IntroductionIndigenous peoples who have experienced colonisation or oppression can have a higher prevalence of alcohol-related harms. In Australia, Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Services (ACCHSs) offer culturally accessible care to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander (Indigenous) peoples. However there are many competing health, socioeconomic and cultural client needs.Methods and analysisA randomised cluster wait-control trial will test the effectiveness of a model of tailored and collaborative support for ACCHSs in increasing use of alcohol screening (with Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test-Consumption (AUDIT-C)) and of treatment provision (brief intervention, counselling or relapse prevention medicines).SettingTwenty-two ACCHSs across Australia.RandomisationServices will be stratified by remoteness, then randomised into two groups. Half receive support soon after the trial starts (intervention or ‘early support’); half receive support 2 years later (wait-control or ‘late support’).The supportCore support elements will be tailored to local needs and include: support to nominate two staff as champions for increasing alcohol care; a national training workshop and bimonthly teleconferences for service champions to share knowledge; onsite training, and bimonthly feedback on routinely collected data on screening and treatment provision.Outcomes and analysisPrimary outcome is use of screening using AUDIT-C as routinely recorded on practice software. Secondary outcomes are recording of brief intervention, counselling, relapse prevention medicines; and blood pressure, gamma glutamyltransferase and HbA1c. Multi-level logistic regression will be used to test the effectiveness of support.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval has been obtained from eight ethics committees: the Aboriginal Health and Medical Research Council of New South Wales (1217/16); Central Australian Human Research Ethics Committee (CA-17-2842); Northern Territory Department of Health and Menzies School of Health Research (2017-2737); Central Queensland Hospital and Health Service (17/QCQ/9); Far North Queensland (17/QCH/45-1143); Aboriginal Health Research Ethics Committee, South Australia (04-16-694); St Vincent’s Hospital (Melbourne) Human Research Ethics Committee (LRR 036/17); and Western Australian Aboriginal Health Ethics Committee (779).Trial registration numberACTRN12618001892202; Pre-results.

Background and Aims Unhealthy alcohol consumption is a key concern for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander ('Indigenous') communities. It is important to identify and treat at-risk drinkers, to prevent harms to physical or social wellbeing. We aimed to test whether training and support for Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Service (ACCHS) staff would increase rates of alcohol screening and brief intervention. Design Cluster randomized trial. Setting Australia. Cases/Intervention/Measurements Twenty-two ACCHSs that see at least 1000 clients per year and use Communicare as practice management software. The study included data on 70 419 clients, training, regular data feedback, collaborative support and funding for resources ($9000). Blinding was not used. The comparator was waiting-list control (equal allocation). Alcohol Use Disorder Identification Test (AUDIT-C) screening and records of brief interventions were extracted from practice management software at 2-monthly intervals. Observations described the clinical actions taken for clients over each 2-month interval. The baseline period (28 August 2016-28 August 2017) was compared with the post-implementation period (29 August 2017-28 August 2018). We used multi-level logistic regression to test the hypotheses that clients attending a service receiving active support would be more likely to be screened with AUDIT-C (primary outcome) or to receive a brief intervention (secondary outcome). Findings We observed an increase in the odds of screening with AUDIT-C for both groups, but the increase was 5.52 [95% confidence interval (CI) = 4.31, 7.07] times larger at services receiving support. We found little evidence that the support programme increased the odds of a recorded brief intervention relative to control services (odds ratio = 2.06; 95% CI = 0.90, 4.69). Differences in baseline screening activity between treatment and control reduce the certainty of our findings.Conclusions Providing Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Services with training and support can improve alcohol (AUDIT-C) screening rates.

Introduction and aims Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Community Controlled Health Services (ACCHSs) around Australia have been asked to standardise screening for unhealthy drinking. Accordingly, screening with the 3-item AUDIT-C (Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test—Consumption) tool has become a national key performance indicator. Here we provide an overview of suitability of AUDIT-C and other brief alcohol screening tools for use in ACCHSs.MethodsAll peer-reviewed literature providing original data on validity, acceptability or feasibility of alcohol screening tools among Indigenous Australians was reviewed. Narrative synthesis was used to identify themes and integrate results.ResultsThree screening tools—full AUDIT, AUDIT-3 (third question of AUDIT) and CAGE (Cut-down, Annoyed, Guilty and Eye-opener) have been validated against other consumption measures, and found to correspond well. Short forms of AUDIT have also been found to compare well with full AUDIT, and were preferred by primary care staff. Help was often required with converting consumption into standard drinks. Researchers commented that AUDIT and its short forms prompted reflection on drinking. Another tool, the Indigenous Risk Impact Screen (IRIS), jointly screens for alcohol, drug and mental health risk, but is relatively long (13 items). IRIS has been validated against dependence scales. AUDIT, IRIS and CAGE have a greater focus on dependence than on hazardous or harmful consumption.Discussion and conclusionsDetection of unhealthy drinking before harms occur is a goal of screening, so AUDIT-C offers advantages over tools like IRIS or CAGE which focus on dependence. AUDIT-C’s brevity suits integration with general health screening. Further research is needed on facilitating implementation of systematic alcohol screening into Indigenous primary healthcare.

Existing methods of assessing the treatment needs of Indigenous Australians are limited by incomplete and inaccurate survey data and an over-reliance on existing service use data. In addition to a shortage of services, cultural and logistical barriers may hamper access to alcohol treatment for Indigenous Australians. There is also a lack of services funded to a level that allows them to cope with clients with complex medical and physical comorbidity, and a lack of services for women, families and young people. A lack of voluntary treatment services also raises serious ethical concerns, given the expansion of mandatory treatment programmes and incarceration of Indigenous Australians for continued drinking. The use of modelling approaches, linkage of administrative data sets and strategies to improve data collection are discussed as possible methods to better assess treatment need. [Brett J, Lee K, Gray D, Wilson S, Freeburn B, Harrison K, Conigrave K. Mind the gap: what is the difference between alcohol treatment need and access for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians? Drug Alcohol Rev 2016;35:456-460].

No abstract