Craig A Field1, Raul Caetano. 1. University of Texas at Austin, School of Social Work, Center for Social Work Research, Health Behavior Research and Training Institute, Austin, TX 78703, USA. craig.field@austin.utexas.edu
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Research investigating the differential effectiveness of Brief Motivational Interventions (BMIs) among alcohol-dependent and non-dependent patients in the medical setting is limited. Clinical guidelines suggest that BMI is most appropriate for patients with less severe alcohol problems. As a result, most studies evaluating the effectiveness of BMI have excluded patients with an indication of alcohol dependence. METHODS: A randomized controlled trial of brief intervention in the trauma care setting comparing BMI to treatment as usual plus assessment (TAU+) was conducted. Alcohol dependence status was determined for 1336 patients using DSM-IV diagnostic criteria. The differential effectiveness of BMI among alcohol-dependent and non-dependent patients was determined with regard to volume per week, maximum amount consumed, percent days abstinent, alcohol problems at 6 and 12 months follow-up. In addition, the effect of BMI on dependence status at 6 and 12 months was determined. RESULTS: There was a consistent interaction between BMI and alcohol dependence status, which indicated significantly higher reductions in volume per week at 6 and 12 months follow-up (beta=-.56, p=.03, beta=-.63, p=.02, respectively), maximum amount at 6 months (beta=-.31, p=.04), and significant decreases in percent days abstinent at 12 months (beta=.11, p=.007) and alcohol problems at 12 months (beta=-2.7, p(12)=.04) among patients with alcohol dependence receiving BMI. In addition, patients with alcohol dependence at baseline that received BMI were .59 (95% CI=.39-.91) times less likely to meet criteria for alcohol dependence at six months. CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that BMI is more beneficial among patients with alcohol dependence who screen positive for an alcohol-related injury. Copyright 2010 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Research investigating the differential effectiveness of Brief Motivational Interventions (BMIs) among alcohol-dependent and non-dependent patients in the medical setting is limited. Clinical guidelines suggest that BMI is most appropriate for patients with less severe alcohol problems. As a result, most studies evaluating the effectiveness of BMI have excluded patients with an indication of alcohol dependence. METHODS: A randomized controlled trial of brief intervention in the trauma care setting comparing BMI to treatment as usual plus assessment (TAU+) was conducted. Alcohol dependence status was determined for 1336 patients using DSM-IV diagnostic criteria. The differential effectiveness of BMI among alcohol-dependent and non-dependent patients was determined with regard to volume per week, maximum amount consumed, percent days abstinent, alcohol problems at 6 and 12 months follow-up. In addition, the effect of BMI on dependence status at 6 and 12 months was determined. RESULTS: There was a consistent interaction between BMI and alcohol dependence status, which indicated significantly higher reductions in volume per week at 6 and 12 months follow-up (beta=-.56, p=.03, beta=-.63, p=.02, respectively), maximum amount at 6 months (beta=-.31, p=.04), and significant decreases in percent days abstinent at 12 months (beta=.11, p=.007) and alcohol problems at 12 months (beta=-2.7, p(12)=.04) among patients with alcohol dependence receiving BMI. In addition, patients with alcohol dependence at baseline that received BMI were .59 (95% CI=.39-.91) times less likely to meet criteria for alcohol dependence at six months. CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that BMI is more beneficial among patients with alcohol dependence who screen positive for an alcohol-related injury. Copyright 2010 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.
Authors: Deborah A Dawson; Bridget F Grant; Frederick S Stinson; Patricia S Chou; Boji Huang; W June Ruan Journal: Addiction Date: 2005-03 Impact factor: 6.526
Authors: L M Gentilello; F P Rivara; D M Donovan; G J Jurkovich; E Daranciang; C W Dunn; A Villaveces; M Copass; R R Ries Journal: Ann Surg Date: 1999-10 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Brendan J Clark; Alexandra Smart; Robert House; Ivor Douglas; Ellen L Burnham; Marc Moss Journal: Alcohol Clin Exp Res Date: 2011-09-26 Impact factor: 3.455
Authors: Jan Gryczynski; Shannon Gwin Mitchell; Thomas R Peterson; Arturo Gonzales; Ana Moseley; Robert P Schwartz Journal: Drug Alcohol Depend Date: 2011-04-09 Impact factor: 4.492
Authors: Susan E Collins; Seema L Clifasefi; Lonnie A Nelson; Joey Stanton; Silvi C Goldstein; Emily M Taylor; Gail Hoffmann; Victor L King; Alyssa S Hatsukami; Zohar Lev Cunningham; Ellie Taylor; Nigel Mayberry; Daniel K Malone; T Ron Jackson Journal: Int J Drug Policy Date: 2019-03-06
Authors: Joseph E Glass; Ashley M Hamilton; Byron J Powell; Brian E Perron; Randall T Brown; Mark A Ilgen Journal: Addiction Date: 2015-06-03 Impact factor: 6.526
Authors: Anne C Fernandez; Rebecca Waller; Maureen A Walton; Erin E Bonar; Rosalinda V Ignacio; Stephen T Chermack; Rebecca M Cunningham; Brenda M Booth; Mark A Ilgen; Kristen L Barry; Frederic C Blow Journal: Drug Alcohol Depend Date: 2018-11-14 Impact factor: 4.492
Authors: Richard Saitz; Tibor P A Palfai; Debbie M Cheng; Daniel P Alford; Judith A Bernstein; Christine A Lloyd-Travaglini; Seville M Meli; Christine E Chaisson; Jeffrey H Samet Journal: JAMA Date: 2014-08-06 Impact factor: 56.272