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...

Aims: To ascertain the views of general practitioners (GPs) regarding the prevention and management of alcohol-related problems in practice, together with perceived barriers and incentives for this work; to compare our findings with a comparable survey conducted 10 years earlier. Methods: In total, 282 (73%) of 419 GPs surveyed in East Midlands, UK, completed a postal questionnaire, measuring practices and attitudes, including the Shortened Alcohol and Alcohol Problems Perception Questionnaire (SAAPPQ). Results: GPs reported lower levels of post-graduate education or training on alcohol-related issues (<4 h for the majority) than in 1999 but not significantly so (P = 0.031). In the last year, GPs had most commonly requested more than 12 blood tests and managed 1–6 patients for alcohol. Reports of these preventive practices were significantly increased from 1999 (P < 0.001). Most felt that problem or dependent drinkers' alcohol issues could be legitimately (88%, 87%) and adequately (78%, 69%) addressed by GPs. However, they had low levels of motivation (42%, 35%), task-related self-esteem (53%, 49%) and job satisfaction (15%, 12%) for this. Busyness (63%) and lack of training (57%) or contractual incentives (48%) were key barriers. Endorsement for government policies on alcohol was very low. Conclusion: Among GPs, there still appears to be a gap between actual practice and potential for preventive work relating to alcohol problems; they report little specific training and a lack of support. Translational work on understanding the evidence-base supporting screening and brief intervention could incentivize intervention against excessive drinking and embedding it into everyday primary care practice.

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

Background: There have been many randomized controlled trials of screening and brief alcohol intervention in primary care. Most trials have reported positive effects of brief intervention, in terms of reduced alcohol consumption in excessive drinkers. Despite this considerable evidencebase, key questions remain unanswered including: the applicability of the evidence to routine practice; the most efficient strategy for screening patients; and the required intensity of brief intervention in primary care. This pragmatic factorial trial, with cluster randomization of practices, will evaluate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of different models of screening to identify hazardous and harmful drinkers in primary care and different intensities of brief intervention to reduce excessive drinking in primary care patients.

Brief advice or brief lifestyle counselling provided no additional benefit in reducing hazardous or harmful drinking compared with feedback on screening outcome and a client information leaflet. The impact of more intensive brief intervention on reoffending warrants further research.

Background: A quick method of assessing readiness to change was needed for a major study of implementing screening and alcohol brief intervention in England. For this purpose, a ReadinessRuler that had been validated among a sample of male college students in the USA was adapted and applied to a sample of excessive drinkers in a general medical practice located in a deprived area of Gateshead, England.Methods: 72 participants identified as excessive drinkers by health professionals completed a singleitem Readiness Ruler, the 12-item Readiness to Change Questionnaire (RCQ) and the AUDIT questionnaire.Results: In terms of concurrent validity, the relationships between the Readiness Ruler, on the one hand, and either stage of change allocation or a dimensional score derived from the RCQ, on the other hand, were highly significant but weaker than expected. When patients who endorsed the "maintenance" point on the Readiness Ruler were excluded from the analysis, the above relationships were considerably strengthened for reasons that are discussed. On this basis and with another small change, a final Readiness Ruler was developed.Conclusion: If the validity of the Readiness Ruler is confirmed in subsequent research, a quick and simple way of measuring readiness to change will be available for research or clinical work with alcohol brief interventions.

The results confirm that there is a major problem with alcohol use in the criminal justice system and this impacts on health and criminal behaviour. Of the three criminal justice settings, probation was found to be the most suitable for screening. Participants were positive about receiving interventions for their alcohol use in probation settings.

Translational research projects based in England, New Zealand and Catalonia are described. In combination they provide real world evidence in support of the evolving discourse on translating the evidence on screening and brief intervention for problem use of alcohol so that it is acceptable and fit for routine practice. Acceptance and uptake was enhanced by encouraging primary health clinicians to use evidence-based screening and brief intervention processes which fit with the context in which they work and which build on the skills they already have and use in practice. Emerging general principles included: tailoring procedures to fit with local circumstances; breaking the process down into clinically acceptable steps and negotiating where there is flexibility. Key issues explored in each case study included how 'screening' is best conducted, what is a brief intervention best suited to which provider and which providers should run the process.