number of children, age of first drink, weekly and daily drinking, frequency and quantity of alcohol consumption, severity of alcohol dependence, alcohol urges and alcohol-related problems. This analysis was augmented with an additional analysis for the SS + MM and SS + MM + CM groups where the same dependent variable was assessed with the same independent variables with the addition of therapeutic alliance. Method of economic evaluation The primary economic analysis was a cost-utility analysis where outcomes were expressed as quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), as recommended by NICE. A secondary analysis explored cost-effectiveness in terms of the primary clinical outcome which was adherence to relapse prevention medication. The primary economic perspective was the NHS and personal social services (NHS/PSS) perspective preferred by NICE. The primary time horizon of the economic analyses using both QALYs and relapse medication adherence was the 6-month follow-up, consistent with the primary clinical analysis. A secondary analysis was carried out at the 12-month follow-up using QALYs. The primary economic outcome was QALYs calculated using the EuroQol-5 Dimensions, a five-level version measure of health-related quality-of-life scores at baseline, 6- and 12-month follow-ups. The primary economic analysis was composed of two separate comparisons: (1) SS + MM + CM versus SS alone; and (2) SS + MM versus SS alone, both at 6 months post randomisation, and assessed cost-effectiveness in terms of cost per QALY using the EuroQol-5 Dimensions measure of quality of life. Two secondary economic evaluations were carried out, a cost-utility analysis at 12 months post randomisation and a cost-effectiveness analysis using adherence to relapse medication which was the primary clinical outcome. Cost-effectiveness was explored using incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (difference in mean cost divided by difference in mean effect) and cost-effectiveness acceptability curves (CEACs), which show the probability that SS + MM + CM or SS + MM are cost-effective compared to SS alone for different levels of willingness to pay for improvements in outcome. Sensitivity analyses were carried out to test the impact of varying methods and assumptions on the relative cost-effectiveness of the interventions being compared. We planned three sensitivity analyses: (1) a broader analytical perspective to include the cost of crime (which was not completed as no crimes were reported), (2) a complete case analysis for comparison with the results that used multiple imputation for missing data and (3) a cost-utility analysis using QALYs calculated from EuroQol-5 Dimensions, three-level version tariffs. Results A total of 1459 potential participants were approached of whom 1019 (70%) were assessed. Of these 739 (73%) were eligible and consented to participate in the study. Allocation was in the ratio of 2 : 1 : 1, 372 (50%) were allocated to SS, 182 (25%) to SS + MM and 185 (25%) to SS + MM + CM. At the primary end point, 6 months post randomisation, 518 (70%) were successfully followed up with 255 (68.5%) allocated to SS, 122 (67.0%) to SS + MM and 141 (76.2%) to SS + MM + CM. There were no serious adverse events related to the trial interventions reported. The mean difference in per cent adherence to acamprosate at month 6 between those allocated to SS and SS + MM + CM versus SS was 10.6% [95% confidence interval (CI) 19.6% to 1.6%]; this difference was statistically significant. When the SS + MM group was compared to SS alone, the SS + MM group had a lower per cent days adherent than the SS group, mean difference 3.1% (95% CI 12.8% to −6.5%); this was not significant. A similar non-significant finding was seen when we compared the SS + MM and SS + MM + CM groups, mean difference 7.9% (95% CI 18.7% to −2.8%). Our secondary analysis included per cent days abstinent from alcohol at month 6. The ATA found differences favouring both intervention groups over SS alone but neither of these was significant. When a CACE analysis was conducted using scenario 2, both intervention groups had a significantly greater per cent days abstinent than SS alone. This analysis also highlighted the relationship between adherence to acamprosate and better outcomes, something additionally highlighted by a significant correlation between adherence to acamprosate and increased per cent days abstinent at month 6. CACE analysis: Under scenario 1, 50% adherence, the mean difference in per cent adherence increases from 10.6% (95% CI 19.6 to 1.62) to 12.4% (95% CI 17.8% to 7.1%) in the SS + MM + CM versus SS comparison, indicating that at 50% compliance those allocated to SS + MM + CM have a mean of 12.44% more adherence to acamprosate at month 6 than those allocated to SS alone. When comparing the SS + MM versus the SS group, a previous non-significant difference 3.14% (95% CI 12.8% to −6.5%) becomes a significant difference of 13.2% (25.4–1.15%). Under scenario 2, the differences are larger in magnitude, the SS + MM + CM group having 22.2% (95% CI 29.7% to 14.7%) more adherent days than the SS group alone. At the same time, the magnitude of difference is larger for the SS + MM versus SS comparison 31.8% (95–60.5% vs. 3.10%), although this comparison is based on a small number of participants, 20, and should be interpreted with caution. For SS + MM + CM versus SS, the primary economic analysis at 6-month follow-up using QALYs, the secondary economic analysis at 6-month follow-up using medication adherence and the economic modelling over a 20-year time horizon using QALYs all found SS + MM + CM to dominate SS (better outcomes at lower cost). At 12-month follow-up, although SS + MM + CM was not dominant, it generated more QALYs at an additional cost that was below the NICE cost per QALY threshold. CEACs also showed there was a higher probability of SS + MM + CM being cost-effective compared to SS alone in all analyses and at all time points. For SS + MM versus SS, at 6- and 12-month follow-up and when modelled over 20 years, SS + MM achieved better outcomes at higher cost compared to SS. In terms of cost-effectiveness, SS + MM was not found to be cost-effective at 6-month follow-up but had a higher probability of being cost-effective compared to SS at both the 12-month follow-up (using the higher £30,000 per QALY NICE threshold) and when modelled over 20 years (over the full £20,000–30,0000 cost per QALY threshold). Conclusions When comparing SS + MM + CM versus SS alone, we observed a significantly higher per cent adherence to acamprosate in the SS + MM + CM group, and the differences were of the magnitude that would indicate a clinically important difference. Differences were also observed when comparing SS + MM versus SS and SS + MM + CM versus SS + MM, but these were not significant. We explored how robust these findings were to assumptions about the nature of any missing data and we explored a missing data imputation model to explore the impact of data that may be MAR and a sensitivity analysis to explore data that may not be MAR. Neither of these analyses found any significant deviation from the analysis based on observed values, we can be confident that our findings from the ATA analysis are robust. To explore the effect of compliance to MM we conducted a CACE analysis using two scenarios of compliance, 50% and 100%. In both scenarios, we found greater benefits associated with SS + MM + CM and SS + MM versus SS alone and these benefits were significant and clinically important. There were several limitations to the current trial that should be taken into consideration. The trial’s primary outcome measure changed substantially due to data collection difficulties and therefore relied on a measure of self-reported adherence. A lower than anticipated follow-up rate at 12 months may have lowered the statistical power to detect differences in the secondary analyses, although the primary analysis was not impacted. The results of the primary economic analysis at the 6-month follow-up point suggest that MM was only cost-effective when supported by incentives to encourage support session uptake. This finding was heavily influenced by lower total costs in the SS + MM + CM group as a result of lower use of residential rehabilitation facilities compared to both SS + MM and SS alone, which may be related to the significantly higher medication adherence seen in the CM group. Over the medium (12 months) and longer term (20 years), SS + MM + CM remained cost-effective compared to SS and there was a higher probability of SS + MM being cost-effective compared to SS. These results support the addition of MM to SS for alcohol dependence, with or without CM. However, the economic benefit was stronger when CM was included. Trial registration This trial is registered as ISRCTN17083622 https://doi.org/10.1186/ISRCTN17083622. Funding This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 27, No. 22. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Abstract Background Adolescence is a critical developmental stage when young people make lifestyle choices that have the potential to impact on their current and future health and social wellbeing. The relationship between substance use and criminal activity is complex but there is clear evidence that the prevalence of problematic substance use is far higher among adolescent offenders than the general adolescent population. Adolescent offenders are a marginalized and vulnerable population who are significantly more likely to experience health and social inequalities in later life than their non-offending peers. There is a paucity of evidence on effective interventions to address substance use and risk-taking behaviours in adolescent offender populations but it is clear that preventative or abstinence orientated interventions are not effective. RISKIT-CJS is an intervention developed in collaboration with young people taking account of the current best evidence. Feasibility and pilot studies have found the intervention addresses the needs of adolescents, is acceptable and has demonstrated potential in reducing substance use and risk-taking behavior. Methods The study is a mixed method, two-armed, prospective, pragmatic randomized controlled trial with individual randomisation to either treatment as usual alone or the RISKIT-CJS intervention in addition to treatment as usual. Adolescents, aged 13 to 17 years inclusive, engaged with the criminal justice system who are identified as having problematic substance use are eligible to participate. The study will be conducted across three geographical areas; South and South East England, London and North East England between March 2017 and February 2019. Discussion The study represents an ambitious programme of work to address an area of need for a marginalized and vulnerable population. Trial registration ISRCTN77037777 registered 15/09/2016.

AIM:To examine patterns of hazardous, harmful and dependent drinking across different socio-economic groups, and how this relationship may be explained by common mental disorder. METHODS AND FINDINGS:Between 2011-2013, 1,052 participants (age range 17-91, 53% female) were interviewed for Phase 2 of the South East London Community Health study. Latent class analysis was used to define six groups based on multiple indicators of socio-economic status in three domains. Alcohol use (low risk, hazardous, harmful/dependent) was measured using the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test and the presence of common mental disorder was measured using the revised Clinical Interview Schedule. Multinomial regression was used to explore associations with hazardous, harmful and dependent alcohol use, including after adjustment for common mental disorder. Harmful and dependent drinking was more common among people in Class 2 'economically inactive renters' (relative risk ratio (RRR) 3.05, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.07-8.71), Class 3 'economically inactive homeowners' (RRR 4.11, 95% CI 1.19-14.20) and Class 6 'professional renters' (RRR 3.51, 95% CI 1.14-10.78) than in Class 1 'professional homeowners'. Prevalent common mental disorder explained some of the increased risk of harmful or dependent drinking in Class 2, but not Class 3 or 6. CONCLUSIONS:Across distinct socio-economic groups in a large inner-city sample, we found important differences in harmful and dependent drinking, only some of which were explained by common mental disorder. The increased risk of harmful or dependent drinking across classes which are very distinct from each other suggests differing underlying drivers of drinking across these groups. A nuanced understanding of alcohol use and problems is necessary to understand the inequalities in alcohol harms.

Background: Alcohol consumption and related harm increase steeply from the ages of 12–20 years. Adolescents in the UK are among the heaviest drinkers in Europe. Excessive drinking in adolescents is associated with increased risk of accidents, injuries, self-harm, unprotected or regretted sex, violence and disorder, poisoning and accidental death. However, there is lack of clear evidence for the most clinically effective and cost-effective screening and brief interventions for reducing or preventing alcohol consumption in adolescents attending emergency departments (EDs). Objectives: To estimate the distribution of alcohol consumption, alcohol-related problems and alcohol use disorders in adolescents attending EDs; to develop age-appropriate alcohol screening and brief intervention tools; and to evaluate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of these interventions. Design: The research has been conducted in three linked stages: (1) a prevalence study, (2) intervention development and (3) two linked randomised controlled trials (RCTs). Setting: Twelve EDs in England (London, North East, and Yorkshire and The Humber). Participants: A total of 5376 participants in the prevalence study [mean age 13.0 years, standard deviation (SD) 2.0 years; 46.2% female] and 1640 participants in the two linked RCTs (mean age 15.6 years, SD 1.0 years; 50.7% female). Interventions: Personalised feedback and brief advice (PFBA) and personalised feedback plus electronic brief intervention (eBI), compared with alcohol screening alone. These age-appropriate alcohol interventions were developed in collaboration with the target audience through a series of focus groups and evaluations during stage 2 of the research programme and following two literature reviews. Main outcome measures: Total alcohol consumed in standard UK units (1 unit = 8 g of ethanol) over the previous 3 months at 12-month follow-up, assessed using the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test, Consumption (3 items) (AUDIT-C). Results: In the prevalence study, 2112 participants (39.5%) reported having had a drink of alcohol that was more than a sip in their lifetime, with prevalence increasing steadily with age and reaching 89.5% at the age of 17 years. The prevalence of at-risk alcohol consumption was 15% [95% confidence interval (CI) 14% to 16%] and the optimum cut-off point of the AUDIT-C in identifying at-risk drinking was ≥ 3. Associations of alcohol consumption and early onset of drinking with poorer health and social functioning were also found. In the RCT, the analysis of the primary outcome (average weekly alcohol consumption at month 12) identified no significant differences in effect between the three groups in both trials. In the high-risk drinking trial, the mean difference compared with control was 0.57 (95% CI –0.36 to 1.70) for PFBA and 0.19 (95% CI –0.71 to 1.30) for eBI. In the low-risk drinking trial, the mean difference compared with control was 0.03 (95% CI –0.07 to 0.13) for PFBA and 0.01 (95% CI –0.10 to 0.11) for eBI. The health economic analysis showed that eBI and PFBA were not more cost-effective than screening alone. Conclusions: The ED can offer an opportunity for the identification of at-risk alcohol use in adolescents. A simple, short, self-completed screening instrument, the AUDIT-C, is an effective tool for identifying adolescents who are at risk of alcohol-related problems. Associations of alcohol consumption and earlier onset of drinking with poorer health and social functioning were observed in the prevalence study. The trials were feasible to implement and exceeded the recruitment target and minimum follow-up rates. However, PFBA and eBI were not found to be more effective than screening alone in reducing or preventing alcohol consumption in 14- to 17-year-olds attending EDs. Limitations and future work: Only one-third of participants engaged with the application program; this is likely to have limited the effect of the intervention. We recommend that future research should focus on methods to maximise engagement with digital interventions and evaluate the effect of such engagement on clinical outcomes. Trial registration: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN45300218. Funding: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Programme Grants for Applied Research programme and will be published in full in Programme Grants for Applied Research; Vol. 8, No. 2. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Background: Adverse effects from young people’s alcohol consumption manifest in a range of physical and psychosocial factors, including neurological issues, cognitive impairment and risk-taking behaviours. The SIPS JR-HIGH pilot trial showed alcohol screening and brief intervention (ASBI) to be acceptable to young people and schools in the north-east of England. Objectives: To conduct a two-arm, individually randomised controlled trial to evaluate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of ASBI for risky drinking in young people aged 14–15 years in the school setting, to monitor the fidelity of ASBI and to explore the barriers to, and facilitators of, implementation with staff, young people and parents. Design: A baseline survey with a 12-month follow-up. Interviews with 30 school staff, 21 learning mentors and nine teachers, and 33 young people and two parents. Setting: Thirty state schools in four areas of England: north-east, north-west, Kent and London. Participants: Year 10 school pupils who consented to the study (aged 14–15 years, recruited between November 2015 and June 2016), school-based staff and parents of the young people who took part in the study. Interventions: Young people who screened positively on a single alcohol screening question and consented were randomised to the intervention or control arm (blinded). The intervention was a 30-minute one-to-one structured brief intervention with a trained learning mentor and an alcohol leaflet. The control group received a healthy lifestyle leaflet (no alcohol information). Main outcome measures: The primary outcome measure was total alcohol consumed in the last 28 days. Secondary outcomes related to risky drinking, general psychological health, sexual risk-taking, energy drink consumption, age of first smoking, quality of life, quality-adjusted life-years, service utilisation and demographic information. Results: A total of 4523 young people completed the baseline survey, with 1064 screening positively (24%) and 443 being eligible to take part in the trial. Of those 443, 233 (53%) were randomised to the control arm and 210 were randomised to the intervention arm. Of the 443, 374 (84%) were successfully followed up at 12 months (intervention, n = 178; control, n = 196). The results were that the intervention showed no evidence of benefit for any alcohol-related measure when compared with the control arm. At 12 months we found a reduction from 61.9% to 43.3% using the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test cut-off point of 8 and cut-off point of 4 (69.0% to 60.7%). These results were not significant. A cost-effectiveness analysis showed that the average net cost saving of the brief intervention was £2865 (95% confidence interval –£11,272 to £2707) per year compared with usual practice, with the intervention showing a 76% probability of being cost saving compared with usual practice. The interview findings showed that school was an acceptable setting to carry out ASBI among staff and young people. Limitations: Recruitment of parents to take part in interviews was poor. Only 18 ASBI sessions were recorded, making it difficult to assess internal validity. Conclusions: Although the intervention was ineffective in reducing risky drinking in young people aged 14–15 years, it was well received by the young people and school staff who participated. Future work: Uniform reporting of the outcomes used for ASBI would generate more robust conclusions on the effectiveness of ASBI in the future. Pilot feasibility studies should include more than one geographical area. Future work on involving parents is needed. Trial registration: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN45691494. Funding: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Public Health Research programme and will be published in full in Public Health Research; Vol. 7, No. 9. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Abstract Background There is consistent evidence that individuals in higher socioeconomic status groups are more likely to report exceeding recommended drinking limits, but those in lower socioeconomic status groups experience more alcohol-related harm. This has been called the ‘alcohol harm paradox’. Such studies typically use standard cut-offs to define heavy drinking, which are exceeded by a large proportion of adults. Our study pools data from six years (2008–2013) of the population-based Health Survey for England to test whether the socioeconomic distribution of more extreme levels of drinking could help explain the paradox. Methods The study included 51,498 adults from a representative sample of the adult population of England for a cross-sectional analysis of associations between socioeconomic status and self-reported drinking. Heavy weekly drinking was measured at four thresholds, ranging from 112 g+/168 g + (alcohol for women/men, or 14/21 UK standard units) to 680 g+/880 g + (or 85/110 UK standard units) per week. Heavy episodic drinking was also measured at four thresholds, from 48 g+/64 g + (or 6/8 UK standard units) to 192 g+/256 g + (or 24/32 UK standard units) in one day. Socioeconomic status indicators were equivalised household income, education, occupation and neighbourhood deprivation. Results Lower socioeconomic status was associated with lower likelihoods of exceeding recommended limits for weekly and episodic drinking, and higher likelihoods of exceeding more extreme thresholds. For example, participants in routine or manual occupations had 0.65 (95 % CI 0.57–0.74) times the odds of exceeding the recommended weekly limit compared to those in ‘higher managerial’ occupations, and 2.15 (95 % CI 1.06–4.36) times the odds of exceeding the highest threshold. Similarly, participants in the lowest income quintile had 0.60 (95 % CI 0.52–0.69) times the odds of exceeding the recommended weekly limit when compared to the highest quintile, and 2.30 (95 % CI 1.28–4.13) times the odds of exceeding the highest threshold. Conclusions Low socioeconomic status groups are more likely to drink at extreme levels, which may partially explain the alcohol harm paradox. Policies that address alcohol-related health inequalities need to consider extreme drinking levels in some sub-groups that may be associated with multiple markers of deprivation. This will require a more disaggregated understanding of drinking practices.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0209442.].

AimsTo explore adolescents' experiences of consenting to, and participating in, alcohol intervention trials when attending for emergency care.MethodsIn-depth semi-structured interviews with 27 adolescents (16 males; aged 14-17 years (Mage = 15.7)) who had taken part in one of two linked brief alcohol intervention trials based in 10 accident and emergency departments in England. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and subject to thematic analysis.ResultsResearch and intervention methods were generally found to be acceptable though confidentiality was important and parental presence could hinder truthful disclosures regarding alcohol use. Participants discussed the importance of being involved in research that was relevant to them and recognised alcohol consumption as a normative part of adolescence, highlighting the importance of having access to appropriate health information. Beyond this, they recognised the benefits and risks of trial participation for themselves and others with the majority showing a degree of altruism in considering longer term implications for others as well as themselves.ConclusionsAlcohol screening and intervention in emergency care is both acceptable and relevant to adolescents but acceptability is reliant on confidentiality being assured and may be inhibited by parental presence.Trial registrationISRCTN Number: 45300218.

BACKGROUND:Previous studies have shown heavier drinkers are less likely to respond to surveys and require extended efforts to recruit. This study applies the continuum of resistance model to explore how survey estimates of alcohol consumption may be affected by non-response bias in three consecutive years of a general population survey in England. METHODS:Using the Health Survey for England (HSE) survey years 2011-13, number of contact attempts (1-6 and 7+) were explored by socio-demographic and drinking characteristics. The odds of drinking more than various thresholds were modelled using logistic regression. Assuming that non-participants were similar to those who were difficult to contact (the continuum of resistance model), the effect of non-response on measures of drinking was investigated. RESULTS:In the fully-adjusted regression model, women who required 7+ calls were significantly more likely to drink more than the UK Government's recommended daily limit (OR 1.19, 95% CI 1.06-1.33, P = 0.003) and to engage in heavy episodic drinking (OR 1.23, 95% CI 1.07-1.42, P = 0.004), however this was not significant in men in the fully-adjusted model. When the continuum of resistance model was applied, there was an increase in average weekly alcohol consumption of 1.8 units among men (a 12.6% relative increase), and an increase of 1.5 units among women (a 20.5% relative increase). There was also an increase in the prevalence of heavy episodic drinking of 2.5% among men (an 12.0% relative increase) and of 2.0% among women (a 15.8% relative increase), although other measures of drinking were less affected. CONCLUSION:Overall alcohol consumption and the prevalence of heavy episodic drinking were higher among HSE participants who required more extended efforts to contact. The continuum of resistance model suggests non-response bias does affect survey estimates of alcohol consumption.