Gillian W Shorter1,2, Nick Heather3, Jeremy W Bray4, Anne H Berman5, Emma L Giles2, Amy J O'Donnell6, Carolina Barbosa7, Mike Clarke8, Aisha Holloway9, Dorothy Newbury-Birch10. 1. Institute for Mental Health Sciences, School of Psychology, Ulster University, Coleraine, Northern Ireland. 2. School of Health and Social Care, Teesside University, Middlesbrough, England. 3. Faculty of Health & Life Sciences, Northumbria University, Newcastle upon Tyne, England. 4. Bryan School of Business & Economics, University of North Carolina at Greensboro, Greensboro, North Carolina. 5. Center for Psychiatry Research, Department of Clinical Neuroscience, Karolinska Institutet, & Stockholm Health Care Services, Stockholm County Council, Sweden. 6. Institute of Health and Society, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, England. 7. Behavioral Health Economics Program, RTI International, Chicago, Illinois. 8. Northern Ireland Methodology Hub, Queen's University of Belfast, Belfast, Northern Ireland. 9. Nursing Studies, School of Health in Social Sciences, The University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, Scotland. 10. School of Social Sciences, Humanities and Law, Teesside University, Middlesbrough, England.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Outcomes used in alcohol brief intervention trials vary considerably. Achieving consensus about key outcomes can enhance evidence synthesis and improve healthcare guidelines. This international, e-Delphi study sought to prioritize outcomes for alcohol brief intervention trials as part of a larger program of work develop an alcohol brief intervention core outcome set. METHOD: In total, 150 registrants from 19 countries, representing researchers, policymakers, and patients, participated in a two-round e-Delphi study. In Round 1, participants (n = 137) rated 86 outcomes, derived from a review of the literature and a patient and public involvement panel, by importance. In Round 2, participants (n = 114) received feedback on importance ratings for each outcome, and a reminder of their personal rating, before rating the outcomes for importance a second time. Seven additional outcomes suggested in Round 1 were added to the Round 2 questionnaire. We defined consensus a priori as 70% agreement across all stakeholder groups. RESULTS: Seven consumption outcomes met inclusion criteria: typical frequency, typical quantity, frequency of heavy drinking, alcohol-related problems, weekly drinks, at-risk drinking, and combined consumption measures. Others meeting the threshold were alcohol-related injury, quality of life, readiness to change, and intervention fidelity. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first international e-Delphi study to identify and prioritize outcomes for use in alcohol brief intervention trials. The use and reporting of outcomes in future alcohol brief intervention trials should improve evidence synthesis in systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Further work is required to refine these outcomes into a core outcome set that includes guidance for measurement of outcomes.
OBJECTIVE: Outcomes used in alcohol brief intervention trials vary considerably. Achieving consensus about key outcomes can enhance evidence synthesis and improve healthcare guidelines. This international, e-Delphi study sought to prioritize outcomes for alcohol brief intervention trials as part of a larger program of work develop an alcohol brief intervention core outcome set. METHOD: In total, 150 registrants from 19 countries, representing researchers, policymakers, and patients, participated in a two-round e-Delphi study. In Round 1, participants (n = 137) rated 86 outcomes, derived from a review of the literature and a patient and public involvement panel, by importance. In Round 2, participants (n = 114) received feedback on importance ratings for each outcome, and a reminder of their personal rating, before rating the outcomes for importance a second time. Seven additional outcomes suggested in Round 1 were added to the Round 2 questionnaire. We defined consensus a priori as 70% agreement across all stakeholder groups. RESULTS: Seven consumption outcomes met inclusion criteria: typical frequency, typical quantity, frequency of heavy drinking, alcohol-related problems, weekly drinks, at-risk drinking, and combined consumption measures. Others meeting the threshold were alcohol-related injury, quality of life, readiness to change, and intervention fidelity. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first international e-Delphi study to identify and prioritize outcomes for use in alcohol brief intervention trials. The use and reporting of outcomes in future alcohol brief intervention trials should improve evidence synthesis in systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Further work is required to refine these outcomes into a core outcome set that includes guidance for measurement of outcomes.
Authors: Dan I Lubman; Jasmin Grigg; John Reynolds; Kate Hall; Amanda L Baker; Petra K Staiger; Jonathan Tyler; Isabelle Volpe; Peta Stragalinos; Anthony Harris; David Best; Victoria Manning Journal: JAMA Psychiatry Date: 2022-09-21 Impact factor: 25.911
Authors: Gillian W Shorter; Jeremy W Bray; Nick Heather; Anne H Berman; Emma L Giles; Mike Clarke; Carolina Barbosa; Amy J O'Donnell; Aisha Holloway; Heleen Riper; Jean-Bernard Daeppen; Maristela G Monteiro; Richard Saitz; Jennifer McNeely; Lela McKnight-Eily; Alex Cowell; Paul Toner; Dorothy Newbury-Birch Journal: J Stud Alcohol Drugs Date: 2021-09 Impact factor: 3.346
Authors: Maria J E Schouten; Carolien Christ; Jack J M Dekker; Heleen Riper; Anna E Goudriaan; Matthijs Blankers Journal: Alcohol Alcohol Date: 2022-01-08 Impact factor: 2.826