Predictors of Loss to Follow-Up in Young Patients With Minor Trauma After Screening and Written Intervention for Alcohol in an Urban Emergency Department

Emergency department-initiated tobacco control: a randomised controlled trial in an inner city university hospital

“…Assuming a rate of 20% abstinence in the control group13 and an effect size of the intervention of 1.8 (95% CI 1.5 to 2.2),13 with an α error of 5% and a power of 80%, nQuery Advisor, V. 3.0 (Statistical Solutions, Saugus, Massachusetts, USA) calculated without continuity correction a study size of n1 (intervention) = n2 (controls) = 244 study participants. With an expected loss to follow-up of 50% of smokers over 12 months,14 the overall study size was established at 976. We assumed additional losses of 5% (n = 49) due to inappropriate allocation or incomplete baseline screening and thus the target size for study inclusion was n = 1024 randomised participants.…”

“…Study participants were additionally administered the validated German version17 of the Fagerstroem test for nicotine dependence (FTND),18 a detailed smoking history which includes questions on smoking history (duration of smoking, age at onset, attempts to quit during the last 12 months and partner’s smoking status) 19. Further questions focused on alcohol consumption (hazardous alcohol consumption defined as ⩾5 points on the Alcohol Use Disorder Identification Test – Primary Care (AUDIT-PC)20 scale), illicit drug consumption,14 and socioeconomic parameters according to the German Health Survey 1998 21. Overall, a maximum of 80 questions were asked, which took approximately 20 min.…”

Tracking Inner City Substance Users from the Emergency Department: How Many Contacts Does It Take?

“…A prior ED‐based evaluation by Woolard et al 2 found that demographic characteristics (including gender and socioeconomic status) did not predict dropouts or those who were difficult to contact. Neuner et al, 13 in an ED study evaluating contact difficulty among primarily white patients in Germany with alcohol misuse, found that individuals with a greater number of alcohol‐related problems required more contact attempts to complete follow‐up interviews. Although the pattern clearly differs across studies, when taken together there are clear differences in the characteristics of those patients who are DTR, but not in predictable directions, suggesting the importance of tenacious tracking efforts.…”

“…Participants who required eight or more contact attempts to complete an interview were deemed “difficult to reach” ( n = 74; 32%). Poisson and negative binomial regression analyses were conducted to predict number of 12‐month contacts required, based on baseline characteristics (age, gender, race, marital status, hourly wage) and problem severity indicators of substance use from the SAOM that have been demonstrated to impact follow‐up difficulty in prior studies, 13,19,20 such as days of cocaine and binge drinking in the prior 4 weeks, substance abuse, and/or dependence diagnoses. In addition, lifetime substance use treatment and mental health treatment were included, because it was hypothesized that patients who were more familiar with detailed mental health and substance use questions and appointments may be more comfortable returning to complete a follow‐up on these topics.…”

“…Follow‐up rates from ED studies of patients with substance misuse vary greatly by study with attrition rates ranging from less than 10% to more than 50% 7–13 . Low follow‐up rates threaten study validity.…”