BACKGROUND: Studies indicate that community pharmacy-based alcohol brief intervention (BI) is feasible. However, few studies report significant reductions in post-BI alcohol consumption and customer experience. Cost-effectiveness has not been previously examined. OBJECTIVES: This 5 month study adopted a single group pre- and post-experimental design to: (1) assess uptake of the community pharmacy alcohol BI service; (2) establish post-BI changes in alcohol consumption for hazardous drinkers; (3) report the acceptability of the service to customers who received it; and (4) undertake a preliminary economic evaluation of the service through establishing whether pharmacy-based alcohol BI affected health and social care costs, including lost employment costs, and whether it was cost-effective. SETTING: 26 community pharmacies in south London, UK. METHOD: Trained pharmacists used the AUDIT-C and a retrospective 7-day Drinking Diary to identify risky drinkers and inform feedback and advice. Harmful drinkers were referred to their general practitioner and/or specialist alcohol services. A confidential service feedback questionnaire was completed by alcohol BI recipients. Baseline and 3-month follow-up telephone interviews were conducted with hazardous and low risk drinkers to assess post-BI alcohol use change and service cost-effectiveness. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: AUDIT-C, 7-day alcohol unit consumption, drinking days, cost utilisation data. RESULTS: Of the 663 eligible customers offered alcohol BI, 141 (21 %) took up the service. Three-quarters of customers were identified as risky drinkers. Follow-up interviews were conducted with 61 hazardous/low risk drinkers (response rate = 58 %). Hazardous drinkers were found to significantly reduce their 7-day alcohol unit consumption and drinking days, but not AUDIT-C scores. The majority of harmful drinkers (91 %, n = 10) who were contactable post-BI had accessed further alcohol related services. Customer feedback was generally positive. Over 75 % of customers would recommend the service to others. The cost of delivering the service was estimated to be £ 134. The difference in service costs pre-BI and post-BI was not statistically significant and remained non-significant when calculated on 500 customers receiving the intervention. CONCLUSION: Community pharmacy-based alcohol BI is a low cost service that may not have immediate beneficial impact on health and social service use, but can be effective in reducing drinking in hazardous drinkers.
BACKGROUND: Studies indicate that community pharmacy-based alcohol brief intervention (BI) is feasible. However, few studies report significant reductions in post-BIalcohol consumption and customer experience. Cost-effectiveness has not been previously examined. OBJECTIVES: This 5 month study adopted a single group pre- and post-experimental design to: (1) assess uptake of the community pharmacy alcohol BI service; (2) establish post-BI changes in alcohol consumption for hazardous drinkers; (3) report the acceptability of the service to customers who received it; and (4) undertake a preliminary economic evaluation of the service through establishing whether pharmacy-based alcohol BI affected health and social care costs, including lost employment costs, and whether it was cost-effective. SETTING: 26 community pharmacies in south London, UK. METHOD: Trained pharmacists used the AUDIT-C and a retrospective 7-day Drinking Diary to identify risky drinkers and inform feedback and advice. Harmful drinkers were referred to their general practitioner and/or specialist alcohol services. A confidential service feedback questionnaire was completed by alcohol BI recipients. Baseline and 3-month follow-up telephone interviews were conducted with hazardous and low risk drinkers to assess post-BIalcohol use change and service cost-effectiveness. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: AUDIT-C, 7-day alcohol unit consumption, drinking days, cost utilisation data. RESULTS: Of the 663 eligible customers offered alcohol BI, 141 (21 %) took up the service. Three-quarters of customers were identified as risky drinkers. Follow-up interviews were conducted with 61 hazardous/low risk drinkers (response rate = 58 %). Hazardous drinkers were found to significantly reduce their 7-day alcohol unit consumption and drinking days, but not AUDIT-C scores. The majority of harmful drinkers (91 %, n = 10) who were contactable post-BI had accessed further alcohol related services. Customer feedback was generally positive. Over 75 % of customers would recommend the service to others. The cost of delivering the service was estimated to be £ 134. The difference in service costs pre-BI and post-BI was not statistically significant and remained non-significant when calculated on 500 customers receiving the intervention. CONCLUSION: Community pharmacy-based alcohol BI is a low cost service that may not have immediate beneficial impact on health and social service use, but can be effective in reducing drinking in hazardous drinkers.
Authors: Daniel E Jonas; James C Garbutt; Halle R Amick; Janice M Brown; Kimberly A Brownley; Carol L Council; Anthony J Viera; Tania M Wilkins; Cody J Schwartz; Emily M Richmond; John Yeatts; Tammeka Swinson Evans; Sally D Wood; Russell P Harris Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2012-11-06 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: E F S Kaner; F Beyer; H O Dickinson; E Pienaar; F Campbell; C Schlesinger; N Heather; J Saunders; B Burnand Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2007-04-18
Authors: Eileen Kaner; Martin Bland; Paul Cassidy; Simon Coulton; Veronica Dale; Paolo Deluca; Eilish Gilvarry; Christine Godfrey; Nick Heather; Judy Myles; Dorothy Newbury-Birch; Adenekan Oyefeso; Steve Parrott; Katherine Perryman; Tom Phillips; Jonathan Shepherd; Colin Drummond Journal: BMJ Date: 2013-01-09
Authors: Gerald Cochran; Jennifer L Bacci; Thomas Ylioja; Valerie Hruschak; Sharon Miller; Amy L Seybert; Ralph Tarter Journal: J Am Pharm Assoc (2003) Date: 2016-03-24
Authors: Gerald Cochran; Jessica Rubinstein; Jennifer L Bacci; Thomas Ylioja; Ralph Tarter Journal: J Addict Med Date: 2015 Sep-Oct Impact factor: 3.702
Authors: Brian C Shonesy; Donald Williams; Damian Simmons; Erin Dorval; Stuart Gitlow; Richard M Gustin Journal: J Addict Med Date: 2019 Sep/Oct Impact factor: 3.702
Authors: Cui Yang; Heidi M Crane; Karen Cropsey; Heidi Hutton; Geetanjali Chander; Michael Saag; Mary E McCaul Journal: J Addict Res Ther Date: 2015-04-10