Counselling problem drinkers in medical wards: a controlled study.

Chick, Jonathan; Lloyd, G. E. R.; Crombie, Evelyn

doi:10.1136/bmj.290.6473.965

Cited by 329 publications

(151 citation statements)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

145

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Standardized effect sizes from 14 of the studies reviewed by Bien et al [16] are given in Table 4 [ [22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35]. The within-group effects are described by the baseline to follow-up changes in alcohol use among patients receiving BI, and are thus similar in design to the standardized effect sizes from our analysis also given in Table 4.…”

Section: Comparisons With Results From Other Sbi Studiesmentioning

confidence: 68%

Substance use outcomes of patients served by a large US implementation of Screening, Brief Intervention and Referral to Treatment (SBIRT)

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aims To estimate changes in the substance use behaviors of patients who received services as part of the US Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration's (SAMHSA) Screening, Brief Intervention and Referral to Treatment (SBIRT) grant program. Methods We use a pre-post design and performance monitoring data collected by SBIRT organizations. For a sample of 17 575 patients, we compare pre-SBIRT substance use with substance use 6 months after receipt of SBIRT services. SBIRT's correlation with changes in substance use was estimated using generalized linear mixed models to account for the clustering of patients within health-care facility and US state. Results From pre-to post-SBIRT we found large and statistically significant decreases for almost every measure of substance use. Model-adjusted means indicate that the prevalence of alcohol use was lower 6 months later by 35.6%, heavy drinking by 43.4% and illicit drug use by 75.8%. Greater intervention intensity was associated with larger decreases in substance use. The study design does not support causal conclusions and estimated decreases in reported substance use are due, at least in part, to a well-known set of confounders and natural substance use patterns that may be unrelated to any particular SBIRT intervention.Conclusions Compared with previously published findings on the Screening, Brief Intervention and Referral to Treatment grant program, our estimates of substance use reduction were smaller, but still consistently large in absolute magnitude and within ranges of estimates from past trials of Screening, Brief Intervention and Referral to Treatment.

show abstract

Section: Comparisons With Results From Other Sbi Studiesmentioning

confidence: 68%

Substance use outcomes of patients served by a large US implementation of Screening, Brief Intervention and Referral to Treatment (SBIRT)

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Thirty-two studies met the inclusion criteria [6,7,14,[19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38][39][40][41][42][43][44][45][46]. A total of 7521 subjects were examined in the 32 studies, 4190 in the experimental conditions and 3331 in the control conditions.…”

Section: Included Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

The effects on mortality of brief interventions for problem drinking: a meta‐analysis

2004

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aims Brief interventions for problem drinking may result in decreased mortality rates. Long-term follow-up studies of brief interventions do not produce a clear answer to the question as to whether these interventions reduce mortality or not. Methods We conducted a meta-analysis of randomized studies comparing brief interventions with a control group, using the fixed-effects model. A systematic literature search produced four studies in which the mortality status of subjects was verified at follow-up. Six more studies reported some deaths at follow-up but did not verify mortality in death registers, and 22 further studies did not report the mortality status of the included subjects. Findings The pooled relative risk (RR) of dying was 0.47 for the four studies with verified mortality rates (95% CI: 0.25, 0.89). The pooled RR of all 32 studies was comparable (RR = 0.57; 95% CI: 0.38, 0.84), as were the RRs of several other subsamples of studies. The prevented fraction was 0.33 in the studies with verified mortality rates. Conclusions Although the overall death rate was low in the population of problem drinkers, brief interventions do appear to reduce mortality.

show abstract

“…In contrast, evidence for the delivery of ABIs in a general hospital setting has remained inconclusive and an area requiring further study (Emmen et al, 2004;Saitz, 2007). The first study into ABI in general hospitals observed improvements in self-reported problems related to alcohol but not alcohol consumption (Chick et al, 1985). A systematic review of ABI in general hospitals included 14 studies with 4,041 participants and identified the need for further research on the optimal content and treatment exposure for ABI (McQueen et al, 2011).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Effectiveness of Alcohol Brief Intervention in a General Hospital: A Randomized Controlled Trial

McQueen

Howe

Ballinger

et al. 2015

J. Stud. Alcohol Drugs

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ABSTRACT. Objective: The purpose of this study was to examine the effectiveness of an alcohol brief intervention (ABI) on alcohol consumption in hazardous or harmful drinkers compared with screening alone within a general hospital setting. Method: Following screening, 124 hazardous or harmful drinkers (103 men, ages 18-80 years, score of 3-12 on the Fast Alcohol Screening Test [FAST]) admitted to medical and orthopedic wards during the 13-month recruitment period were randomized to receive an ABI or control. The intervention group received an ABI where they were supported to set their own personalized alcohol reduction goals, and both groups received a health information leaflet. Retrospective alcohol consumption for 7 days was reported for the week, before hospital admission and 6 months after it. Results: Demographics and clinical characteristics at baseline showed no statistical differences between the two groups on all variables except FAST score, which was higher in the intervention group (p ≤ .05). A reduction of 85 grams of alcohol per week (95% CI [162.46, 7.54]) was observed between groups in favor of the intervention group based on changes from baseline. However, there was no significant difference between groups for absolute grams of alcohol per week at 6 months. A significant mean difference in favor of the intervention group (U = 1,537, p = .043) was observed for weekly heavy drinking episodes. Conclusions: Our results suggest screening with delivery of ABI for harmful/hazardous drinkers in a general hospital is beneficial in reducing alcohol consumption compared with screening alone. (J. Stud. Alcohol Drugs, 76, 838-844, 2015)

show abstract

Counselling problem drinkers in medical wards: a controlled study.

Cited by 329 publications

References 7 publications

Substance use outcomes of patients served by a large US implementation of Screening, Brief Intervention and Referral to Treatment (SBIRT)

Substance use outcomes of patients served by a large US implementation of Screening, Brief Intervention and Referral to Treatment (SBIRT)

The effects on mortality of brief interventions for problem drinking: a meta‐analysis

Effectiveness of Alcohol Brief Intervention in a General Hospital: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About