↓ Skip to main content

Effectiveness of brief alcohol interventions in primary care populations

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, February 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (96th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (88th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
policy
1 policy source
twitter
94 tweeters
facebook
2 Facebook pages
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
70 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
299 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Effectiveness of brief alcohol interventions in primary care populations
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, February 2018
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd004148.pub4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Eileen FS Kaner, Fiona R Beyer, Colin Muirhead, Fiona Campbell, Elizabeth D Pienaar, Nicolas Bertholet, Jean B Daeppen, John B Saunders, Bernard Burnand

Abstract

Excessive drinking is a significant cause of mortality, morbidity and social problems in many countries. Brief interventions aim to reduce alcohol consumption and related harm in hazardous and harmful drinkers who are not actively seeking help for alcohol problems. Interventions usually take the form of a conversation with a primary care provider and may include feedback on the person's alcohol use, information about potential harms and benefits of reducing intake, and advice on how to reduce consumption. Discussion informs the development of a personal plan to help reduce consumption. Brief interventions can also include behaviour change or motivationally-focused counselling.This is an update of a Cochrane Review published in 2007. To assess the effectiveness of screening and brief alcohol intervention to reduce excessive alcohol consumption in hazardous or harmful drinkers in general practice or emergency care settings. We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, and 12 other bibliographic databases to September 2017. We searched Alcohol and Alcohol Problems Science Database (to December 2003, after which the database was discontinued), trials registries, and websites. We carried out handsearching and checked reference lists of included studies and relevant reviews. We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of brief interventions to reduce hazardous or harmful alcohol consumption in people attending general practice, emergency care or other primary care settings for reasons other than alcohol treatment. The comparison group was no or minimal intervention, where a measure of alcohol consumption was reported. 'Brief intervention' was defined as a conversation comprising five or fewer sessions of brief advice or brief lifestyle counselling and a total duration of less than 60 minutes. Any more was considered an extended intervention. Digital interventions were not included in this review. We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We carried out subgroup analyses where possible to investigate the impact of factors such as gender, age, setting (general practice versus emergency care), treatment exposure and baseline consumption. We included 69 studies that randomised a total of 33,642 participants. Of these, 42 studies were added for this update (24,057 participants). Most interventions were delivered in general practice (38 studies, 55%) or emergency care (27 studies, 39%) settings. Most studies (61 studies, 88%) compared brief intervention to minimal or no intervention. Extended interventions were compared with brief (4 studies, 6%), minimal or no intervention (7 studies, 10%). Few studies targeted particular age groups: adolescents or young adults (6 studies, 9%) and older adults (4 studies, 6%). Mean baseline alcohol consumption was 244 g/week (30.5 standard UK units) among the studies that reported these data. Main sources of bias were attrition and lack of provider or participant blinding. The primary meta-analysis included 34 studies (15,197 participants) and provided moderate-quality evidence that participants who received brief intervention consumed less alcohol than minimal or no intervention participants after one year (mean difference (MD) -20 g/week, 95% confidence interval (CI) -28 to -12). There was substantial heterogeneity among studies (I² = 73%). A subgroup analysis by gender demonstrated that both men and women reduced alcohol consumption after receiving a brief intervention.We found moderate-quality evidence that brief alcohol interventions have little impact on frequency of binges per week (MD -0.08, 95% CI -0.14 to -0.02; 15 studies, 6946 participants); drinking days per week (MD -0.13, 95% CI -0.23 to -0.04; 11 studies, 5469 participants); or drinking intensity (-0.2 g/drinking day, 95% CI -3.1 to 2.7; 10 studies, 3128 participants).We found moderate-quality evidence of little difference in quantity of alcohol consumed when extended and no or minimal interventions were compared (-14 g/week, 95% CI -37 to 9; 6 studies, 1296 participants). There was little difference in binges per week (-0.08, 95% CI -0.28 to 0.12; 2 studies, 456 participants; moderate-quality evidence) or difference in days drinking per week (-0.45, 95% CI -0.81 to -0.09; 2 studies, 319 participants; moderate-quality evidence). Extended versus no or minimal intervention provided little impact on drinking intensity (9 g/drinking day, 95% CI -26 to 9; 1 study, 158 participants; low-quality evidence).Extended intervention had no greater impact than brief intervention on alcohol consumption, although findings were imprecise (MD 2 g/week, 95% CI -42 to 45; 3 studies, 552 participants; low-quality evidence). Numbers of binges were not reported for this comparison, but one trial suggested a possible drop in days drinking per week (-0.5, 95% CI -1.2 to 0.2; 147 participants; low-quality evidence). Results from this trial also suggested very little impact on drinking intensity (-1.7 g/drinking day, 95% CI -18.9 to 15.5; 147 participants; very low-quality evidence).Only five studies reported adverse effects (very low-quality evidence). No participants experienced any adverse effects in two studies; one study reported that the intervention increased binge drinking for women and two studies reported adverse events related to driving outcomes but concluded they were equivalent in both study arms.Sources of funding were reported by 67 studies (87%). With two exceptions, studies were funded by government institutes, research bodies or charitable foundations. One study was partly funded by a pharmaceutical company and a brewers association, another by a company developing diagnostic testing equipment. We found moderate-quality evidence that brief interventions can reduce alcohol consumption in hazardous and harmful drinkers compared to minimal or no intervention. Longer counselling duration probably has little additional effect. Future studies should focus on identifying the components of interventions which are most closely associated with effectiveness.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 94 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 299 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Australia 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Ukraine 1 <1%
Finland 1 <1%
Norway 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Hong Kong 1 <1%
Unknown 292 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Unspecified 59 20%
Researcher 54 18%
Student > Master 43 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 32 11%
Student > Bachelor 28 9%
Other 83 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 106 35%
Unspecified 71 24%
Psychology 37 12%
Nursing and Health Professions 30 10%
Social Sciences 28 9%
Other 27 9%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 70. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 21 March 2019.
All research outputs
#246,272
of 13,554,901 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#623
of 10,645 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#10,706
of 269,441 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#24
of 211 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,554,901 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,645 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 269,441 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 211 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.