Objective To evaluate the effectiveness of different brief intervention strategies at reducing hazardous or harmful drinking in primary care. The hypothesis was that more intensive intervention would result in a greater reduction in hazardous or harmful drinking. Design Pragmatic cluster randomised controlled trial.Setting Primary care practices in the north east and south east of England and in London.Participants 3562 patients aged 18 or more routinely presenting in primary care, of whom 2991 (84.0%) were eligible to enter the trial: 900 (30.1%) screened positive for hazardous or harmful drinking and 756 (84.0%) received a brief intervention. The sample was predominantly male (62%) and white (92%), and 34% were current smokers.Interventions Practices were randomised to three interventions, each of which built on the previous one: a patient information leaflet control group, five minutes of structured brief advice, and 20 minutes of brief lifestyle counselling. Delivery of the patient leaflet and brief advice occurred directly after screening and brief lifestyle counselling in a subsequent consultation. Main outcome measuresThe primary outcome was patients' self reported hazardous or harmful drinking status as measured by the alcohol use disorders identification test (AUDIT) at six months. A negative AUDIT result (score <8) indicated non-hazardous or non-harmful drinking. Secondary outcomes were a negative AUDIT result at 12 months, experience of alcohol related problems (alcohol problems questionnaire), health utility (EQ-5D), service utilisation, and patients' motivation to change drinking behaviour (readiness to change) as measured by a modified readiness ruler.Results Patient follow-up rates were 83% at six months (n=644) and 79% at 12 months (n=617). At both time points an intention to treat analysis found no significant differences in AUDIT negative status between the three interventions. Compared with the patient information RESEARCHleaflet group, the odds ratio of having a negative AUDIT result for brief advice was 0.85 (95% confidence interval 0.52 to 1.39) and for brief lifestyle counselling was 0.78 (0.48 to 1.25). A per protocol analysis confirmed these findings. ConclusionsAll patients received simple feedback on their screening outcome. Beyond this input, however, evidence that brief advice or brief lifestyle counselling provided important additional benefit in reducing hazardous or harmful drinking compared with the patient information leaflet was lacking.Trial registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN06145674. IntroductionInternational studies have shown that 20-30% of patients who routinely present in primary care are hazardous or harmful drinkers. 1 Hazardous drinking is a repeated pattern of drinking that increases the risk of physical or psychological problems, 2 whereas harmful drinking is defined by the presence of these problems.3 Several meta-analyses have shown that screening using short questionnaires followed by brief intervention (comprising simple advice or psychologic...

Decisions about the use of psychotropic medication in pregnancy are an ongoing challenge for clinicians and women with mental health problems, due to the uncertainties around risks of the illness itself to mother and fetus/infant, effectiveness of medications in pregnancy and risks to the fetus/infant from in utero exposure or via breast milk. These consensus guidelines aim to provide pragmatic advice regarding these issues. They are divided into sections on risks of untreated illness in pregnancy; general principles of using drugs in the perinatal period; benefits and harms associated with individual drugs; and recommendations for the management of specific disorders.

General practitioners' (GPs') recognition of, attitudes towards, and intervention for, excessive drinking and alcohol problems among their patients were assessed in a postal questionnaire survey. Levels of recognition of, and intervention for, excessive drinking by GPs were low. GPs did not routinely enquire about alcohol and had managed only small numbers of patients specifically for excessive drinking or alcohol problems in the previous year. Enquiry about alcohol issues was elicited mainly by physical symptoms or by new patient registrations. Although 83% of GPs felt prepared to counsel excessive drinkers, only 21% felt effective in helping patients reduce consumption. Over the past 10 years, there appears to have been an increase in numbers of GPs who feel that they should be working with alcohol issues, but fewer GPs perceive themselves as being effective in this work. The main barriers to brief alcohol intervention were given as insufficient time and training, and lack of help from government policy; the main incentives related to availability of appropriate support services and proven efficacy of brief interventions.

Living with both parents is a less robust barrier to substance use than qualitative aspects of family life, particularly attachment to mothers. The latter is a robust inhibitor of substance use irrespective of regional differences in drug availability, weakening only in the face of more generally problematic behaviour. Perhaps because of their greater tendency to risk-taking or rule breaking, supervision appears more important for male than female drug use. These findings underscore the role of families, but especially that of mothers, in regulating the substance-related behaviour of young people.

BackgroundAlcohol 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 FindingsPragmatic 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.ConclusionsSBI 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 RegistrationCurrent Controlled Trials ISRCTN 93681536