Skip to main content

The Effectiveness of Alcohol Screening and Brief Intervention in Emergency Departments: A Multicentre Pragmatic Cluster Randomized Controlled Trial

Drummond, Colin, Deluca, Paolo, Coulton, Simon, Bland, Martin, Cassidy, Paul, Crawford, Mike, Dale, Veronica, Gilvarry, Eilish, Godfrey, Christine, Heather, Nick, and others. (2014) The Effectiveness of Alcohol Screening and Brief Intervention in Emergency Departments: A Multicentre Pragmatic Cluster Randomized Controlled Trial. PLoS ONE, 9 (6). E-ISSN 1932-6203. (doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0099463) (KAR id:42484)

PDF Publisher pdf
Language: English
Download (311kB) Preview
[thumbnail of journal.pone.0099463.pdf]
Preview
This file may not be suitable for users of assistive technology.
Request an accessible format
Official URL:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0099463

Abstract

BACKGROUND:

Alcohol misuse is common in people attending emergency departments (EDs) and there is some evidence of efficacy of alcohol screening and brief interventions (SBI). This study investigated the effectiveness of SBI approaches of different intensities delivered by ED staff in nine typical EDs in England: the SIPS ED trial.

METHODS AND FINDINGS:

Pragmatic multicentre cluster randomized controlled trial of SBI for hazardous and harmful drinkers presenting to ED. Nine EDs were randomized to three conditions: a patient information leaflet (PIL), 5 minutes of brief advice (BA), and referral to an alcohol health worker who provided 20 minutes of brief lifestyle counseling (BLC). The primary outcome measure was the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT) status at 6 months. Of 5899 patients aged 18 or more presenting to EDs, 3737 (63·3%) were eligible to participate and 1497 (40·1%) screened positive for hazardous or harmful drinking, of whom 1204 (80·4%) gave consent to participate in the trial. Follow up rates were 72% (n?=?863) at six, and 67% (n?=?810) at 12 months. There was no evidence of any differences between intervention conditions for AUDIT status or any other outcome measures at months 6 or 12 in an intention to treat analysis. At month 6, compared to the PIL group, the odds ratio of being AUDIT negative for brief advice was 1·103 (95% CI 0·328 to 3·715). The odds ratio comparing BLC to PIL was 1·247 (95% CI 0·315 to 4·939). A per protocol analysis confirmed these findings.

CONCLUSIONS:

SBI is difficult to implement in typical EDs. The results do not support widespread implementation of alcohol SBI in ED beyond screening followed by simple clinical feedback and alcohol information, which is likely to be easier and less expensive to implement than more complex interventions.

Item Type: Article
DOI/Identification number: 10.1371/journal.pone.0099463
Additional information: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN 93681536
Uncontrolled keywords: alcohol screening, emergency departments, A&E, brief interventions
Subjects: H Social Sciences > HV Social pathology. Social and public welfare > HV5001 Alcoholism and intemperance
R Medicine > RA Public aspects of medicine > RA421 Public health. Hygiene. Preventive Medicine
Divisions: Divisions > Division for the Study of Law, Society and Social Justice > School of Social Policy, Sociology and Social Research > Centre for Health Services Studies
Depositing User: Simon Coulton
Date Deposited: 20 Aug 2014 10:07 UTC
Last Modified: 29 Oct 2021 14:37 UTC
Resource URI: https://kar.kent.ac.uk/id/eprint/42484 (The current URI for this page, for reference purposes)
Coulton, Simon: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7704-3274
  • Depositors only (login required):

Downloads

Downloads per month over past year