Search

To evaluate and optimize brief alcohol interventions (BAIs), it is critical to have a credible overall effect size estimate as a benchmark. Estimating such an effect size has been challenging because alcohol outcomes often represent responses from a mixture of individuals: those at high risk for alcohol misuse, occasional nondrinkers, and abstainers. Moreover, some BAIs exclusively focus on heavy drinkers, whereas others take a universal prevention approach. Depending on sample characteristics, the outcome distribution might have many zeros or very few zeros and overdispersion; consequently, the most appropriate statistical model may differ across studies. We synthesized individual participant data (IPD) from 19 studies in Project INTEGRATE (Mun et al., 2015b) that randomly allocated participants to intervention and control groups (N = 7,704 participants, 38.4% men, 74.7% White, 58.5% first-year students). We sequentially estimated marginalized zero-inflated Poisson (Long et al., 2014) or negative binomial regression models to obtain covariate-adjusted, study-specific intervention effect estimates in the first step, which were subsequently combined in a random-effects meta-analysis model in the second step. BAIs produced a statistically significant 8% advantage in the mean number of drinks at both 1-3 months (RR = 0.92, 95% CI = [0.85, 0.98]) and 6 months (RR = 0.92, 95% CI = [0.85, 0.99]) compared to controls. At 9-12 months, there was no statistically significant difference in the mean number of drinks between BAIs and controls. In conclusion, BAIs are effective at reducing the mean number of drinks through at least 6 months post intervention. IPD can play a critical role in deriving findings that could not be obtained in original individual studies or standard aggregate data meta-analyses., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Purpose: To test the efficacy of two interventions to reduce alcohol use and increase viral suppression compared to a control in persons with HIV (PWH)., Methods: In a three-arm (1:1:1) randomized controlled trial (N = 269), we compared in-person counselling (45-70 minutes, two sessions over three months) with interim monthly booster phone calls (live call arm) or twice-weekly automated booster sessions (technology arm) to a brief advice control arm. We enrolled PWH self-reporting unhealthy alcohol use (Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test - Consumption, prior three months, women ≥3, men ≥4). Primary outcomes were number of self-reported drinking days (NDD) in the prior 21 and biomarker phosphatidylethanol (PEth) at six and nine months and viral suppression (<40 copies/mL) at nine months; we adjusted for sex and baseline outcomes., Results: At baseline, mean 21-day NDDs were 9.4 (95 % CI: 9.1-9.8), mean PEth was 407.8 ng/mL (95 % CI: 340.7-474.8), and 89.2 % were virally suppressed. At follow-up, there were significant reductions in mean NDDs for the live call versus control arm (3.5, 95 % CI:2.1-4.9, p < 0.001) and for the technology versus control arm (3.6, 95 % CI: 2.2-5.1, p < 0.001). The mean PEth differences compared to the control arm were not significant, i.e. 36.4 ng/mL (95 % CI: -117.5 to 190.3, p = 0.643) for the live call and -30.9 ng/mL (95 % CI: -194.8 to 132.9, p = 0.711) for the technology arm. Nine-month viral suppression compared to the control was similar in the live call and in the technology arm., Conclusion: Intervention effects were found on self-reported NDD but not PEth or viral suppression, suggesting no treatment effect. (NCT #03928418)., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest Dr. Hahn received consulting fees from Pear Therapeutics in 2022., (Copyright © 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

This prospective, nonrandomized implementation study evaluated a computerized brief intervention (CBI) for persons with HIV (PWH) and heavy/hazardous alcohol use. CBI was integrated into two HIV primary care clinics. Eligible patients were engaged in care, ≥ 18 years old, English speaking, endorsed heavy/hazardous alcohol use on the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test-C (AUDIT-C). Two 20-min computerized sessions using cognitive behavioral techniques were delivered by a 3-D avatar on touch screen tablets. Of 816 eligible AUDIT-C scores, 537 (66%) resulted in CBI invitation, 226 (42%) of invited patients enrolled, and 176 (78%) of enrolled patients watched at least one session. CBI enrollment was associated with a significant average reduction of 9.1 drinks/week (95% CI - 14.5, - 3.6) 4-12 months post-enrollment. Among those who participated in one or both sessions, average reduction in drinks/week was 11.7 drinks/week (95% CI - 18.8, - 4.6). There was corresponding improvement in AUDIT-C scores. Overall patients reported high levels of intervention satisfaction, particularly among older and Black patients. These promising results point to a practical intervention for alcohol reduction in this vulnerable patient population with elevated rates of heavy/hazardous drinking. Future research should examine strategies to increase initial engagement, strengthen intervention effects to increase the number of patients who achieve non-hazardous drinking, and examine the duration of therapeutic effects., (© 2021. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature.)

Background: Little is known about the impact of brief alcohol interventions on mental and general health. The aim was to investigate whether brief interventions for general hospital inpatients with at-risk drinking can improve mental and general health over 2 years; and whether effects are dependent on how they are delivered: in-person or through computer-generated feedback letters (CO)., Methods: Three-arm randomized controlled trial with 6-, 12-, 18-, and 24-month follow-ups. Data were collected on 13 general hospital wards from four medical departments (internal medicine, surgical medicine, trauma surgery, and ear-nose-throat) of one university hospital in northeastern rural Germany. A consecutive sample of 961 18- to 64-year-old general hospital inpatients with at-risk alcohol use was recruited through systematic screening. Inpatients with particularly severe alcohol problems were excluded. Participants were allocated to: in-person counseling (PE), CO, and assessment only (AO). PE and CO included three contacts: on the ward, 1, and 3 months later. Mental and general health were assessed using the five-item mental health inventory (0-100) and a one-item general health measure (0, poor - 4, excellent)., Results: Latent growth models including all participants revealed: after 24 months and in contrast to AO, mental and general health were improved in PE (change in mean difference, ΔMmental = 5.13, p = 0.002, Cohen's d = 0.51; ΔMgeneral = 0.20, p = 0.005, d = 0.71) and CO (ΔMmental = 6.98, p &lt; 0.001, d = 0.69; ΔMgeneral = 0.24, p = 0.001, d = 0.86). PE and CO did not differ significantly., Conclusions: Beyond drinking reduction, PE and CO can improve general hospital inpatients' self-reported mental and general health over 2 years.

Aim: To investigate if more patients in the intervention group attended specialized alcohol treatment compared with a treatment-as-usual group (TAU)., Methods: Pragmatic randomized controlled trial where consecutive patients, admitted to somatic hospitals, filled out a lifestyle questionnaire with the Alcohol Use Disorder Identification Test (AUDIT) embedded. Patients scoring 8+ on AUDIT were included in the study. Included patients were randomized to either a Danish screening brief intervention and referral to treatment (SBIRT) called the Relay model or TAU depending on date of admission. The Relay group was offered a brief alcohol intervention by an outreach alcohol therapist. Patients scoring 16 points and above on the AUDIT test also received referral to alcohol treatment. Outcome was attendance at specialized outpatient alcohol treatment centres after discharge from hospital. Information on patients was gathered from municipal databases at 18 months follow-up., Results: A total of 3534 patients completed the questionnaire, and 609 patients (17%) scored AUDIT 8+. 48 patients were lost to follow-up, and the final sample had 561 patients. Only 33 patients (6%) attended outpatient treatment at 18-months follow-up, but significantly more patients in the Relay group sought alcohol treatment than in the TAU group (OR = 2.5 [1.2;5.2] (p = 0.017)). Number needed to treat (NNT) was 20 [95% CI 11.2;112.3]., Conclusion: The Relay intervention was associated with more patients attending specialized treatment, but further research is needed to establish if general hospitals are an excellent platform for performing SBIRT., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

This study examined the efficacy of brief alcohol intervention in the context of community-based treatment for partner violence. In a randomized clinical trial, 228 partner-violent men with hazardous or problem drinking were recruited at three Intimate Partner Violence (IPV) treatment agencies and randomly assigned to receive one of two 4-session alcohol interventions: Motivational Enhancement Therapy (MET: N = 110) or Alcohol Education (AE: N = 118). After completing alcohol intervention, participants received standard agency counseling services for IPV. Participants completed assessments of alcohol use, drug use, and IPV at pre-treatment, post-alcohol intervention, and quarterly follow-ups for 12 months. At the end of the 4-session alcohol intervention, MET participants displayed greater acknowledgment of problems with alcohol than AE participants (Partial ή 2  = 0.039, p = 0.006). Significant changes from baseline across treatment conditions (at p < 0.001) were observed for percent days of alcohol abstinence [95% empirical CI for Partial ή 2  =0.226, 0.296], heavy drinking [0.292, 0.349], illicit drug use [0.096, 0.156] and partner violence [0.282, 0.334]. No significant condition differences (treatment by time interactions) were found for alcohol abstinence [95% empirical CI for Partial ή 2  = 0.007, 0.036], heavy drinking [0.016, 0.055], illicit drug use [0.005, 0.035] or partner violence [0.001, 0.004]. Results encourage continued use of brief alcohol interventions in community IPV services, but do not provide evidence of a unique benefit of MET in reducing alcohol use in this population., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Rates of hazardous and harm-related drinking are higher in the military and veteran populations compared to the general population. Brief alcohol interventions (BAIs) targeting alcohol use appear to reduce harmful drinking in the general population. However, less is known about the efficacy of BAIs targeting alcohol in military and veteran populations., Methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to assess the type and efficacy of BAIs used to reduce alcohol use in military and veteran populations conducted from 2000 onwards. The meta-analysis was conducted using a standardised outcome measure of change in average weekly drinks (AWDs) from baseline to follow-up., Results: The search revealed 10 papers that met the search criteria, and that reported data on 11 interventions included in the systematic review. 8 papers (reporting on 9 different interventions) were included in the meta-analysis after 2 papers were excluded for which the relevant outcome data were not available. There was no overall effect of BAIs; a non-significant weekly drink reduction of 0.95 drinks was found (95% CI, -0.17 to 2.07). This lack of efficacy persisted regardless of military group (conscripts, serving or veterans) and method of delivery (i.e., face-to-face, web-based or written information). Furthermore, sensitivity analyses revealed this small drink reduction was driven mainly by a single study., Conclusions: Based on these findings, existing BAIs do not seem to be efficacious in reducing alcohol use in military populations, despite some encouraging results from one electronic intervention which was of extensive duration., (Copyright © 2017 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: Performance measures for brief alcohol interventions (BIs) are currently based on provider documentation of BI. However, provider documentation may not be a reliable measure of whether or not patients are offered clinically meaningful BIs. In particular, BI documented with clinical decision support in an electronic medical record (EMR) could appear identical irrespective of the quality of BI provided. We hypothesized that differences in how BI was implemented across health systems could lead to differences in the proportion of documented BI recalled and reported by patients across health systems., Methods: Male outpatients with unhealthy alcohol use identified by confidential satisfaction surveys (2009-2012) were assessed for whether they reported receiving BI in the past year (patient-reported BI) and whether they had BI documented in the EMR during the same period (documented BI). We evaluated and compared the prevalence of documented BI to patient-reported BI across 21 VA networks to determine whether documented BI had a variable association with patient-reported BI across the networks., Results: Of 9896 eligible male outpatients with unhealthy alcohol use, 59.0% (95% CI 57.4-60.5%) reported BI (50.4-64.9% across networks) and 37.4% (95% CI 36.0-38.9%) had BI documented in the EMR (28.0-44.2% across networks). Overall, 72.9% (95% CI 70.8-75.5%) of patients with documented BI also reported BI. The association between documented BI and patient-reported BI did not vary across VA networks in adjusted logistic regression models., Conclusions: Performance measures of BI that rely on provider documentation in EMRs appear comparable to patient report for comparing care across VA networks., (Published by Elsevier Ireland Ltd.)

Alcohol use attenuates successful smoking cessation. We examined the feasibility, acceptability, and preliminary efficacy of a brief alcohol intervention in smokers. In this two-arm, assessor-blinded randomized controlled trial, we randomized 100 daily smokers (82.0% male, mean age = 43.7 years) with past-year alcohol use in smoking cessation clinics. Both intervention (n = 51) and control (n = 49) groups received conventional smoking cessation treatment, the intervention group additionally received a brief alcohol intervention. Primary outcome was biochemically validated tobacco abstinence at 2 months. Secondary outcomes included Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT) scores, self-reported past 7-day alcohol consumption in alcohol units, feasibility, and acceptability scores at 2 months. By intention-to-treat, the intervention group showed higher validated abstinence (11.8% vs. 10.2%, Risk Ratio = 1.15, 95%CI = 0.38–3.53), lower AUDIT score (5.3 vs. 6.5), and lower alcohol consumption (5.6 vs. 7.1) than the control group, but the differences were not significant. Overall, the feasibility was high (4.2/5.0), and the acceptability was modest (5.0/7.0). In all participants, reduction in smoking relapse risk due to alcohol use from baseline to 2-month follow-up was associated with higher biochemically validated abstinence (Adjusted odds ratio: 1.55, 95% CI = 1.05–2.28). Our brief alcohol intervention is feasible, acceptable, and potentially efficacious to promote tobacco abstinence and alcohol reduction. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

PURPOSE: To test the efficacy of two interventions to reduce alcohol use and increase viral suppression compared to a control in persons with HIV (PWH). METHODS: In a three-arm (1:1:1) randomized controlled trial (N = 269), we compared in-person counselling (45-70 minutes, two sessions over three months) with interim monthly booster phone calls (live call arm) or twice-weekly automated booster sessions (technology arm) to a brief advice control arm. We enrolled PWH self-reporting unhealthy alcohol use (Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test - Consumption, prior three months, women ≥3, men ≥4). Primary outcomes were number of self-reported drinking days (NDD) in the prior 21 and biomarker phosphatidylethanol (PEth) at six and nine months and viral suppression (

BackgroundBrief alcohol interventions are one approach for reducing drinking among youth, but may vary in effectiveness depending on the type of alcohol assessments used to measure effects.ObjectivesTo conduct a meta-analysis that examined the effectiveness of brief alcohol interventions for adolescents and young adults, with particular emphasis on exploring variability in effects across outcome measurement characteristics.MethodEligible studies were those using an experimental or quasi-experimental design to examine the effects of a brief alcohol intervention on a post-intervention alcohol use measure for youth aged 11-30. A comprehensive literature review identified 190 unique samples that were included in the meta-analysis. Taking a Bayesian approach, we used random-effects multilevel models to estimate the average effect and model variability across outcome measurement types.ResultsBrief alcohol interventions led to significant reductions in self-reported alcohol use among adolescents (g = 0.25, 95% credible interval [CrI 0.13, 0.37]) and young adults (g = 0.15, 95% CrI [0.12, 0.18]). These results were consistent across outcomes with varying reference periods, but varied across outcome construct type and assessment instruments. Among adolescents, effects were larger when measured using the Timeline Followback; among young adults, effects were smaller when measured using the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test.ConclusionThe strength of the beneficial effects of brief alcohol interventions on youth's alcohol use may vary depending upon the outcome measure utilized. Nevertheless, significant effects were observed across measures. Although effects were modest in size, they were clinically significant and show promise for interrupting problematic alcohol use trajectories among youth.

Introduction: The 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. Methods: Studies 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. Results: The 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. Conclusion: This review provides strong evidence that SBI programs in primary care are a cost-effective option for tackling alcohol misuse. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Alcohol is a legal and accessible substance in Taiwan. As excessive alcohol has been linked to health and social problems, it is necessary to develop a brief, rapid, and low-cost tool to help health care providers deal with persons in Taiwan whose alcohol consumption has become hazardous or harmful to their health. Methods: A randomized controlled clinical trial with 6- and 12-month follow-ups was designed. Eighteen medical/surgical units at a medical center in northern Taiwan were randomly assigned to 2 groups: experimental ( n = 9) and control ( n = 9). Inpatients on the units were enrolled if they met the following criteria: were older than 18 years, had no severe psychiatric illness, and were not pregnant. The experimental group ( n = 138) received the intervention, a 15-minute counseling visit in which nurses screened participants using the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT), provided a health promotion booklet for adults, and individually discussed the booklet contents with patients based on their drinking level (AUDIT score). The control group ( n = 137) received no treatment. Patterns of alcohol consumption were determined by AUDIT scores at baseline, 6, and 12 months later. Results: Alcohol use disorders identification test scores decreased significantly in both groups at 6 months after the intervention, but did not differ significantly between the 2 groups. However, 12 months after the brief alcohol intervention, experimental subjects’ AUDIT scores were significantly better than those of the control group. Conclusions: Our brief alcohol intervention provided a 12-month benefit for problem drinkers in Taiwan. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims To evaluate the effectiveness of brief alcohol intervention (BAI) in reducing alcohol use among hazardous drinkers treated in the emergency department (ED) after an injury; in addition it tests whether assessment of alcohol use without BAI is sufficient to reduce hazardous drinking. Design Randomized controlled clinical trial with 12-month follow-up conducted between January 2003 and June 2005. Setting Urban academic emergency department (ED) of the Lausanne University Hospital, Lausanne, Switzerland. Participants A total of 5136 consecutive patients attending ED after an injury completed a seven-item general and a three-item alcohol screen and 1472 (28.7%) were positive for hazardous drinking according to the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Addiction definition; of these 987 (67.1%) were randomized into a BAI group ( n = 310) or a control group with screening and assessment ( n = 342) or a control group with screening only ( n = 335) and then a total of 770 patients (78.0%) completed the 12-month follow-up procedures. Intervention A single 10–15-minute session of standardized BAI conducted by a trained research assistant. Measurements Percentage of participants who have changed to low-risk drinking at follow-up. Findings Data obtained at 12 months indicated that similar proportions were low-risk drinkers in BAI versus control groups with and without assessment (35.6%, 34.0%, 37.0%, respectively, P = 0.71). Data also indicated similar reductions in drinking frequency, quantity, binge drinking frequency and Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT) scores across groups. All groups reported similar numbers of days hospitalized and numbers of medical consults in the last 12 months. A model including age groups, gender, AUDIT and injury severity scores indicated that BAI had no influence on the main alcohol use outcome. Conclusions This study provides the evidence that a 10–15-minute BAI does not decrease alcohol use and health resource utilization in hazardous drinkers treated in the ED, and demonstrates that commonly found decreases in hazardous alcohol use in control groups cannot be attributed to the baseline alcohol assessment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]