BACKGROUND: Alcohol screening and brief intervention (BI) is an effective primary care preventive service, but implementation rates are low. Automating BI using interactive voice response (IVR) may be an efficient way to expand patient access to needed information and advice. OBJECTIVE: To develop IVR-based BI and pilot test it for feasibility and acceptability. DESIGN: Single-group pre-post feasibility study. PARTICIPANTS: Primary care patients presenting for an office visit. INTERVENTIONS: IVR-BI structured to correspond to the provider BI method recommended by NIAAA: (1) Ask about use; (2) Assess problems; (3) Advise and Assist for change, and (4) Follow up for continued support. Advice was tailored to patient readiness and preferences. MEASUREMENTS: Utilization rate, call duration, and patients' subjective reports of usefulness, comfort and honesty with the IVR-BI. Pre-post evaluation of motivation to change and change in alcohol consumption as measured by Timeline Follow Back. RESULTS: Call duration ranged from 3-7 minutes. Subjective reactions were generally positive or neutral. About 40% of subjects indicated IVR-BI had motivated them to change. About half of the patients had discussed drinking with their provider at the visit. These tended to be heavier drinkers with greater concerns about drinking. Patients who reported a provider-delivered BI and called the IVR-BI endorsed greater comfort and honesty with the IVR-BI. On average, a 25% reduction in alcohol use was reported two weeks after the clinic visit. CONCLUSIONS: Using IVR technology to deliver BI in a primary care setting is feasible and data suggest potential for efficacy in a larger trial.
BACKGROUND:Alcohol screening and brief intervention (BI) is an effective primary care preventive service, but implementation rates are low. Automating BI using interactive voice response (IVR) may be an efficient way to expand patient access to needed information and advice. OBJECTIVE: To develop IVR-based BI and pilot test it for feasibility and acceptability. DESIGN: Single-group pre-post feasibility study. PARTICIPANTS: Primary care patients presenting for an office visit. INTERVENTIONS: IVR-BI structured to correspond to the provider BI method recommended by NIAAA: (1) Ask about use; (2) Assess problems; (3) Advise and Assist for change, and (4) Follow up for continued support. Advice was tailored to patient readiness and preferences. MEASUREMENTS: Utilization rate, call duration, and patients' subjective reports of usefulness, comfort and honesty with the IVR-BI. Pre-post evaluation of motivation to change and change in alcohol consumption as measured by Timeline Follow Back. RESULTS: Call duration ranged from 3-7 minutes. Subjective reactions were generally positive or neutral. About 40% of subjects indicated IVR-BI had motivated them to change. About half of the patients had discussed drinking with their provider at the visit. These tended to be heavier drinkers with greater concerns about drinking. Patients who reported a provider-delivered BI and called the IVR-BI endorsed greater comfort and honesty with the IVR-BI. On average, a 25% reduction in alcohol use was reported two weeks after the clinic visit. CONCLUSIONS: Using IVR technology to deliver BI in a primary care setting is feasible and data suggest potential for efficacy in a larger trial.
Authors: Henry R Kranzler; Khamis Abu-Hasaballah; Howard Tennen; Richard Feinn; Kevin Young Journal: Alcohol Clin Exp Res Date: 2004-07 Impact factor: 3.455
Authors: Michael F Fleming; Marlon P Mundt; Michael T French; Linda Baier Manwell; Ellyn A Stauffacher; Kristen Lawton Barry Journal: Alcohol Clin Exp Res Date: 2002-01 Impact factor: 3.455
Authors: Evelyn P Whitlock; Michael R Polen; Carla A Green; Tracy Orleans; Jonathan Klein Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2004-04-06 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Nancy A Rigotti; Yuchiao Chang; Lisa C Rosenfeld; Sandra J Japuntich; Elyse R Park; Hilary A Tindle; Douglas E Levy; Zachary Z Reid; Joanna Streck; Timothy Gomperts; Jennifer H K Kelley; Daniel E Singer Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2017-06-14 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: C W Shanahan; A Sorensen-Alawad; B L Carney; I Persand; A Cruz; M Botticelli; K Pressman; W G Adams; M Brolin; D P Alford Journal: Appl Clin Inform Date: 2014-10-22 Impact factor: 2.342
Authors: Kristin A Tansil; Marissa B Esser; Paramjit Sandhu; Jeffrey A Reynolds; Randy W Elder; Rebecca S Williamson; Sajal K Chattopadhyay; Michele K Bohm; Robert D Brewer; Lela R McKnight-Eily; Daniel W Hungerford; Traci L Toomey; Ralph W Hingson; Jonathan E Fielding Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2016-11 Impact factor: 5.043
Authors: Stacey C Sigmon; Andrew C Meyer; Bryce Hruska; Taylor Ochalek; Gail Rose; Gary J Badger; John R Brooklyn; Sarah H Heil; Stephen T Higgins; Brent A Moore; Robert P Schwartz Journal: Addict Behav Date: 2015-07-29 Impact factor: 3.913
Authors: Brent A Moore; Tera Fazzino; Declan T Barry; David A Fiellin; Christopher J Cutter; Richard S Schottenfeld; Samuel A Ball Journal: J Subst Abuse Treat Date: 2013-01-30
Authors: Gail L Rose; Gary J Badger; Joan M Skelly; Tonya A Ferraro; Charles D MacLean; John E Helzer Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2016-05-20 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Shannon H Houser; Midge N Ray; Richard Maisiak; Anantachai Panjamapirom; James Willing; Gordon D Schiff; Thomas English; Christa Nevin; Eta S Berner Journal: Stud Health Technol Inform Date: 2013
Authors: Valerie S Harder; Lynsay A Ayer; Gail L Rose; Magdalena R Naylor; John E Helzer Journal: Alcohol Alcohol Date: 2013-07-11 Impact factor: 2.826
Authors: Gail L Rose; Gary J Badger; Joan M Skelly; Charles D MacLean; Tonya A Ferraro; John E Helzer Journal: Alcohol Alcohol Date: 2017-05-01 Impact factor: 2.826