Aims To test if training and support of primary health care providers (PHCP), financial reimbursement to PHCP for screening and brief advice, and option for PHCP to refer screen positive patients to an internet-based method of giving advice (eBI) increases PHCP's delivery of screening and advice to heavy drinkers, compared to a control group of PHCPs.Design Cluster randomized factorial trial with 12-week implementation measurement period.Setting Primary health care units (PHCU) in different locations throughout Catalonia, England, Netherlands, Poland and Sweden.Participants 120 PHCU, 24 in each of Catalonia, England, Netherlands, Poland and Sweden.Interventions PHCUs were randomized to one of eight groups: care as usual, training and support (TS), financial reimbursement (FR), and eBI; paired combinations of TS, FR and eBI, and all of FR, TS and eBI.Outcome measures Primary outcome measures is proportion of eligible patients screened during a 12-week implementation period. Secondary outcome measures are proportion of screen positive patients advised; and, proportion of consulting adult patients given an intervention (screening and advice to screen positives) during the same 12-week implementation period.Results During a 4-week baseline measurement period, 5.9 (95% CI 3.4 to 8.4)per 100 adult patients consulting per PHCU were screened for their alcohol consumption. Based on the factorial design, PHCU that received TS had a 1.48 (95% CI 1.13 to 1.95)relatively higher proportion of patients screened during the 12-week implementation period than PHCU that did not receive TS; PHCU that received FR had a 2.00 (95% CI 1.56 to 2.56) relatively higher proportion than no FR. The option of referral to eBI did not have a higher proportion. A combination of TS plus FR had a 2.34 (95% CI 1.77 to 3.10) relatively higher proportion of patients screened than no TS plus FR. A combination of TS plus FR plus eBI had a 1.68 (95% CI 1.11 to 2.53) relatively higher proportion of patients screened than no TS plus FR plus eBI.Conclusions Training and support of PHCP, and financial reimbursement to PHCP for screening and brief advice increase the proportion of adult patients screened for their alcohol consumption, at least in the short term. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov. Trial identifier: NCT015015523

PURPOSE We aimed to test whether 3 strategies-training and support, financial reimbursement, and an option to direct screen-positive patients to an Internetbased method of giving brief advice-have a longer-term effect on primary care clinicians' delivery of screening and advice to heavy drinkers operationalized with the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test-Consumption (AUDIT-C) tool. METHODSWe undertook a cluster randomized factorial trial with a 12-week implementation period in 120 primary health care units throughout Catalonia, England, Netherlands, Poland, and Sweden. Units were randomized to 8 groups: care as usual (control); training and support alone; financial reimbursement alone; electronic brief advice alone; paired combinations of these conditions; and all 3 combined. The primary outcome was the proportion of consulting adult patients (aged 18 years and older) receiving intervention-screening and, if screen-positive, advice-at 9 months.RESULTS Based on the factorial design, the ratio of the log of the proportion of patients given intervention at the 9-month follow-up was 1.39 (95% CI, 1.03-1.88) in units that received training and support as compared with units that did not. Neither financial reimbursement nor directing screen-positive patients to electronic brief advice led to a higher proportion of patients receiving intervention.CONCLUSIONS Training and support of primary health care units has a lasting, albeit small, impact on the proportion of adult patients given an alcohol intervention at 9 months. INTRODUCTIONA lcohol consumption is partly or entirely the cause of more than 200 diseases, injuries, and other health conditions with 3-digit International Classification of Diseases 10th Revision (ICD-10) codes, 1 and alcohol is the sixth most important risk factor for ill health and premature death at the global level.2 Heavy drinkers who reduce consumption decrease their risk of mortality when compared with those who continue to drink heavily.3,4 Systematic reviews demonstrate that primary health care-based screening and brief advice programs are effective in reducing alcohol consumption and related harm. [5][6][7] Many national and international guidelines recommend routine screening for heavy drinking in primary care and the offering of advice to screen-positive patients. [8][9][10] In many settings, however, there is a large gap between need and provision of advice. Elsewhere, we have shown that only 11 per 1,000 eligible patients consulting their primary care clinician over a 4-week period were screened for heavy drinking and, if screen-positive, subsequently advised to reduce their alcohol consumption (average across Catalonia, England, Netherlands, Poland, and Sweden). 11It is possible to increase the proportion of eligible patients screened and advised for heavy drinking. 13 During the implementation period, practitioners were asked to screen all consulting adult patients-regardless of the reason for their visit-for heavy drinking using the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification...

: The Strengthening Families Programme for youth aged 10-14 and parents/carers (SFP10-14) is a family-based prevention intervention with positive results in trials in the United States. We assessed the effectiveness of SFP10-14 for preventing substance misuse in Poland. : Cluster randomized controlled trial with 20 communities (511 families; 614 young people) were allocated to SFP10-14 or a control arms. Primary outcomes were alcohol, smoking and other drug use. Secondary outcomes included parenting practices, parent-child relations, and child problem behaviour. Interview-based questionnaires were administered at baseline and at 12- and 24-months post-baseline, with respective 70.4 and 54.4%, follow-up rates. : In Bayesian regression models with complete case data we found no effects of SFP10-14 for any of the primary or secondary outcomes at either follow-up. For example at 24-months, posterior odds ratios and 95% credible intervals for past year alcohol use, past month binge drinking, past year smoking, and past year other drug use, were 0.83 (0.44-1.56), 0.83 (0.27-2.65), 1.94 (0.76-5.38) and 0.74 (0.15-3.58), respectively. Although moderate to high attrition rates, together with some evidence of systematic attrition bias according to parent education and family disposable income, could have biased the results, the results were supported in further analyses with propensity score matched data and 40 multiple imputed datasets. : We found no evidence for the effectiveness of SFP10-14 on the prevention of alcohol or tobacco use, parenting behaviour, parent-child relations or child problem behaviour at 12- or 24-month follow-up in a large cluster randomized controlled trial in Poland.

The findings show that the studied factors (role security and therapeutic commitment) are not of great importance for alcohol screening and BI rates. Given the fact that screening and brief intervention implementation rate has not changed much in the last decade in spite of increased policy emphasis, training initiatives and more research being published, this raises a question about what else is needed to enhance implementation.

In this paper, we test path models that study the interrelations between primary health care provider attitudes towards working with drinkers, their screening and brief advice activity, and their receipt of training and support and financial reimbursement. Study participants were 756 primary health care providers from 120 primary health care units (PHCUs) in different locations throughout Catalonia, England, The Netherlands, Poland, and Sweden. Our interventions were training and support and financial reimbursement to providers. Our design was a randomized factorial trial with baseline measurement period, 12-week implementation period, and 9-month follow-up measurement period. Our outcome measures were: attitudes of individual providers in working with drinkers as measured by the Short Alcohol and Alcohol Problems Perception Questionnaire; and the proportion of consulting adult patients (age 18+ years) who screened positive and were given advice to reduce their alcohol consumption (intervention activity). We found that more positive attitudes were associated with higher intervention activity, and higher intervention activity was then associated with more positive attitudes. Training and support was associated with both positive changes in attitudes and higher intervention activity. Financial reimbursement was associated with more positive attitudes through its impact on higher intervention activity. We conclude that improving primary health care providers’ screening and brief advice activity for heavy drinking requires a combination of training and support and on-the-job experience of actually delivering screening and brief advice activity.