Natalie A Johnson1, Kypros Kypri2, John B Saunders3, Richard Saitz4, John Attia5, Joanna Latter2, Patrick McElduff2, Adrian Dunlop6, Christopher Doran7, Luke Wolfenden8, Jim McCambridge9. 1. School of Medicine and Public Health, The University of Newcastle, University Drive, Callaghan, NSW, 2308, Australia. Electronic address: natalie.johnson@newcastle.edu.au. 2. School of Medicine and Public Health, The University of Newcastle, University Drive, Callaghan, NSW, 2308, Australia. 3. Centre for Youth Substance Abuse Research, University of Queensland, 31 Upland Rd., St. Lucia, QLD, 4067, Australia. 4. Department of Community Health Sciences, Boston University School of Public Health, Clinical Addiction Research and Education Unit, Section of General Internal Medicine, Boston University School of Medicine and the Grayken Center for Addiction, Boston Medical Center, Boston, MA, 02118, USA. 5. School of Medicine and Public Health, The University of Newcastle, University Drive, Callaghan, NSW, 2308, Australia; Department of General Medicine, John Hunter Hospital, Lookout Rd., New Lambton Heights, NSW, 2305, Australia; Hunter Medical Research Institute, 1 Kookaburra Circuit, New Lambton Heights, NSW, 2305, Australia. 6. School of Medicine and Public Health, The University of Newcastle, University Drive, Callaghan, NSW, 2308, Australia; Hunter Medical Research Institute, 1 Kookaburra Circuit, New Lambton Heights, NSW, 2305, Australia; Hunter New England Local Health District Drug and Alcohol Clinical Services, Newcastle, NSW, 2300, Australia. 7. Centre for Indigenous Health Equity Research, Central Queensland University, CQUniversity Cairns Square, Brisbane, 4000, Australia. 8. School of Medicine and Public Health, The University of Newcastle, University Drive, Callaghan, NSW, 2308, Australia; Hunter New England Local Health District Population Health, Wallsend, NSW, 2287, Australia. 9. School of Medicine and Public Health, The University of Newcastle, University Drive, Callaghan, NSW, 2308, Australia; Department of Health Sciences, University of York, Seebohm Rowntree Building, Heslington, York, YO10 5DD, UK.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Most trials of electronic alcohol screening and brief intervention (e-SBI) have been conducted in young people. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of e-SBI in adults with hazardous or harmful drinking. METHODS: This individually randomized, parallel, two-group, double-blind controlled trial was conducted in the outpatient department of a large public hospital in Australia. Consenting adults who scored 5-9 on the AUDIT-C (837/3225; 26%) were randomized in a 1:1 ratio by computer to screening alone (442/837; 53%) or to 10 min of assessment and personalized feedback on their alcohol consumption (comparisons with medical guidelines and age and sex-specific norms), peak blood alcohol concentration, expenditure on alcohol, and risk of alcohol dependence (395/837; 47%). The two primary outcomes, assessed six months after randomization, were the number of standard drinks (10 g ethanol) consumed by participants in the last seven days and their AUDIT score. RESULTS: 693/837 (83%) and 635/837 (76%) participants were followed-up at 6 and 12 months, respectively. There was no statistically significant difference between the groups in the median number of standard drinks consumed in the last seven days (intervention: 12; control: 10.5; rate ratio, 1.12 [95% confidence interval, 0.96-1.31]; P = .17) or in their median AUDIT score (intervention: 7; control: 7; mean difference, 0.28 [-0.42 to 0.98]; P = .44). CONCLUSION: These results do not support the implementation of an e-SBI program comprising personalized feedback and normative feedback for adults with hazardous or harmful drinking in the hospital outpatient setting.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Most trials of electronic alcohol screening and brief intervention (e-SBI) have been conducted in young people. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of e-SBI in adults with hazardous or harmful drinking. METHODS: This individually randomized, parallel, two-group, double-blind controlled trial was conducted in the outpatient department of a large public hospital in Australia. Consenting adults who scored 5-9 on the AUDIT-C (837/3225; 26%) were randomized in a 1:1 ratio by computer to screening alone (442/837; 53%) or to 10 min of assessment and personalized feedback on their alcohol consumption (comparisons with medical guidelines and age and sex-specific norms), peak blood alcohol concentration, expenditure on alcohol, and risk of alcohol dependence (395/837; 47%). The two primary outcomes, assessed six months after randomization, were the number of standard drinks (10 g ethanol) consumed by participants in the last seven days and their AUDIT score. RESULTS: 693/837 (83%) and 635/837 (76%) participants were followed-up at 6 and 12 months, respectively. There was no statistically significant difference between the groups in the median number of standard drinks consumed in the last seven days (intervention: 12; control: 10.5; rate ratio, 1.12 [95% confidence interval, 0.96-1.31]; P = .17) or in their median AUDIT score (intervention: 7; control: 7; mean difference, 0.28 [-0.42 to 0.98]; P = .44). CONCLUSION: These results do not support the implementation of an e-SBI program comprising personalized feedback and normative feedback for adults with hazardous or harmful drinking in the hospital outpatient setting.
Authors: Nneka Emenyonu; Allen Kekibiina; Sarah Woolf-King; Catherine Kyampire; Robin Fatch; Carol Dawson-Rose; Winnie Muyindike; Judith Hahn Journal: JMIR Form Res Date: 2022-09-01