The effectiveness of brief alcohol interventions in primary care settings: A systematic review

346Citations
Citations of this article
267Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

Issues: Numerous studies have reported that brief interventions delivered in primary care are effective in reducing excessive drinking. However, much of this work has been criticised for being clinically unrepresentative. This review aimed to assess the effectiveness of brief interventions in primary care and determine if outcomes differ between efficacy and effectiveness trials. Approach: A pre-specified search strategy was used to search all relevant electronic databases up to 2006. We also hand-searched the reference lists of key articles and reviews. We included randomised controlled trials (RCT) involving patients in primary care who were not seeking alcohol treatment and who received brief intervention. Two authors independently abstracted data and assessed trial quality. Random effects metaanalyses, subgroup and sensitivity analyses and meta-regression were conducted. Key Findings: The primary meta-analysis included 22 RCT and evaluated outcomes in over 5800 patients. At 1 year follow up, patients receiving brief intervention had a significant reduction in alcohol consumption compared with controls [mean difference: -38 g week-1, 95%CI (confidence interval): -54 to -23], although there was substantial heterogeneity between trials (I2 = 57%). Subgroup analysis confirmed the benefit of brief intervention in men but not in women. Extended intervention was associated with a non-significantly increased reduction in alcohol consumption compared with brief intervention. There was no significant difference in effect sizes for efficacy and effectiveness trials. Conclusions: Brief interventions can reduce alcohol consumption in men, with benefit at a year after intervention, but they are unproven in women for whom there is insufficient research data. Longer counselling has little additional effect over brief intervention. The lack of differences in outcomes between efficacy and effectiveness trials suggests that the current literature is relevant to routine primary care. © 2009 Australasian Professional Society on Alcohol and other Drugs.

References Powered by Scopus

Meta-analysis in clinical trials

32975Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis

27207Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Empirical Evidence of Bias: Dimensions of Methodological Quality Associated With Estimates of Treatment Effects in Controlled Trials

5461Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Cited by Powered by Scopus

American Gastroenterological Association Institute Guideline on Initial Management of Acute Pancreatitis

687Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

EASL Clinical Practice Guidelines: Management of alcohol-related liver disease

684Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

EASL clinical practical guidelines: Management of alcoholic liver disease

614Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Kaner, E. F. S., Dickinson, H. O., Beyer, F., Pienaar, E., Schlesinger, C., Campbell, F., … Heather, N. (2009, May). The effectiveness of brief alcohol interventions in primary care settings: A systematic review. Drug and Alcohol Review. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1465-3362.2009.00071.x

Readers' Seniority

Tooltip

PhD / Post grad / Masters / Doc 105

59%

Researcher 51

28%

Professor / Associate Prof. 17

9%

Lecturer / Post doc 6

3%

Readers' Discipline

Tooltip

Medicine and Dentistry 83

49%

Psychology 51

30%

Social Sciences 22

13%

Nursing and Health Professions 15

9%

Article Metrics

Tooltip
Mentions
Blog Mentions: 1
News Mentions: 2

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free