Effectiveness of skills-based training using the Drink-less package to increase family practitioner confidence in intervening for alcohol use disorders

BACKGROUND: Misuse of alcohol is second only to tobacco as a leading cause of preventable death in Australia. There is an opportunity in family practice to detect problems and intervene with people at risk of alcohol-related harm before complications occur. However, family practitioners (FPs) report low levels of confidence in managing patients with drinking problems. The aim of this study was to determine whether the interactive training session using the 'Drink-less' package led to improvement in FPs' self-reported level of confidence in detecting and providing interventions for risky alcohol consumption. METHOD: FPs in urban and rural New South Wales were invited to training sessions in their local area. An introductory overview preceded a practical skills- based session, using the Drink-less package. Participants completed before and after evaluation forms. RESULTS: While 49% (CI 43 – 55) of the attending FPs indicated at baseline that they felt confident in identifying at-risk drinkers, this proportion rose to 90% (95% CI: 87 – 93) post-session, and they also reported increases in confidence from 36% (95% CI: 31 – 41) to 90% in their ability to advise patients. Urban FPs reported lower levels of confidence than rural FPs, both pre- and post-session. CONCLUSION: Training sessions in the Drink-less intervention resulted in increased self-reported confidence in detection and brief intervention for alcohol problems. Further research is needed to determine the duration of this effect and its influence on practice behaviour

Risky use of alcohol, drugs and cigarettes in a psychosis unit: a 1 1/2 year follow-up of stability and changes after initial screening

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Co-morbidity with substance use disorders negatively influences overall functioning in patients with psychosis. However, frequencies and courses of risky use of alcohol, drugs and cigarettes are rarely investigated in patients at psychosis units.</p> <p>The purpose of this study is to describe the use of alcohol, drugs and cigarettes in patients at a psychosis unit over a 1 1/2 year period after them having taken part in a screening investigation including a feed-back of the results to personnel. Relationships with sex and age are also described.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>The patients' use of the substances was examined at baseline and at follow-up using three self-reporting instruments: Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT), Drug Use Disorders Identification Test (DUDIT) and Fagerstrom Test for Nicotine Dependence (FTND).</p> <p>Results</p> <p>One hundred and eighty-six patients out of 238 at baseline (78 percent) took part in the follow-up. Total AUDIT score decreased in women. Older men more often developed a risky alcohol use. Older women tended to reduce their risky drug habits. On a group level the habits mostly were stable, but 11 percent changed their alcohol habits and 15 percent changed their smoking habits from risky to no/low risky use, or vice versa. Nine percent changed their drug habits, predominantly from risky to no/low risky use.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>A more active approach towards alcohol, drug and smoking habits in psychosis units would probably be beneficial.</p

How does the Brief CEOA match with self-generated expectancies in mandated students?

Alcohol expectancies, defined as a person’s beliefs about the effects of drinking, can influence alcohol consumption and help predict problem drinking in college students. However, there are concerns that current expectancy measures do not adequately capture mandated student expectations about alcohol use. This study examined the correspondence of 412 self-generated expectancies from mandated students (n = 64) to items on the Brief Comprehensive Effects of Alcohol (B-CEOA; Ham, Stewart, Norton, & Hope, 2005). Self-generated expectancies were reviewed by raters who attempted to match each expectancy with a single B-CEOA item based on the qualitative essence of each statement. Most mandated student expectancies were not represented by the B-CEOA. All expectancies were then classified into 6 categories based on themes and categories from the alcohol expectancy literature. Mandated student expectancies emphasized the physiological aspects of drinking, whereas the B-CEOA assesses expectancies about intrapersonal factors. The findings suggest the B-CEOA may exclude alcohol expectancies that are important and relevant to this population. Self-generated alcohol expectancies from the target population should be considered when developing or administering expectancy questionnaires

Randomized controlled trial of the effects of completing the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test questionnaire on self-reported hazardous drinking.

AIMS: The direct effects of screening on drinking behaviour have not previously been evaluated experimentally. We tested whether screening reduces self-reported hazardous drinking in comparison with a non-screened control group. DESIGN: Two-arm randomized controlled trial (RCT), with both groups blinded to the true nature of the study. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: A total of 421 university students aged 18-24 years, recruited in five London student unions. INTERVENTIONS: Both groups completed a brief pen-and-paper general health and socio-demographic questionnaire, which for the experimental group also included the 10-item Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT) screening questionnaire. MEASUREMENTS: The primary outcome was the between-group difference in AUDIT score at 2-3-month follow-up. Eight secondary outcomes comprised other aspects of hazardous drinking, including dedicated measures of alcohol consumption, problems and dependence. FINDINGS: A statistically significant effect size of 0.23 (0.01-0.45) was detected on the designated primary outcome. The marginal nature of the statistical significance of this effect was apparent in additional analyses with covariates. Statistically significant differences were also obtained in three of eight secondary outcomes, and the observed effect sizes were not dissimilar to the known effects of brief interventions. CONCLUSIONS: It is unclear to what extent these findings represent the effects of screening alone, a Hawthorne effect in which drinking behaviour has changed in response to monitoring, or whether they indicate reporting bias. These possibilities have important implications both for the dissemination of screening as an intervention in its own right and for behavioural intervention trials methodology