Jennis Freyer-Adam1, Sophie Baumann2, Katja Haberecht2, Stefanie Tobschall2, Gallus Bischof3, Ulrich John2, Beate Gaertner4. 1. Institute for Medical Psychology, University Medicine Greifswald. 2. Institute of Social Medicine and Prevention, University Medicine Greifswald. 3. Department of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, Medical University of Luebeck. 4. Department of Epidemiology and Health Monitoring, Robert Koch Institute Berlin.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the comparative 2-year efficacy of brief alcohol interventions delivered in-person versus through computer-generated feedback letters among general hospital inpatients with at-risk alcohol use. METHODS:In 2011-2012, all general hospital inpatients aged 18-64 years on 13 wards at 4 medical departments in 1 general hospital were systematically screened for at-risk alcohol use. Nine-hundred sixty-one inpatients who screened positive for at-risk alcohol use and negative for more severe alcohol problems were randomized by timeframe to in-person counseling (PE), computer-generated feedback letters (CO) and assessment only (AO). Both interventions included 3 contacts: on the ward and 1 and 3 months later and were based on the transtheoretical model (TTM). After 6, 12, 18, and 24 months computer-assisted telephone interviews assessed self-report outcomes: gram alcohol per week (primary), at-risk alcohol use and highest blood alcohol concentration (both secondary). Latent growth models were used. RESULTS: After 24 months, CO resulted in a greater reduction of self-reported gram alcohol per week than AO (p = .027); PE did not differ significantly from AO (p = .503) and CO (p = .088); and group differences concerning secondary outcomes were not statistically significant (ps > 0.07). After 6 months, the odds of at-risk alcohol use were reduced by half in PE versus AO (odds ratio = 0.50, 95% confidence interval: 0.25-0.98). CONCLUSIONS: No significant group differences between in-person counseling and computer-generated feedback letters were found. TTM-based computer-generated feedback letters reduced self-reported gram alcohol over 2 years and can be considered a long-term effective alternative in medical settings when addressing at-risk alcohol use. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2018 APA, all rights reserved).
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the comparative 2-year efficacy of brief alcohol interventions delivered in-person versus through computer-generated feedback letters among general hospital inpatients with at-risk alcohol use. METHODS: In 2011-2012, all general hospital inpatients aged 18-64 years on 13 wards at 4 medical departments in 1 general hospital were systematically screened for at-risk alcohol use. Nine-hundred sixty-one inpatients who screened positive for at-risk alcohol use and negative for more severe alcohol problems were randomized by timeframe to in-person counseling (PE), computer-generated feedback letters (CO) and assessment only (AO). Both interventions included 3 contacts: on the ward and 1 and 3 months later and were based on the transtheoretical model (TTM). After 6, 12, 18, and 24 months computer-assisted telephone interviews assessed self-report outcomes: gramalcohol per week (primary), at-risk alcohol use and highest blood alcohol concentration (both secondary). Latent growth models were used. RESULTS: After 24 months, CO resulted in a greater reduction of self-reported gramalcohol per week than AO (p = .027); PE did not differ significantly from AO (p = .503) and CO (p = .088); and group differences concerning secondary outcomes were not statistically significant (ps > 0.07). After 6 months, the odds of at-risk alcohol use were reduced by half in PE versus AO (odds ratio = 0.50, 95% confidence interval: 0.25-0.98). CONCLUSIONS: No significant group differences between in-person counseling and computer-generated feedback letters were found. TTM-based computer-generated feedback letters reduced self-reported gramalcohol over 2 years and can be considered a long-term effective alternative in medical settings when addressing at-risk alcohol use. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2018 APA, all rights reserved).
Authors: Chris Gibbons; Ian Porter; Daniela C Gonçalves-Bradley; Stanimir Stoilov; Ignacio Ricci-Cabello; Elena Tsangaris; Jaheeda Gangannagaripalli; Antoinette Davey; Elizabeth J Gibbons; Anna Kotzeva; Jonathan Evans; Philip J van der Wees; Evangelos Kontopantelis; Joanne Greenhalgh; Peter Bower; Jordi Alonso; Jose M Valderas Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2021-10-12
Authors: Filipa Krolo; Sophie Baumann; Anika Tiede; Gallus Bischof; Kristian Krause; Christian Meyer; Ulrich John; Beate Gaertner; Jennis Freyer-Adam Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-05-11 Impact factor: 4.614
Authors: Jennis Freyer-Adam; Sophie Baumann; Gallus Bischof; Andreas Staudt; Christian Goeze; Beate Gaertner; Ulrich John Journal: JMIR Ment Health Date: 2022-01-28
Authors: Jennis Freyer-Adam; Florian Noetzel; Sophie Baumann; Ali Alexander Aghdassi; Ulrike Siewert-Markus; Beate Gaertner; Ulrich John Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2019-11-29 Impact factor: 3.295
Authors: Judith Byaruhanga; Prince Atorkey; Matthew McLaughlin; Alison Brown; Emma Byrnes; Christine Paul; John Wiggers; Flora Tzelepis Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2020-09-11 Impact factor: 5.428
Authors: Ajla Mujcic; Matthijs Blankers; Brigitte Boon; Anne H Berman; Heleen Riper; Margriet van Laar; Rutger Engels Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2022-02-01 Impact factor: 5.428