Format

Send to

Choose Destination
PLoS One. 2014 Jun 25;9(6):e99463. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0099463. eCollection 2014.

The effectiveness of alcohol screening and brief intervention in emergency departments: a multicentre pragmatic cluster randomized controlled trial.

Author information

1
Addictions Department, Institute of Psychiatry, King's College London, London, United Kingdom.
2
Centre for Health Service Studies, University of Kent, Canterbury, United Kingdom.
3
Department of Health Sciences, University of York, York, United Kingdom.
4
Teams Family Practice, Gateshead, United Kingdom.
5
Department of Psychological Medicine, Imperial College, London, United Kingdom.
6
Institute of Health and Society, Newcastle University, Newcastle, United Kingdom; Northern Regional Drug and Alcohol Services, Newcastle, United Kingdom.
7
Faculty of Health and Life Sciences, Northumbria University, Newcastle, United Kingdom.
8
Institute of Health and Society, Newcastle University, Newcastle, United Kingdom.
9
Division of Population Health Sciences and Education, St George's, University of London, London, United Kingdom; Jeesal Cawston Park Hospital, Norfolk, United Kingdom.
10
Addictions Department, Institute of Psychiatry, King's College London, London, United Kingdom; Humber NHS Foundation Trust, Willerby, United Kingdom.
11
Violence Research Group, Cardiff University, Cardiff, United Kingdom.
12
Emergency Department, Kingston Hospital, Kingston upon Thames, London, United Kingdom.

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.

TRIAL REGISTRATION:

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN 93681536.

PMID:
24963731
PMCID:
PMC4070907
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pone.0099463
[Indexed for MEDLINE]
Free PMC Article

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for Public Library of Science Icon for PubMed Central
Loading ...
Support Center