Drunk and dangerous: a randomised controlled trial of alcohol brief intervention for violent offenders

Abstract

To assess the effectiveness of an alcohol brief intervention administered to violent offenders in a judicial (Magistrates' court) setting, a randomised controlled trial was conducted. Participants (n=269) were men aged 16-35 years, who resided within a 30-mile radius of Cardiff, UK, and who had been sentenced for a violent offence committed whilst intoxicated with alcohol. Recruitment occurred on-site. Participants were randomly allocated to receive an alcohol brief intervention (n= 135) or to a control group (n=134). Objective measures comprised re-offending and injury rates. Self-reported outcome measures comprised Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT); number of drinking days in the past 3 months; total weekly standard units of alcohol; and stage of change with respect to alcohol consumption (as measured by the Readiness to Change Questionnaire). Participants were followed up 3 months (n=234; 87%) and 12 months (n=202; 75.1%) after sentence. No significant between-group differences were observed in any of the alcohol measures or in re-offending. Injury was significantly less likely in offenders who had received the intervention (27.4%) than those who had not [39.6%; 95% confidence interval (CI)=−0.23, −0.009]. At 3-month follow-up, significantly more participants in the intervention group (31%; n=37) than control group (16%; n=18) demonstrated an increase in their readiness to change drinking behaviour (χ 2 =8.56; df=2; P=0.014), but this did not persist at 12-month follow-up.

A rapid systematic review of what we know about alcohol use disorders and brief interventions in the criminal justice system

“…This is primarily because of the issues related to when and how you measure alcohol consumption when someone is incarcerated for a long period of time. The studies that have been carried out in the UK in other criminal justice areas have shown no effect on reduced drinking (Watt et al, 2008;Newbury-Birch et al, 2014). However, effects relating to fewer injuries have been shown and there is some promising work with young people in the USA (Stein et al, 2011a).…”

“…Prison -remand and sentenced (100% male) (n ¼ 216) (Watt and Shepherd, 2005;Watt et al, 2008). It is important to note though, that eligibility to be screened was that the participant had been sentenced for a violent offence committed whilst intoxicated with alcohol.…”

“…One study of low risk of bias was found in relation to the magistrates' court setting (Watt and Shepherd, 2005;Watt et al, 2008). Focus.…”

Brief Intervention for Risky Alcohol Use: A Critical Analysis

“…Although very limited in number and methodological quality, there is some evidence on brief intervention for heavy drinkings such as psychiatric outpatient setting, [45] community-based counselling centres, sexual health clinics, and antenatal care and postpartum care settings [46][47][48][49]. However, none of the studies reported a superior benefit for brief intervention as compared to routine care [50,51].…”

Missing links: how descriptive validity impacts the policy relevance of randomized controlled trials in criminology

“…10, for social sciences generally), no consensus on standards similar to that seen in the health sciences has been reached. Recently, several reports of RCTs in the Journal of Experimental Criminology have explicitly and voluntarily adhered to CONSORT standards (e.g., Sherman et al 2005;Watt et al 2008;Barnes et al 2010). Perry and Johnson (2008) provide empirical evidence that criminological trial reports only partially adhere to CONSORT.…”