Evaluation of a Workplace Brief Intervention for Excessive Alcohol Consumption: The Workscreen Project

Richmond, Robyn; Kehoe, Linda; Heather, Nick; Wodak, Alex

doi:10.1006/pmed.1999.0587

Cited by 49 publications

(63 citation statements)

References 52 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Such activities could provide an opportunity for screening and the delivery of interventions for hazardous and harmful levels and patterns of alcohol consumption. The introduction of a broadbased approach maybe further advocated, as seen in previous studies (Lapham et al, 2003;Richmond et al, 2000;Walters & Woodall, 2003) and supported (Roman & Blum, 1996). It could be that, were a screening process to be introduced as a routine, uptake would be higher than for a research project being undertaken by a university, as was the case in this study.…”

Section: Target Groupsupporting

confidence: 55%

“…The existing evidence on workplace alcohol interventions demonstrates that implementation of Screening and Brief Interventions (SBIs) is feasible and in some cases has the potential to provide beneficial results (Bayley et al, 2011, Hermansson et al, 2010, Richmond et al, 2000. In a systematic review Webb et al (2009) identified only 10 studies of which only four had employed a Randomised Controlled Trial (RCT) design.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Screening and brief intervention delivery in the workplace to reduce alcohol-related harm: A pilot randomized controlled trial

Watson

Godfrey

McFadyen

et al. 2015

International Journal of Nursing Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aims: To explore the feasibility and cost effectiveness of screening and delivery of a brief intervention for hazardous drinking employees.Methods: A pilot randomised controlled trial of a brief intervention delivered by an Occupational Health nurse versus no delivery of brief intervention (control group) conducted in a Local Authority Council (LCA) in the United Kingdom. Changes in quality of life and economic indicators were measured by the EQ-5D.Results: 627 employees were screened of whom 163 (26.01%) fulfilled the inclusion criteria with a total of 57 (35%) agreeing to participate. No significant differences were found between the groups for baseline demographics or levels/patterns of alcohol consumption. A statistically significant effect was found in the mean AUDIT scores over time (F = 8.96, p = 0.004) but not for group (F = 0.017, p = 0.896), and no significant interaction was found (F = 0.148, p = 0.702). The cost of each intervention was calculated at £12.48, the difference in service costs was calculated at £344.50 per person; that is there was a net saving of health and other care costs in the intervention group compared to the control group. The QALYs fell in both intervention and control groups, the difference -0.002 -(-0.010) yields a net advantage of the intervention of 0.008 QALYs. Conclusion:The main results from this pilot study suggest that alcohol brief interventions delivered in the workplace may offer the potential to reduce alcohol-related harm and save public sector resources. A fully powered multi-centre trial is warranted to contribute to the current evidence base and explore further the potential of alcohol brief interventions in the workplace. In a full trial the recruitment method may need to be re-considered.2

show abstract

Section: Target Groupsupporting

confidence: 55%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Screening and brief intervention delivery in the workplace to reduce alcohol-related harm: A pilot randomized controlled trial

Watson

Godfrey

McFadyen

et al. 2015

International Journal of Nursing Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Most of the trials used worksite, or whatever unit of cluster randomization, as the unit of analysis (8,11,13,22,26,27,39). Those using workers as the unit of analysis took into account the effect of the cluster randomization procedure by incorporating a nested design structure (29,36,37,51) or by using other procedures (18,30,31,35,47). Seven trials did not take cluster randomization into account when analyzing their data (12,16,24,28,38,47,49).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…An increase in physical activity was the goal for 14 health promotion trials; in 3 it was the exclusive factor (44)(45)(46), and in 11 it was part of a wider health promotion program (24, 25, 29-34, 43, 47, 48). Finally, fewer studies focused on other risk factors (22,28,29,32,34,38,43,45,(49)(50)(51)(52) (table 2).…”

Section: Characteristics Of the Trialsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Health promotion trials at worksites and risk factors for cancer

Janer¹,

Sala²,

Kogevinas³

2002

Scand J Work Environ Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The following articles refer to this text: 2002;28(3) Studies of worksite health promotion have frequently reported larger effects than those at the community level.Many of these studies have serious methodological problems. Forty-five worksite health promotion trials following specific quality criteria were selected and estimated for behavioral changes in cancer risk factors and the effectiveness of different intervention components. Tobacco control programs found quit rates of about 5% with relapse rates of 40% to 80% at 6 months after the intervention. Effectiveness increased with the duration of the intervention for at least 6 months, repeated contacts with the participants, continuous support, and tailored messages. There was less evidence for the long-term effectiveness of incentives. Trials on diet, alcohol, physical activity, overweight, and solar radiation showed the same positive trends. The overall evidence indicates a modest but positive effect of health promotion trials at worksites and the effect, for smoking cessation trials, is slightly larger than that of community-based trials. Many of the recommendations made to increase participation and effectiveness were not based on empirical data.

show abstract

Effectiveness of brief alcohol interventions in primary care populations

Kaner¹,

Dickinson²,

Beyer³

et al. 2007

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

855

890

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Brief interventions consistently produced reductions in alcohol consumption. When data were available by gender, the effect was clear in men at one year of follow up, but unproven in women. Longer duration of counselling probably has little additional effect. The lack of differences in outcomes between efficacy and effectiveness trials suggests that the current literature had clear relevance to routine primary care. Future trials should focus on women and on delineating the most effective components of interventions.

show abstract

Evaluation of a Workplace Brief Intervention for Excessive Alcohol Consumption: The Workscreen Project

Cited by 49 publications

References 52 publications

Screening and brief intervention delivery in the workplace to reduce alcohol-related harm: A pilot randomized controlled trial

Screening and brief intervention delivery in the workplace to reduce alcohol-related harm: A pilot randomized controlled trial

Health promotion trials at worksites and risk factors for cancer

Effectiveness of brief alcohol interventions in primary care populations

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About