Meta-analysis of Randomized Control Trials Addressing Brief Interventions in Heavy Alcohol Drinkers

Abstract

OBJECTIVE:To assess the effectiveness of brief interventions in heavy drinkers by analyzing the outcome data and methodologic quality. DESIGN:(1) Qualitative analysis of randomized control trials (RCTs) using criteria from Chalmers' scoring system; (2) calculating and combining odds ratios (ORs) of RCTs using the One-Step (Peto) and the Mantel-Haenszel methods. STUDY SELECTION AND DATA ANALYSIS: A MEDLINE andPsycLIT search identified RCTs testing brief interventions in heavy alcohol drinkers. Brief interventions were less than 1 hour and incorporated simple motivational counseling techniques much like outpatient smoking cessation programs. By a single-reviewer, nonblinded format, eligible studies were selected for adult subjects, sample sizes greater than 30, a randomized control design, and incorporation of brief alcohol interventions. Methodologic quality was assessed using an established scoring system developed by Chalmers and colleagues. Outcome data were combined by the One-Step (Peto) method; confidence limits and 2 test for heterogeneity were calculated. RESULTS:Twelve RCTs met all inclusion criteria, with an average quality score of 0.49 ؎ 0.17. This was comparable to published average scores in other areas of research (0.42 ؎ 0.16). Outcome data from RCTs were pooled, and a combined OR was close to 2 (1.91; 95% confidence interval 1.61-2.27) in favor of brief alcohol interventions over no intervention. This was consistent across gender, intensity of intervention, type of clinical setting, and higher-quality clinical trials. CONCLUSIONS:Heavy drinkers who received a brief intervention were twice as likely to moderate their drinking 6 to 12 months after an intervention when compared with heavy drinkers who received no intervention. Brief intervention is a low-cost, effective preventive measure for heavy drinkers in outpatient settings.KEY WORDS: meta-analysis; qualitative analysis; randomized control trial; heavy drinking; brief clinical interventions.

Effectiveness of brief interventions as part of the Screening, Brief Intervention and Referral to Treatment (SBIRT) model for reducing the nonmedical use of psychoactive substances: a systematic review

“…There is substantial scientific evidence of the benefits of the SBIRT model in primary health-care settings as a means of preventing and/or reducing the serious long-term harms associated with excessive alcohol use [8-10]. There is also accumulating evidence suggesting that BIs may be effective in reducing the nonmedical use of psychoactive substances, such as cannabis [11-15], ecstasy [16], cocaine [12,17,18], benzodiazepines [19], and opioids [3,17,20] among both youth and adults.…”

Randomized clinical trial of the effects of screening and brief intervention for illicit drug use: the life shift/shift gears study

“…Although the SBIRT approach has shown promise for alcohol use [7-9], relatively little is known about its effectiveness for illicit drug use specifically [10]. An international study reported that brief intervention in primary health-care settings was associated with reductions in self-reported illicit substance use in several countries, with the exception of the United States [11].…”

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

“…Health professionals working in general hospital environments have regular contact with individuals who misuse alcohol. Historically, interventions were offered only when individuals were diagnosed as alcohol dependent, although evidence has suggested possible benefits from intervening earlier using screening and brief interventions (Nilsen et al, 2008;Wilk et al, 1997).…”