Drug and Alcohol Findings logo Your selected document

This entry is our account of a study selected by Drug and Alcohol Findings as particularly relevant to improving outcomes from drug or alcohol interventions in the UK. Entries are drafted after consulting related research, study authors and other experts and are © Drug and Alcohol Findings. Permission is given to distribute this entry or incorporate passages in other documents as long as the source is acknowledged including the web address http://findings.org.uk. However, the original study was not published by Findings; click on the Title to obtain copies. Free reprints may also be available from the authors – click Request reprint to send or adapt the pre-prepared e-mail message. Links to source documents are in blue. Hover mouse over orange text for explanatory notes. The abstract is intended to summarise the findings and views expressed in the study. Below are some comments from Drug and Alcohol Findings.

Click HERE and enter e-mail address to be alerted to new studies and reviews


Evaluation of a telephone-based stepped care intervention for alcohol-related disorders: a randomized controlled trial.

Bischof G., Grothues J.M., Reinhardt S. et al. Request reprint
Drug and Alcohol Dependence: 2008, 93(3), p. 244–251

This German study saved valuable counselling time by only offering further advice to primary care patients who had not yet responded to brief computerised feedback on their risky drinking.

Abstract Brief interventions for problem drinking in medical settings are effective but rarely conducted, mainly due to insufficient time. A stepped care approach (starting with a very brief intervention and intensifying efforts in case of no success) could save resources and improve effectiveness. However, research is lacking. The present study compared a full care brief intervention for patients with at-risk drinking, alcohol abuse or dependence, against a stepped care approach in a randomised controlled trial. Participants were proactively recruited from general practices in two northern German cities. In total, 10,803 screenings were conducted (refusal rate: 5%). Alcohol use disorders according to DSM-IV The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (the 'IV' signifies the fourth edition) is published by the American Psychiatric Association and provides diagnostic criteria for mental disorders. It is used particularly in the USA. were assessed with the Munich-Composite International Diagnostic Interview (M-CIDI). Eligible participants were randomly assigned to one of three conditions: 1 stepped care – a computerised intervention plus up to three 40-minute telephone-based interventions depending on the success of the previous intervention; 2 full-care – a computerised intervention plus a fixed number of four 30-minute telephone-based interventions, equalling the maximum of the stepped care intervention; 3 an untreated control group. Time spent in counselling in the intervention conditions and quantity/frequency of drinking were assessed at 12-month follow-up. These measures showed that stepped care patients received roughly half the amount of intervention in minutes compared to full-care patients yet these groups did not differ in drinking outcomes. Among at-risk drinkers (rather than those already dependent or those who drank relatively rarely but heavily when they did), the intervention groups reduced their drinking relative to the control group, impacts assessed as small to medium in size. The authors concluded that a stepped care approach can be expected to improve the cost effectiveness of brief interventions for patients with at-risk drinking.

Findings logo Generally the duration of a single-session brief intervention makes little or no difference to drinking outcomes. However, several But not all. See for example:
● WHO Brief Intervention Study Group. "A cross-national trial of brief interventions with heavy drinkers." American Journal of Public Health: 1996, 86(7), p. 948–955. http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1380435
● Burge S.K. et al. "An evaluation of two primary care interventions for alcohol abuse among Mexican-American patients." Addiction: 1997, 92(12), p. 1705–1716. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1360-0443.1997.tb02891.x
previous studies have indicated that follow-on advice sessions do improve outcomes. For the first time in a randomised trial, the issue addressed by the featured study is whether it is best to offer these sessions as a set programme, or whether time and money can be saved by offering them only to patients who have not yet responded to the initial interventions(s).

In the context of the study, the verdict was clear: the 'as needed' strategy cut counselling time in half, saving Assuming the doctor was doing the counselling. 22 Euros per patient, yet with minor exceptions Puzzlingly, these favoured the 'as needed' strategy, the briefer of the two interventions. This difference was seen only among the least heavy drinkers (the episodic 'bingers'), raising the possibility that making these patients go through four advice sessions in addition to the brief intervention was counterproductively disproportionate to their need. the outcomes were not significantly different. It was, however, important to at least monitor progress and offer further help if needed: about 30% of patients seemed to have securely resolved their drinking problems after brief intervention alone, but after another two advice sessions this proportion had doubled.

In line with earlier findings that dependent or long-term very heavy drinkers do not benefit from brief interventions, the other major finding in the study was that neither of the interventions seemed to have benefited dependent drinkers. At the start of the study these averaged about 80gm of alcohol a day, 10 UK units. Neither did they benefit patients who on average drank quite moderately At the start of the study averaging about 14gm of alcohol a day, under two UK units. but sometimes to excess. It was the in-between patients At the start of the study they averaged about 37–49gm of alcohol a day, about five or six UK units. who benefited – patients whose health was at risk from regular excessive drinking and/or who were experiencing adverse consequences, but in both cases short of dependence. Yet even among these patients, classic targets for brief intervention, this on its own At least in the form studied, ie, computerised assessment feedback with tailored written advice rather than face-to-face consultation. was insufficient for many.

The findings have clear implications for primary care alcohol interventions, where the nature of the practice-patient relationship makes it feasible to follow brief advice with periodic check-ups and further intervention if needed. It suggests this potential is worth exploiting. However, as the authors caution, it cannot simply be assumed that such a strategy would be feasible and effective in normal primary care practice. Though patients were identified in GP practices, both the identification and the interventions were conducted by specialist staff. Nearly half the patients who screened positive for possible risky drinking refused to participate in the study, raising doubts about the representativeness of those who did. Also it is unfortunate that by chance the risky drinkers in the study's intervention groups were from the start drinking more A not quite statistically significant extra 10gm a day. than the non-intervention control group, raising the possibility that the clearest benefit from the intervention was partly It did not account for all the extra drop in consumption among the intervention groups. due to catching these patients at an atypical high in their drinking, from which they might in any event have descended.

Last revised 05 February 2009
Comment on this entry Give us your feedback on the site (one-minute survey)


Unable to obtain the document from the suggested source? Here's an alternative.

Top 10 most closely related documents on this site. For more try a subject or free text search

Injury rate cut in heavy drinking accident and emergency patients NUGGET 2003

Secondary prevention of hazardous alcohol consumption in psychiatric out-patients: a randomised controlled study STUDY 2009

The impact of screening, brief intervention, and referral for treatment on emergency department patients' alcohol use STUDY 2007

Family doctors' alcohol advice plus follow up cuts long-term medical and social costs NUGGET 2003

The effectiveness of brief alcohol interventions in primary care settings: a systematic review REVIEW 2009

Twelve-month follow-up results from a randomized controlled trial of a brief personalized feedback intervention for problem drinkers STUDY 2010

Identifying cost-effective interventions to reduce the burden of harm associated with alcohol misuse in Australia REVIEW ABSTRACT 2008

A meta-analysis of motivational interviewing: twenty-five years of empirical studies REVIEW 2010

A systematic review of emergency care brief alcohol interventions for injury patients REVIEW 2008

Counselor skill influences outcomes of brief motivational interventions STUDY 2009