Support for Aboriginal health services in reducing harms from alcohol : 2-year service provision outcomes in a cluster randomized trial

Background and aims There is a higher prevalence of unhealthy alcohol use among Indigenous populations, but there have been few studies of the effectiveness of screening and treatment in primary health care. Over 24 months, we tested whether a model of service-wide support could increase screening and any alcohol treatment. Design Cluster-randomized trial with 24-month implementation (12 months active, 12 months maintenance). Setting Australian Aboriginal Community Controlled primary care services. Participants Twenty-two services (83 032 clients) that use Communicare practice software and see at least 1000 clients annually, randomized to the treatment arm or control arm. Intervention and comparator Multi-faceted early support model versus a comparator of waiting-list control (11 services). Measurements A record (presence = 1, absence = 0) of: (i) Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test—Consumption (AUDIT-C) screening (primary outcome), (ii) any-treatment and (iii) brief intervention. We received routinely collected practice data bimonthly over 3 years (1-year baseline, 1-year implementation, 1-year maintenance). Multi-level logistic modelling was used to compare the odds of each outcome before and after implementation. Findings The odds of being screened within any 2-month reference period increased in both arms post-implementation, but the increase was nearly eight times greater in early-support services [odds ratio (OR) = 7.95, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 4.04–15.63, P < 0.001]. The change in odds of any treatment in early support was nearly double that of waiting-list controls (OR = 1.89, 95% CI = 1.19–2.98, P = 0.01) but was largely driven by decrease in controls. There was no clear evidence of difference between groups in the change in the odds of provision of brief intervention (OR = 1.95, 95% CI = 0.53–7.17, P = 0.32). Conclusions An early support model designed to aid routine implementation of alcohol screening and treatment in Aboriginal health services resulted in improvement of Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test—Consumption screening rates over 24 months of implementation, but the effect on treatment was less clear

Supporting Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Services to deliver alcohol care : Protocol for a cluster randomised controlled trial

Introduction Indigenous peoples who have experienced colonisation or oppression can have a higher prevalence of alcohol-related harms. In Australia, Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Services (ACCHSs) offer culturally accessible care to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander (Indigenous) peoples. However there are many competing health, socioeconomic and cultural client needs. Methods and analysis A randomised cluster wait-control trial will test the effectiveness of a model of tailored and collaborative support for ACCHSs in increasing use of alcohol screening (with Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test-Consumption (AUDIT-C)) and of treatment provision (brief intervention, counselling or relapse prevention medicines). Setting Twenty-two ACCHSs across Australia. Randomisation Services will be stratified by remoteness, then randomised into two groups. Half receive support soon after the trial starts (intervention or ‘early support’); half receive support 2 years later (wait-control or ‘late support’). The support Core support elements will be tailored to local needs and include: support to nominate two staff as champions for increasing alcohol care; a national training workshop and bimonthly teleconferences for service champions to share knowledge; onsite training, and bimonthly feedback on routinely collected data on screening and treatment provision. Outcomes and analysis Primary outcome is use of screening using AUDIT-C as routinely recorded on practice software. Secondary outcomes are recording of brief intervention, counselling, relapse prevention medicines; and blood pressure, gamma glutamyltransferase and HbA1c. Multi-level logistic regression will be used to test the effectiveness of support. Ethics and dissemination Ethical approval has been obtained from eight ethics committees: the Aboriginal Health and Medical Research Council of New South Wales (1217/16); Central Australian Human Research Ethics Committee (CA-17-2842); Northern Territory Department of Health and Menzies School of Health Research (2017-2737); Central Queensland Hospital and Health Service (17/QCQ/9); Far North Queensland (17/QCH/45-1143); Aboriginal Health Research Ethics Committee, South Australia (04-16-694); St Vincent’s Hospital (Melbourne) Human Research Ethics Committee (LRR 036/17); and Western Australian Aboriginal Health Ethics Committee (779). Trial registration number ACTRN12618001892202; Pre-results

Standardised alcohol screening in primary health care services targeting Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples in Australia

Introduction and aims: Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Community Controlled Health Services (ACCHSs) around Australia have been asked to standardise screening for unhealthy drinking. Accordingly, screening with the 3-item AUDIT-C (Alcohol Use Disorders Identifcation Test-Consumption) tool has become a national key performance indicator. Here we provide an overview of suitability of AUDIT-C and other brief alcohol screening tools for use in ACCHSs. Methods: All peer-reviewed literature providing original data on validity, acceptability or feasibility of alcohol screening tools among Indigenous Australians was reviewed. Narrative synthesis was used to identify themes and integrate results. Results: Three screening tools-full AUDIT, AUDIT-3 (third question of AUDIT) and CAGE (Cut-down, Annoyed, Guilty and Eye-opener) have been validated against other consumption measures, and found to correspond well. Short forms of AUDIT have also been found to compare well with full AUDIT, and were preferred by primary care staf. Help was often required with converting consumption into standard drinks. Researchers commented that AUDIT and its short forms prompted refection on drinking. Another tool, the Indigenous Risk Impact Screen (IRIS), jointly screens for alcohol, drug and mental health risk, but is relatively long (13 items). IRIS has been validated against dependence scales. AUDIT, IRIS and CAGE have a greater focus on dependence than on hazardous or harmful consumption. Discussion and conclusions: Detection of unhealthy drinking before harms occur is a goal of screening, so AUDIT-C ofers advantages over tools like IRIS or CAGE which focus on dependence. AUDIT-C\u27s brevity suits integration with general health screening. Further research is needed on facilitating implementation of systematic alcohol screening into Indigenous primary healthcar

Support can increase use of the AUDIT-C in Australian Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Services: a cluster randomized trial

Background and Aims: Unhealthy alcohol consumption is a key concern for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander (‘Indigenous’) communities. It is important to identify and treat at-risk drinkers, to prevent harms to physical or social wellbeing. We aimed to test whether training and support for Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Service (ACCHS) staff would increase rates of alcohol screening and brief intervention. Design: Cluster randomized trial. Setting: Australia. Cases/Intervention/Measurements. Twenty-two ACCHSs that see at least 1000 clients per year and use Communicare as practice management software. The study included data on 70 419 clients, training, regular data feedback, collaborative support and funding for resources ($9000). Blinding was not used. The comparator was waiting-list control (equal allocation). Alcohol Use Disorder Identification Test (AUDIT-C) screening and records of brief interventions were extracted from practice management software at 2-monthly intervals. Observations described the clinical actions taken for clients over each 2-month interval. The baseline period (28 August 2016–28 August 2017) was compared with the post-implementation period (29 August 2017–28 August 2018). We used multi-level logistic regression to test the hypotheses that clients attending a service receiving active support would be more likely to be screened with AUDIT-C (primary outcome) or to receive a brief intervention (secondary outcome). Findings: We observed an increase in the odds of screening with AUDIT-C for both groups, but the increase was 5.52 [95% confidence interval (CI) = 4.31, 7.07] times larger at services receiving support. We found little evidence that the support programme increased the odds of a recorded brief intervention relative to control services (odds ratio = 2.06; 95% CI = 0.90, 4.69). Differences in baseline screening activity between treatment and control reduce the certainty of our findings. Conclusions: Providing Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Services with training and support can improve alcohol (AUDIT-C) screening rates