RCT of Effectiveness of Motivational Enhancement Therapy Delivered by Nurses for Hazardous Drinkers in Primary Care Units in Thailand

Noknoy, Sairat; Rangsin, Ram; Saengcharnchai, Pichai; Tantibhaedhyangkul, Usa; McCambridge, Jim

doi:10.1093/alcalc/agq013

Cited by 57 publications

(84 citation statements)

References 15 publications

(16 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…However, the webbased setting allowed for anonymity and privacy, both of which can increase reports of sensitive information, and studies in treatment settings generally suggest that carefully collected self-reported alcohol data are reliable [65]. There have not yet, however, been online or brief intervention studies that have reached similar conclusions [66]. We tested our models by removing outliers, which changed the results minimally.…”

Section: Strengths and Limitationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Quality of life among hazardous and harmful drinkers: EQ-5D over a 1-year follow-up period

Essex

White²,

Khadjesari

et al. 2013

Qual Life Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Strengths and Limitationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Quality of life among hazardous and harmful drinkers: EQ-5D over a 1-year follow-up period

Essex

White²,

Khadjesari

et al. 2013

Qual Life Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Commentary On Schwartz Et Al (2014): Where Next For Face-tomentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Better understanding of the technical limitations of this validation approach is necessary in order to evaluate the validity of the self-reported data. This is an issue that also deserves attention in brief interventions for alcohol where validation studies in treatment contexts may be less informative than well-established problems of underreporting in general population surveys [13].The implications of these findings are somewhat challenging to elaborate because of uncertainties in the wider research context. The authors hypothesized that the computerized intervention would outperform faceto-face brief intervention, because having a conversation about drug use in primary care when one is not seeking help may be difficult [8].…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Commentary on Schwartz et al. (2014): Where next for face‐to‐face, person‐to‐person, computerized and online brief interventions for drug users?

McCambridge

2014

Addiction

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Commentary on Schwartz et al. (2014): Where next for face-to-face, person-to-person, computerized and online brief interventions for drug users?After decades of research on brief interventions for alcohol [1], study of applications with drug users has developed over the last 15 years or so [2], with marijuana use among adolescents and young adult students prominent in this literature. Limited specificity of intervention effects [3,4] and deterioration of short-term effects over time [5] have been features of some studies that have clear parallels with intervention research on addictive behaviours more broadly. Due to the different historical periods in which they have developed, there has been relatively early investigation of computerized and online interventions for drug users (e.g. [6,7]), including direct comparisons of automated computerized and person-toperson interventions, such as in the study by Schwartz and colleagues [8].The literature on computerized alcohol interventions has developed with important methodological shortcomings [9], with few studies being online interventions accessible on telephones and computers at the convenience of participants. This is also true of computerized interventions for drug use [10], and such is the pace of development of study that these reviews are already quite dated.There are no systematic reviews of online rather than computerized interventions, and the former may also embrace person-to-person contacts, as do telephones not connected to the internet. We need systematic reviews of face-to-face, person-to-person and automated online interventions for drug users. The distinctions made here are somewhat laboured, as too often they are overlooked. This is not trivial because it is possible, if not likely, that effectiveness in changing addictive behaviours will vary across these categories, as well as within them according to the content being employed [11]. The lack of up-todate systematic reviews is problematic, and reasonable concerns have been articulated that implementation of brief interventions for drug users is out of kilter with the development of the evidence base [12].This situation also poses difficulties for the identification of research questions, including the design of control conditions and the choice of superiority or noninferiority hypotheses. Schwarz and colleagues [8] provide a well-designed and well-conducted trial in this context. The contents of the interventions compared are similar and the absence of differences in primary outcomes unsurprising, indicating that brief face-to-face contact beyond that which is required to access the computerized intervention confers no additional benefit. The decision not to measure the fidelity of the brief face-to-face intervention is sensible in light of the effectiveness study context.The lack of concordance between the hair analysis data and the self-reported data calls for further investigation. Better understanding of the technical limitations of this validation approach is necessary in order to evaluate...

show abstract

“…However, a few studies confirm that implementing alcohol treatment methods typically used overseas, such as motivational interviewing (MI) and brief intervention (BI), can be useful tools for reducing alcohol consumption. BI has been applied by community nurses that deliver consultations to people experiencing alcohol addiction and abuse in Thailand (Areesantichai, Chapman, & Perngparn, 2013;Areesantichai, Iamsupasit, Marsden, Perngparn, & Taneepanichskul, 2010;Noknoy, Rangsin, Saengcharnchai, Tantibhaedhyangkul, & McCambridge, 2010;Srikosai et al, 2008). However, one of these studies revealed that the effectiveness of the findings could not be measured since both the interventions and patients' reports concerning their drinking culture occurred during 'the Buddhist Lent'.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…During this three-month-long observation, people do good deeds (e.g. avoid or stop drinking); after this period, however, normal drinking patterns are typically resumed (Noknoy et al, 2010). The Mental Health Department of Thailand implemented MI, BI, motivational enhancement therapy (MET), and cognitive behavior therapy (CBT) for alcohol treatment; the report of these implementations questioned if the healthcare providers had sufficient knowledge and skill to treat alcohol addiction and abuse (Kittirattanaphiboon & Jumroonsawat, 2011).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Healthcare providers’ experiences of working with alcohol addiction treatment in Thailand

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

RCT of Effectiveness of Motivational Enhancement Therapy Delivered by Nurses for Hazardous Drinkers in Primary Care Units in Thailand

Abstract: MET delivered by nurses in PCUs in Thailand appears to be an effective intervention for male hazardous drinkers. Uncertainties about the validity of self-reported data jeopardize the safety of this conclusion.

Cited by 57 publications

References 15 publications

Quality of life among hazardous and harmful drinkers: EQ-5D over a 1-year follow-up period

Quality of life among hazardous and harmful drinkers: EQ-5D over a 1-year follow-up period

Commentary on Schwartz et al. (2014): Where next for face‐to‐face, person‐to‐person, computerized and online brief interventions for drug users?

Healthcare providers’ experiences of working with alcohol addiction treatment in Thailand

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About