BACKGROUND: Evidence exists for the efficacy of emergency department (ED)-based brief alcohol interventions, but attempts to incorporate face-to-face interventions into routine ED practice have been hampered by time, financial, and attitudinal constraints. Mailed personalized feedback, which is likely to be more feasible, has been associated with reduced alcohol consumption in other settings, but its cost-effectiveness in the ED has not been examined. METHODS: The intervention was evaluated with a randomized controlled trial of patients presenting to 5 rural EDs in New South Wales, Australia. Patients aged 14 years and older were screened using the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test, and those scoring 8 or more were randomly allocated to the intervention or control group. Participants in the intervention group received mailed personalized feedback regarding their alcohol consumption. The control group received no feedback. RESULTS: Two hundred and forty-four (80%) participants were successfully followed up at 6 weeks. A significant effect of the mailed feedback was observed only in patients with an alcohol-involved ED presentation. Among this subgroup of participants, those in the intervention group consumed 12.2 fewer drinks per week than the control group after controlling for baseline consumption and other covariates (effect size d = 0.59). The intervention was associated with an average cost of Australian $5.83 per patient, and among participants with an alcohol-involved ED presentation, an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of 0.48. CONCLUSIONS:Mailed personalized feedback is efficacious in reducing quantity/frequency of alcohol consumption among patients with alcohol-involved ED presentations. Mailed feedback has high cost-efficacy and a low absolute cost, making it a promising candidate for integration into ED care.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Evidence exists for the efficacy of emergency department (ED)-based brief alcohol interventions, but attempts to incorporate face-to-face interventions into routine ED practice have been hampered by time, financial, and attitudinal constraints. Mailed personalized feedback, which is likely to be more feasible, has been associated with reduced alcohol consumption in other settings, but its cost-effectiveness in the ED has not been examined. METHODS: The intervention was evaluated with a randomized controlled trial of patients presenting to 5 rural EDs in New South Wales, Australia. Patients aged 14 years and older were screened using the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test, and those scoring 8 or more were randomly allocated to the intervention or control group. Participants in the intervention group received mailed personalized feedback regarding their alcohol consumption. The control group received no feedback. RESULTS: Two hundred and forty-four (80%) participants were successfully followed up at 6 weeks. A significant effect of the mailed feedback was observed only in patients with an alcohol-involved ED presentation. Among this subgroup of participants, those in the intervention group consumed 12.2 fewer drinks per week than the control group after controlling for baseline consumption and other covariates (effect size d = 0.59). The intervention was associated with an average cost of Australian $5.83 per patient, and among participants with an alcohol-involved ED presentation, an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of 0.48. CONCLUSIONS: Mailed personalized feedback is efficacious in reducing quantity/frequency of alcohol consumption among patients with alcohol-involved ED presentations. Mailed feedback has high cost-efficacy and a low absolute cost, making it a promising candidate for integration into ED care.
Authors: Alexis N Kuerbis; Stanley E Yuan; Jenna Borok; Peter M LeFevre; Gloria S Kim; Daryl Lum; Karina D Ramirez; Diana H Liao; Alison A Moore Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2015-01-30 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: Brian J Biroscak; Michael V Pantalon; James D Dziura; Denise P Hersey; Federico E Vaca Journal: Subst Abus Date: 2019-03-04 Impact factor: 3.716
Authors: Anthony Shakeshaft; Dennis Petrie; Christopher Doran; Courtney Breen; Robert Sanson-Fisher Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2012-01-10 Impact factor: 3.295
Authors: Anthony Shakeshaft; Christopher Doran; Dennis Petrie; Courtney Breen; Alys Havard; Ansari Abudeen; Elissa Harwood; Anton Clifford; Catherine D'Este; Stuart Gilmour; Rob Sanson-Fisher Journal: PLoS Med Date: 2014-03-11 Impact factor: 11.069
Authors: Isabel A Barata; Jamie R Shandro; Margaret Montgomery; Robin Polansky; Carolyn J Sachs; Herbert C Duber; Lindsay M Weaver; Alan Heins; Heather S Owen; Elaine B Josephson; Wendy Macias-Konstantopoulos Journal: West J Emerg Med Date: 2017-09-21