Progressive stage transition does mean getting better: a further test of the Transtheoretical Model in recovery from alcohol problems

Aims To test two central assumptions of the Transtheoretical Model (TTM) regarding recovery from alcohol problems: (i) individuals making a forward transition from pre-action to action stages will show greater drinking improvements than those remaining in pre-action stages; and (ii) individuals remaining in pre-action stages will not demonstrate improvements in drinking outcomes. Design and setting Large, multi-centre, randomized controlled trial of treatment for alcohol problems [United Kingdom Alcohol Treatment Trial (UKATT)]. Measurements Stage of change, drinks per drinking day and percentage days abstinent at baseline, 3- and 12-month follow-ups. Findings In support of TTM assumption 1, improvements in drinking outcomes were consistently greater among clients who showed a forward stage transition (Cohen's d = 0.68) than among those who did not (d = 0.10). Two tests of assumption 2 showed a significant improvement in drinking outcomes in non-transition groups, inconsistent with the TTM; one test showed a significant deterioration and the other showed equivalent drinking outcomes across time. An explanation is offered as to why, under the relevant assumption of the TTM, clients in non-transition groups showed small changes in drinking outcomes. Conclusions In contrast to a previous study by Callaghan and colleagues, our findings largely support the TTM account of recovery from alcohol problems in treatment. The discrepancy can be explained by the use in our study of a more reliable and valid method for assigning stage of change

A revised edition of the readiness to change questionnaire (treatment version)

The UK Alcohol Treatment Trial provided an opportunity to examine the factor structure of the Readiness to Change Questionnaire-Treatment Version (RCQ[TV]) in a large sample (N = 742) of individuals in treatment for alcohol problems who were given the RCQ[TV] at baseline, 3-months and 12-months follow-up. Confirmatory factor analysis of the previously reported factor structure (5 items for each of Precontemplation, Contemplation and Action scales) resulted in a relatively poor fit to the data. Removal of one item from each of the scales resulted in a 12-item instrument for which goodness-of-fit indices were improved, without loss of internal consistency of the three scales, on all three measurement occasions. Inspection of relationships between stage allocation by the new instrument and negative alcohol outcome expectancies provided evidence of improved construct validity for the revised edition of the RCQ[TV]. There was also a strong relationship between stage allocation at 3-months follow-up and outcome of treatment at 12 months. The revised edition of the RCQ[TV] offers researchers and clinicians a shorter and improved measurement of stage of change in the alcohol treatment population

UK Alcohol Treatment trial: client-treatment matching effects

Aim To test a priori hypotheses concerning client–treatment matching in the treatment of alcohol problems and to evaluate the more general hypothesis that client–treatment matching adds to the overall effectiveness of treatment. Design Pragmatic, multi-centre, randomized controlled trial (the UK Alcohol Treatment Trial: UKATT) with open follow-up at 3 months after entry and blind follow-up at 12 months. Setting Five treatment centres, comprising seven treatment sites, including National Health Service (NHS), social services and joint NHS/non-statutory facilities. Treatments Motivational enhancement therapy and social behaviour and network therapy. Measurements Matching hypotheses were tested by examining interactions between client attributes and treatment types at both 3 and 12 months follow-up using the outcome variables of percentage days abstinent, drinks per drinking day and scores on the Alcohol Problems Questionnaire and Leeds Dependence Questionnaire. Findings None of five matching hypotheses was confirmed at either follow-up point on any outcome variable. Conclusion The findings strongly support the conclusion reached in Project MATCH in the United States that client–treatment matching, at least of the kind examined, is unlikely to result in substantial improvements to the effectiveness of treatment for alcohol problems. Possible reasons for this failure to support the general matching hypothesis are discussed, as are the implications of UKATT findings for the provision of treatment for alcohol problems in the United Kingdom

Screening and brief interventions for hazardous and harmful alcohol use in primary care: a cluster randomised controlled trial protocol

A large number of randomised controlled trials in health settings have consistently reported positive effects of brief intervention in terms of reductions in alcohol use. However,although alcohol misuse is common amongst offenders, there is limited evidence of alcohol brief interventions in the criminal justice field. This factorial pragmatic cluster randomised controlledtrial with Offender Managers (OMs) as the unit of randomisation will evaluate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of different models of screening to identify hazardous and harmful drinkers in probation and different intensities of brief intervention to reduce excessive drinking in probation clients. Ninety-six OMs from 9 probation areas across 3 English regions (the NorthEast Region (n = 4) and London and the South East Regions (n = 5)) will be recruited. OMs will berandomly allocated to one of three intervention conditions: a client information leaflet control condition (n = 32 OMs); 5-minute simple structured advice (n = 32 OMs) and 20-minute brieflifestyle counselling delivered by an Alcohol Health Worker (n = 32 OMs). Randomisation will be stratified by probation area. To test the relative effectiveness of different screening methods all OMs will be randomised to either the Modified Single Item Screening Questionnaire (M-SASQ) orthe Fast Alcohol Screening Test (FAST). There will be a minimum of 480 clients recruited into the trial. There will be an intention to treat analysis of study outcomes at 6 and 12 months postintervention. Analysis will include client measures (screening result, weekly alcohol consumption,alcohol-related problems, re-offending, public service use and quality of life) and implementation measures from OMs (the extent of screening and brief intervention beyond the minimum recruitment threshold will provide data on acceptability and feasibility of different models of brief intervention). We will also examine the practitioner and organisational factors associated with successful implementation.The trial will evaluate the impact of screening and brief alcohol intervention in routine probation work and therefore its findings will be highly relevant to probation teams and thus the criminal justice system in the UK

A randomised controlled feasibility trial of family and social network intervention for young people who misuse alcohol and drugs : study protocol (Y-SBNT)

Background: A growing body of research has identified family interventions to be effective in treating young people’s substance use problems. However, despite this evidence, take-up of family-based approaches in the UK has been low. Key factors for this appear to include the resource-intensive nature of most family interventions which challenges implementation and delivery in many service settings and the cultural adaptation of approaches developed in the USA to a UK setting. This study aims to demonstrate the feasibility of recruiting young people to a specifically developed family- and wider social network-based intervention by testing an adapted version of adult social behaviour and network therapy (SBNT). Methods: A pragmatic, randomised controlled, open feasibility trial delivered in two services for young people in the UK. Potential participants are aged 12–18 years referred for drug or alcohol problems to either service. The main purpose of this study is to demonstrate the feasibility of recruiting young people to a specifically developed family and social network-based intervention. The feasibility and acceptability of this intervention will be measured by recruitment rates, treatment retention, follow-up rates and qualitative interviews. The feasibility of training staff from existing services to deliver this intervention will be explored. Using this opportunity to compare the effectiveness of the intervention against treatment as usual, Timeline Follow-Back interviews will document the proportion of days on which the main problem substance was used in the preceding 90-day period at each assessment point. The economic component will examine the feasibility of conducting a full incremental cost-effectiveness analysis of the two treatments. The study will also explore and develop models of patient and public involvement which support the involvement of young people in a study of this nature. Discussion: An earlier phase of work adapted social behaviour and network therapy (adult approach) to produce a purpose-designed youth version supported by a therapy manual and associated resources. This was achieved by consultation with young people with experience of services and professionals working in services for young people. This feasibility trial alongside ongoing consultations with young people will offer a meaningful understanding of processes of delivery and implementation. Trial registration: ISRCTN93446265; Date ISRCTN assigned 31/05/2013

A pilot feasibility trial of alcohol screening and brief intervention in the police custody setting (ACCEPT): study protocol for a cluster randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND: There is evidence of an association between alcohol use and offending behaviour and around a quarter of police time is spent on alcohol-related incidents. Police custody, therefore, provides an important opportunity to intervene. This pilot trial aims to investigate whether a definitive evaluation of screening and brief interventions aimed at reducing risky drinking in arrestees is acceptable and feasible in the custody suite setting. METHODS: Screening will be carried out by trained detention officers or drug and alcohol workers in four police forces across two geographical areas (North East and South West England). Detention officers (or drug and alcohol workers) will be cluster randomised to one of three conditions: screening only (control group), screening followed immediately by 10 min of manualised brief structured advice delivered by the individual responsible for screening (intervention 1) or screening followed by 10 min of manualised brief structured advice delivered by the individual responsible for screening plus the offer of a subsequent 20-min session of behaviour change counselling delivered by a trained alcohol health worker (intervention 2). Participants will be arrestees aged 18+ who screen positive on the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test. Participants will be followed up at 6 and 12 months post-intervention. An embedded qualitative process evaluation will explore acceptability of alcohol screening and brief intervention to staff and arrestees as well as facilitators and barriers to the delivery of such approaches in this setting. RESULTS: Recruitment is currently underway and due to end May 2015. CONCLUSION: Results from this pilot trial will determine if a definitive evaluation is possible in the future and will provide stakeholder input to its design. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Reference number: ISRCTN89291046

A systematic review of the efficacy of alcohol interventions for incarcerated people

Aim: The aim of this current study was to systematically review the literature on brief alcohol interventions for incarcerated individuals to ascertain the efficacy or effectiveness in making changes to either consumption of alcohol or other social outcomes. Short summary: Levels of risky drinking and dependency are high amongst incarcerated individuals. Eleven studies from nine articles were included in the systematic review. Six of the studies included brief intervention and three extended interventions. Interventions have the potential to positively impact on risky drinking. More studies are needed in this setting. Introduction: It has been shown that around three times as many incarcerated individuals are risky drinkers and alcohol dependency is ten times higher than in the general population. Methods: Systematic review of randomised controlled trials or matched group trials of the efficacy of psychosocial alcohol interventions for incarcerated individuals: we searched seven databases, with no restrictions on language, year or location from inception through to August 2017. The Critical Appraisal Skills Programme tool was used to assess the quality of included studies. The Template for Intervention Description and Replication checklist was used to ascertain intervention descriptions. Results: Nine studies from 11 papers were included in the analysis. Six of the studies included brief interventions and three extended interventions. Every study used a different measure of alcohol consumption. Three of the studies that looked at brief interventions and all of the three extended intervention studies found significant reductions in relation to alcohol outcomes. Conclusions: Results show that interventions in the prison setting have the potential to positively impact on alcohol use; however, because of small numbers and the use of different outcome measures we could not conduct a meta-analysis or generalise findings. Future studies are needed to standardise approaches to ensure greater rigour and efficacy

A randomised controlled trial of extended brief intervention for alcohol dependent patients in an acute hospital setting (ADPAC)

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Alcohol dependence affects approximately 3% of the English population, and accounts for significant medical and psychiatric morbidity. Only 5.6% of alcohol-dependent individuals ever access specialist treatment and only a small percentage ever seek treatment. As people who are alcohol dependent are more likely to have experienced health problems leading to frequent attendance at acute hospitals it would seem both sensible and practical to ensure that this setting is utilised as a major access point for treatment, and to test the effectiveness of these treatments.</p> <p>Methods/Design</p> <p>This is a randomised controlled trial with a primary hypothesis that extended brief interventions (EBI) delivered to alcohol-dependent patients in a hospital setting by an Alcohol Specialist Nurse (ASN) will be effective when compared to usual care in reducing overall alcohol consumption and improving on the standard measures of alcohol dependence. Consecutive patients will be screened for alcohol misuse in the Emergency Department (ED) of a district general hospital. On identification of an alcohol-related problem, following informed written consent, we aim to randomize 130 patients per group. The ASN will discharge to usual clinical care all control group patients, and plan a programme of EBI for treatment group patients. Follow-up interview will be undertaken by a researcher blinded to the intervention at 12 and 24 weeks. The primary outcome measure is level of alcohol dependence as determined by the Severity of Alcohol Dependence Questionnaire (SADQ) score. Secondary outcome measures include; Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT) score, quantity and frequency of alcohol consumption, health-related quality of life measures, service utilisation, and patient experience. The trial will also allow an assessment of the cost-effectiveness of EBI in an acute hospital setting. In addition, patient experience will be assessed using qualitative methods.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>This paper presents a protocol for a RCT of EBI delivered to alcohol dependent patients by an ASN within an ED. Importantly; the trial will also seek to understand patients' perceptions and experiences of being part of a RCT and of receiving this form of intervention.</p> <p>Trial registration number</p> <p>ISRCTN: <a href="http://www.controlled-trials.com/ISRCTN78062794">ISRCTN78062794</a></p

Youth social behaviour and network therapy (Y-SBNT) : adaptation of a family and social network intervention for young people who misuse alcohol and drugs – a randomised controlled feasibility trial

Background: Family interventions appear to be effective at treating young people’s substance misuse. However, implementation of family approaches in UK services is low. This study aimed to demonstrate the feasibility of recruiting young people to an intervention based on an adaptation of adult social behaviour and network therapy. It also sought to involve young people with experience of using substance misuse services in the research process. Objectives: To demonstrate the feasibility of recruiting young people to family and social network therapy and to explore ways in which young people with experience of using substance misuse services could be involved in a study of this nature. Design: A pragmatic, two-armed, randomised controlled open feasibility trial. Setting: Two UK-based treatment services for young people with substance use problems, with recruitment taking place from May to November 2014. Participants: Young people aged 12–18 years, newly referred and accepted for structured interventions for drug and/or alcohol problems. Interventions: A remote, web-based computer randomisation system allocated young people to adapted youth social behaviour and network therapy (Y-SBNT) or treatment as usual (TAU). Y-SBNT participants were intended to receive up to six 50-minute sessions over a maximum of 12 weeks. TAU participants continued to receive usual care delivered by their service. Main outcome measures: Feasibility was measured by recruitment rates, retention in treatment and follow-up completion rates. The main clinical outcome was the proportion of days on which the main problem substance was used in the preceding 90-day period as captured by the Timeline Follow-Back interview at 3 and 12 months. Results: In total, 53 young people were randomised (Y-SBNT, n = 26; TAU, n = 27) against a target of 60 (88.3%). Forty-two young people attended at least one treatment session [Y-SBNT 22/26 (84.6%); TAU 20/27 (74.1%)]; follow-up rates were 77.4% at month 3 and 73.6% at month 12. Data for nine young people were missing at both months 3 and 12, so the main clinical outcome analysis was based on 24 young people (92.3%) in the Y-SBNT group and 20 young people (74.1%) in the TAU group. At month 12, the average proportion of days that the main problem substance was used in the preceding 90 days was higher in the Y-SBNT group than in the TAU group (0.54 vs. 0.41; adjusted mean difference 0.13, 95% confidence interval –0.12 to 0.39; p = 0.30). No adverse events were reported. Seventeen young people with experience of substance misuse services were actively involved throughout the study. They informed key elements of the intervention and research process, ensuring that the intervention was acceptable and relevant to our target groups; contributing to the design of key trial documents, ideas for a new model of public involvement and this report. Two parents were also involved. Conclusions: The adapted intervention could be delivered in young people’s services, and qualitative interviews found that Y-SBNT was acceptable to young people, family members and staff. Engagement of family and network members proved difficult within the intervention and research aspects. The study proved the feasibility of this work in routine services but outcome measurement based on narrow substance use variables may be limited and may fail to capture other important changes in wider areas of functioning for young people. Validation of the EuroQol-5 Dimensions for young people aged 12–18 years should be considered and flexible models for involvement of young people in research are required to achieve inclusive representation throughout all aspects of the research process. Although recommendation of a full trial of the Y-SBNT intervention compared with TAU is not supported, this study can inform future intervention development and UK research within routine addiction services. Trial registration: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN93446265. Funding: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 21, No. 15. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information