Format

Send to

Choose Destination
J Gen Intern Med. 2019 Aug 20. doi: 10.1007/s11606-019-05261-7. [Epub ahead of print]

Effect of a Care Management Intervention on 12-Month Drinking Outcomes Among Patients With and Without DSM-IV Alcohol Dependence at Baseline.

Author information

1
Health Services Research & Development (HSR&D), Center of Innovation for Veteran-Centered Value-Driven Care, Veterans Affairs (VA) Puget Sound Health Care System, Seattle, WA, USA. emily.williams3@va.gov.
2
Department of Health Services, University of Washington, Seattle, USA. emily.williams3@va.gov.
3
Kaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute, Seattle, USA.
4
Department of Health Services, University of Washington, Seattle, USA.
5
Health Services Research & Development (HSR&D), Center of Innovation for Veteran-Centered Value-Driven Care, Veterans Affairs (VA) Puget Sound Health Care System, Seattle, WA, USA.
6
Center of Excellence in Substance Abuse Treatment and Education (CESATE), VA Puget Sound Health Care System, Seattle, USA.
7
Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle, USA.
8
Department of Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, USA.
9
Ohio State University, Columbus, USA.
10
Kaiser Permanente Washington, Seattle, USA.
11
VA Puget Sound Healthcare System, Seattle, USA.

Abstract

BACKGROUND:

The CHOICE care management intervention did not improve drinking relative to usual care (UC) for patients with frequent heavy drinking at high risk of alcohol use disorders. Patients with alcohol dependence were hypothesized to benefit most. We conducted preplanned secondary analyses to test whether the CHOICE intervention improved drinking relative to UC among patients with and without baseline DSM-IV alcohol dependence.

METHODS:

A total of 304 patients reporting frequent heavy drinking from 3 VA primary care clinics were randomized (stratified by DSM-IV alcohol dependence, sex, and site) to UC or the patient-centered, nurse-delivered, 12-month CHOICE care management intervention. Primary outcomes included percent heavy drinking days (%HDD) using 28-day timeline follow-back and a "good drinking outcome" (GDO)-abstaining or drinking below recommended limits and no alcohol-related symptoms on the Short Inventory of Problems at 12 months. Generalized estimating equations binomial regression models (clustered on provider) with interaction terms between dependence and intervention group were fit.

RESULTS:

At baseline, 59% of intervention and UC patients had DSM-IV alcohol dependence. Mean drinking outcomes improved for all subgroups. For participants with dependence, 12-month outcomes did not differ for intervention versus UC patients (%HDD 37% versus 38%, p = 0.76 and GDO 16% versus 16%, p = 0.77). For participants without dependence, %HDD did not differ between intervention (41%) and UC (31%) patients (p = 0.12), but the proportion with GDO was significantly higher among UC participants (26% versus 13%, p = 0.046). Neither outcome was significantly modified by dependence (interaction p values 0.19 for %HDD and 0.10 for GDO).

CONCLUSIONS:

Among participants with frequent heavy drinking, care management had no benefit relative to UC for patients with dependence, but UC may have had benefits for those without dependence.

TRIAL REGISTRATION:

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01400581 .

KEYWORDS:

Veterans; alcohol dependence; alcohol screening; alcohol use disorder; care management; collaborative care; intervention; medical management; patient-centered care; primary care

PMID:
31432438
DOI:
10.1007/s11606-019-05261-7

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for Springer
Loading ...
Support Center