Effectiveness of screening and brief alcohol intervention in primary care (SIPS trial): pragmatic cluster randomised controlled trial

Abstract

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...

Psychosocial Interventions for Problem Alcohol Use in Primary Care Settings (PINTA): Baseline Feasibility Data

“…There is a wealth of international guidance to inform best practice in the management of alcohol use disorders by healthcare professionals in general medical settings (Babor & Higgins-Biddle, 2001; Center for Substance Abuse Treatment, 1994;Fiellin, Reid, & O'Connor, 2000;Gordon & Alford, 2012;McKnight-Eily et al, 2014). The advice recommends screening everybody using standardised brief instruments, confirming problem alcohol use with the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test -'AUDIT' questionnaire (Babor & Higgins-Biddle, 2001), providing feedback on results in all cases identified as positive, counselling on minimising alcohol harm, encouraging a reduction in alcohol consumption and initiating referral to specialists when needed.…”

A Randomized Controlled Trial of IVR-Based Alcohol Brief Intervention to Promote Patient–Provider Communication in Primary Care

“…Our data do not allow us to determine whether a full IVR-BI is required as a patient prompt, or whether IVR assessment + simple feedback would be sufficient. 39,40 Regardless of its intensity, incorporating an alcohol-related IVR component into a standard appointment reminder call would be relatively straightforward. A strength of this study was that screening data were seamlessly merged with the EMR and available to the PCP at the time of the visit.…”

Alcohol Use Disorders among Participants of a Community Outreach in Jos, Nigeria: Prevalence, Correlates and ease of acceptance of Brief Intervention

“…11,12 Screening and Brief Intervention (SBI) have been shown to be effective in identifying alcohol and other substance misuse at an early stage and offer help to people with this problem. 13,14 Findings from Screening, Brief Intervention and Referral to Treatment (SBIRT) initiative of Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) also shows that large numbers of people who are at risk of developing serious alcohol problems can be identified through screening, while a combination of screening, brief intervention, and referral to treatment can decrease the frequency and severity of alcohol use and increase the percentage of people who obtain the specialized treatment they need. 15 The World…”