Alcohol screening and brief intervention in criminal justice settings: prevalence and performance of screening tests

Coulton, Simon and Bland, M. and Cassidy, P. and Deluca, P. and Drummond, C. and Gilvarry, E. and Godfrey, C. and Heather, N. and Kaner, E. and Myles, J. and Newbury-Birch, D. and Oyefeso, A. and Parrott, S. and Perryman, K. and Phillips, T. and Shepherd, J. (2010) Alcohol screening and brief intervention in criminal justice settings: prevalence and performance of screening tests. In: Alcoholism-Clinical And Experimental Research. 295A (34). , 6 295A-295A. (doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1530-0277.2010.01211.x) (The full text of this publication is not currently available from this repository. You may be able to access a copy if URLs are provided)

The full text of this publication is not currently available from this repository. You may be able to access a copy if URLs are provided. (Contact us about this Publication)
Official URL
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1530-0277.2010.01211.x

Abstract

The SIPS study is a major UK evaluation of screening and brief intervention strategies for alcohol users in primary care, emergency departments and criminal justice settings. Here we present the results of a pilot study of screening tools and the main study screening results in probation settings. In the pilot study 592 individuals in a variety of settings where approached and 205 consented to take part in the study. The screening tools being evaluated were the modified Single Alcohol Screening Questionnaire and the Fast Alcohol Screening Test. The Gold standard comparison was AUDIT. The mean age in the pilot study was 31 years (SD 9) and the majority were male. The overall prevalence of alcohol use disorders in the population was high at 70% with almost 50% at the dependent end of the spectrum. Those scoring positive on AUDIT had significantly poorer overall health status and were greater users of health and criminal justice services. A ROC analysis of the instruments demonstrated high sensitivity and specificity for both M-SASQ and FAST and ROC analysis indicated a marginal superiority of FAST over M-SASQ (AUC 0.97 vs. 0.92). The main study is a pragmatic factorial randomised controlled trial set in probation services in the UK. The study compares screening tool (FAST vs. M-SASQ) and 3 brief interventions (Patient information leaflet vs. Brief advice vs. Brief Lifestyle Counselling). A total of 976 individuals were approached and 854 were eligible and screened with 573 screening positive. The initial results indicate a high prevalence of alcohol use disorders in this population (68%). The sensitivity of M-SASQ and FAST was high (81% vs. 92%) but FAST appears to be more sensitive than M-SASQ at identifying those with more severe alcohol use disorders with an odds ratio for FAST versus M-SASQ of 2.69 (CI 1.55–4.67) for all alcohol use disorders and 1.58 (CI 1.11–2.24) for harmful alcohol use disorders. FAST appears to be the most efficient screening mechanism in this population but we do not yet know how the screening mechanism interacts with the treatment intervention.

Item Type: Conference or workshop item (Paper)
Subjects: H Social Sciences > HV Social pathology. Social and public welfare > HV5001 Alcohol use and miuse
K Law > KD England and Wales
Divisions: Faculties > Social Sciences > School of Social Policy Sociology and Social Research > Centre for Health Services Studies
Depositing User: Tony Rees
Date Deposited: 27 Aug 2014 10:34 UTC
Last Modified: 27 Aug 2014 10:34 UTC
Resource URI: https://kar.kent.ac.uk/id/eprint/42704 (The current URI for this page, for reference purposes)
  • Depositors only (login required):