Sophie Baumann1, Beate Gaertner2, Katja Haberecht3, Gallus Bischof4, Ulrich John3, Jennis Freyer-Adam5. 1. Institute of Social Medicine and Prevention, University Medicine Greifswald, Greifswald, Walther-Rathenau-Str. 48, D-17475 Greifswald, Germany; German Centre for Cardiovascular Research, Partner Site Greifswald, Fleischmannstr. 42-44, D-17475 Greifswald, Germany. Electronic address: sophie.baumann@uni-greifswald.de. 2. Robert Koch Institute Berlin, Department of Epidemiology and Health Monitoring, General-Pape-Str. 62-66, D-12101 Berlin, Germany. 3. Institute of Social Medicine and Prevention, University Medicine Greifswald, Greifswald, Walther-Rathenau-Str. 48, D-17475 Greifswald, Germany; German Centre for Cardiovascular Research, Partner Site Greifswald, Fleischmannstr. 42-44, D-17475 Greifswald, Germany. 4. Department of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, Medical University of Lübeck, Ratzeburger Allee 160, D-23538 Lübeck, Germany. 5. Institute of Social Medicine and Prevention, University Medicine Greifswald, Greifswald, Walther-Rathenau-Str. 48, D-17475 Greifswald, Germany; German Centre for Cardiovascular Research, Partner Site Greifswald, Fleischmannstr. 42-44, D-17475 Greifswald, Germany; Institute for Medical Psychology, University Medicine Greifswald, Walther-Rathenau-Str. 48, D-17475 Greifswald, Germany.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The aim was to test if people with different alcohol use problem severity benefitted differentially from briefalcohol interventions delivered in-person versus through computer-generated feedback letters. METHODS:Nine hundred sixty-one 18-64year old general hospital inpatients with at-risk alcohol use (mean age=40.9years [standard deviation=14.1], 75% men) were randomized to a) in-person counseling, b) computer-generated individualized feedback letters, or c) assessment only. Both interventions were delivered on the ward and 1 and 3 months later. Outcome was the change in the self-reported alcohol use per day at 6-, 12-, 18-, and 24-month follow-up. The Alcohol Use Disorder Identification Test (AUDIT) score was tested as a moderator of the effect of in-person counseling and computer-generated feedback letters, with higher AUDIT scores indicating more severe alcohol problems. RESULTS: Compared to assessment only, computer-generated feedback letters more strongly reduced alcohol use over 24 months among persons with AUDIT scores of about 8 and lower (ps <0.05). In-person counseling tended to be superior over assessment only among persons scoring high on the AUDIT, but differences were not statistically significant. Six-, 12-, and 18-month differences between in-person counseling and computer-generated feedback letters were significant (ps<0.05) for persons with AUDIT scores below 7.1-7.7. The differences between both interventions attenuated at 24-month follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: Computer-based intervention delivery may be superior over in-person delivery for people with low levels of alcohol use problem severity, whereas those with more severe alcohol problems may require more intensive care.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: The aim was to test if people with different alcohol use problem severity benefitted differentially from brief alcohol interventions delivered in-person versus through computer-generated feedback letters. METHODS: Nine hundred sixty-one 18-64year old general hospital inpatients with at-risk alcohol use (mean age=40.9years [standard deviation=14.1], 75% men) were randomized to a) in-person counseling, b) computer-generated individualized feedback letters, or c) assessment only. Both interventions were delivered on the ward and 1 and 3 months later. Outcome was the change in the self-reported alcohol use per day at 6-, 12-, 18-, and 24-month follow-up. The Alcohol Use Disorder Identification Test (AUDIT) score was tested as a moderator of the effect of in-person counseling and computer-generated feedback letters, with higher AUDIT scores indicating more severe alcohol problems. RESULTS: Compared to assessment only, computer-generated feedback letters more strongly reduced alcohol use over 24 months among persons with AUDIT scores of about 8 and lower (ps <0.05). In-person counseling tended to be superior over assessment only among persons scoring high on the AUDIT, but differences were not statistically significant. Six-, 12-, and 18-month differences between in-person counseling and computer-generated feedback letters were significant (ps<0.05) for persons with AUDIT scores below 7.1-7.7. The differences between both interventions attenuated at 24-month follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: Computer-based intervention delivery may be superior over in-person delivery for people with low levels of alcohol use problem severity, whereas those with more severe alcohol problems may require more intensive care.
Authors: Cathy Lau-Barraco; Ashley N Linden-Carmichael; Amy L Stamates; Peter D Preonas; Abby L Braitman Journal: Subst Use Misuse Date: 2019-06-19 Impact factor: 2.164
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: Lindsay R Meredith; Erica N Grodin; Mitchell P Karno; Amanda K Montoya; James MacKillop; Aaron C Lim; Lara A Ray Journal: Addict Sci Clin Pract Date: 2021-08-24
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