Kaner, E., Bland, M., Cassidy, P., Coulton, Simon, Deluca, P., Drummond, C., Gilvarry, E., Godfrey, C., Heather, N., Myles, J., and others. (2010) Screening and brief alcohol intervention in primary health care: extending the existing evidence base via the UK SIPS trial. In: Alcoholism-Clinical And Experimental Research. 295A , 34 (6). (doi: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) (KAR id:42710)
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. | |
Official URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1530-0277.2010.01211.x |
Abstract
There have been many trials of screening and brief alcohol intervention in primary care. Most
have reported positive effects of brief intervention, in terms of reduced consumption in heavy
drinkers. Despite this considerable evidence-base, key questions remain including: the
applicability of the evidence to routine practice; the most efficient screening strategy; and the
required intensity of brief intervention. This trial aimed to evaluate the effectiveness and costeffectiveness
of different models of screening and different intensities of brief alcohol
intervention in routine primary care. GPs and nurses from 24 practices across the North East,
London and South East of England were recruited. Practices were randomly allocated to 1 of
3 intervention conditions: a leaflet-only control group; brief structured advice; and brief lifestyle
counselling. Practices were also randomised to either universal or targeted screening and to
use the modified single item (M-SASQ) or FAST screening tool. To inform the screening
strategy, 190 practitioners were surveyed (prior to trial commencement) to ascertain their
views on which health conditions and/or contexts were most suitable for identifying heavy
drinking. This presentation focuses on screening outcomes including the efficiency of targeted
or universal screening. Practitioners (n = 111) preferred targeted to universal screening (55%
vs. 30%) although 15% felt that a combined approach should be used. The top 4 targeting
conditions were mental health, gastrointestinal problems, hypertension and accidents (rated
important by 87%, 77%, 72% and 63% of practitioners respectively). Of 2291 eligible patients,
30% (n = 900) screened positively for heavy drinking and 84% (n = 754) consented to
participate in the trial. The screen conversion rate (proportion of eligible patients who
screened positively) was significantly higher for targeted screening (36%) compared to
universal screening (26%). Targeting also identified more heavy drinkers who were older
(mean age 52 vs. 49), male (56% vs. 41%), Caucasian (83% vs. 81%) and less well
educated compared to universal screening. The presentation will further examine the
characteristics of patients identified by each screening strategy and the relative efficiency of
the screening tools. Whilst targeted screening was preferred by practitioners and appeared to
be more efficient than universal screening, key groups of patients may be missed by this
strategy.
Item Type: | Conference or workshop item (Paper) |
---|---|
DOI/Identification number: | 10.1111/j.1530-0277.2010.01211.x |
Subjects: |
H Social Sciences > HV Social pathology. Social and public welfare > HV5001 Alcoholism and intemperance R Medicine > RA Public aspects of 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: | Tony Rees |
Date Deposited: | 27 Aug 2014 10:55 UTC |
Last Modified: | 16 Nov 2021 10:16 UTC |
Resource URI: | https://kar.kent.ac.uk/id/eprint/42710 (The current URI for this page, for reference purposes) |
- Export to:
- RefWorks
- EPrints3 XML
- BibTeX
- CSV
- Depositors only (login required):