Social Equity in the Efficacy of Computer-Based and In-Person Brief Alcohol Interventions Among General Hospital Patients With At-Risk Alcohol Use: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Freyer-Adam J., Baumann S., Bischof G., John U., Gaertner B.

Little is known about the long-term impact of brief alcohol interventions (BAIs) on health and on sick days in particular. The aim was to investigate whether BAIs reduce sick days in general hospital patients over two years, and whether effects depend on how BAIs are delivered; either through in-person counseling (PE) or computer-generated written feedback (CO). To investigate this, secondary outcome data from a three-arm randomized controlled trial with 6-, 12-, 18- and 24-month follow-ups were used. The sample included 960 patients (18–64 years) with at-risk alcohol use identified through systematic screening on 13 hospital wards. Patients with particularly severe alcohol problems were excluded. Participants were allocated to PE, CO and assessment only (AO). Both interventions were tailored according to behavior change theory and included three contacts. Self-reported number of sick days in the past 6 months was assessed at all time-points. A zero-inflated negative binomial latent growth model adjusted for socio-demographics, substance use related variables and medical department was calculated. In comparison to AO, PE (OR = 2.18, p = 0.047) and CO (OR = 2.08, p = 0.047) resulted in statistically significant increased odds of reporting no sick days 24 months later. Differences between PE and CO, and concerning sick days when any reported, were non-significant. This study provides evidence for the long-term efficacy of BAIs concerning health, and concerning sick days in particular. BAIs have the potential to reduce the occurrence of sick days over 2 years, independent of whether they are delivered through in-person counseling or computer-generated written feedback.

Alcántara C., Diaz S.V., Cosenzo L.G., Loucks E.B., Penedo F.J., Williams N.J.

Social determinants of health (SDOH) refer to the broad range of social, economic, political, and psychosocial factors that directly or indirectly shape health outcomes and contribute to health disparities. There is a growing and concerted effort to address SDOH worldwide. However, the application of SDOH to health behavior change intervention research is unknown. We reviewed the synthesis literature on health behavior change interventions targeting self-regulation to (a) describe the sociodemographic characteristics, (b) determine which types of social determinants were tested as moderators of health behavior change interventions, (c) evaluate the methodological quality of the meta-analytic evidence, and (d) discuss scientific gaps and opportunities. Thirty (45.4%) of 66 articles examined heterogeneity of treatment effects by SDOH. There was a lack of racial/ethnic, immigrant, sexual/gender minority, and lifecourse sample diversity. Overall, 73.5% of SDOH moderator analyses tested heterogeneity of treatment effects by gender, race/ethnicity, and intervention setting; none examined neighborhood factors. Methodological quality was negatively correlated with number of SDOH analyses. Most SDOH moderator analyses were atheoretical and indicated statistically non-significant differences. We provide an integrated SDOH and science of behavior change framework and discuss scientific opportunities for intervention research on health behavior change to improve health equity.

Angus C., Brown J., Beard E., Gillespie D., Buykx P., Kaner E.F., Michie S., Meier P.

ObjectivesBrief interventions (BI) for smoking and risky drinking are effective and cost-effective policy approaches to reducing alcohol harm currently used in primary care in England; however, little is known about their contribution to health inequalities. This paper aims to investigate whether self-reported receipt of BI is associated with socioeconomic position (SEP) and whether this differs for smoking or alcohol.DesignPopulation survey of 8978 smokers or risky drinkers in England aged 16+ taking part in the Alcohol and Smoking Toolkit Studies.MeasuresSurvey participants answered questions regarding whether they had received advice and support to cut down their drinking or smoking from a primary healthcare professional in the past 12 months as well as their SEP, demographic details, whether they smoke and their motivation to cut down their smoking and/or drinking. Respondents also completed the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT). Smokers were defined as those reporting any smoking in the past year. Risky drinkers were defined as those scoring eight or more on the AUDIT.ResultsAfter adjusting for demographic factors and patterns in smoking and drinking, BI delivery was highest in lower socioeconomic groups. Smokers in the lowest social grade had 30% (95% CI 5% to 61%) greater odds of reporting receipt of a BI than those in the highest grade. The relationship for risky drinking appeared stronger, with those in the lowest social grade having 111% (95% CI 27% to 252%) greater odds of reporting BI receipt than the highest grade. Rates of BI delivery were eight times greater among smokers than risky drinkers (48.3% vs 6.1%).ConclusionsCurrent delivery of BI for smoking and drinking in primary care in England may be contributing to a reduction in socioeconomic inequalities in health. This effect could be increased if intervention rates, particularly for drinking, were raised.

Ramsey A.T., Satterfield J.M., Gerke D.R., Proctor E.K.

Background: Primary care settings are uniquely positioned to reach individuals at risk of alcohol use disorder through technology-delivered behavioral health interventions. Despite emerging effectiveness data, few efforts have been made to summarize the collective findings from these delivery approaches. Objective: The aim of this study was to review recent literature on the use of technology to deliver, enhance, or support the implementation of alcohol-related interventions in primary care. We focused on addressing questions related to (1) categorization or target of the intervention, (2) descriptive characteristics and context of delivery, (3) reported efficacy, and (4) factors influencing efficacy. Methods: We conducted a comprehensive search and systematic review of completed studies at the intersection of primary care, technology, and alcohol-related problems published from January 2000 to December 2018 within EBSCO databases, ProQuest Dissertations, and Cochrane Reviews. Of 2307 initial records, 42 were included and coded independently by 2 investigators. Results: Compared with the years of 2000 to 2009, published studies on technology-based alcohol interventions in primary care nearly tripled during the years of 2010 to 2018. Of the 42 included studies, 28 (64%) were randomized controlled trials. Furthermore, studies were rated on risk of bias and found to be predominantly low risk (n=18), followed by moderate risk (n=16), and high risk (n=8). Of the 24 studies with primary or secondary efficacy outcomes related to drinking and drinking-related harms, 17 (71%) reported reduced drinking or harm in all primary and secondary efficacy outcomes. Furthermore, of the 31 studies with direct comparisons with treatment as usual (TAU), 13 (42%) reported that at least half of the primary and secondary efficacy outcomes of the technology-based interventions were superior to TAU. High efficacy was associated with provider involvement and the reported use of an implementation strategy to deliver the technology-based intervention. Conclusions: Our systematic review has highlighted a pattern of growth in the number of studies evaluating technology-based alcohol interventions in primary care. Although these interventions appear to be largely beneficial in primary care, outcomes may be enhanced by provider involvement and implementation strategy use. This review enables better understanding of the typologies and efficacy of these interventions and informs recommendations for those developing and implementing technology-based alcohol interventions in primary care settings.

Riper H., Hoogendoorn A., Cuijpers P., Karyotaki E., Boumparis N., Mira A., Andersson G., Berman A.H., Bertholet N., Bischof G., Blankers M., Boon B., Boß L., Brendryen H., Cunningham J., et. al.

Background Face-to-face brief interventions for problem drinking are effective, but they have found limited implementation in routine care and the community. Internet-based interventions could overcome this treatment gap. We investigated effectiveness and moderators of treatment outcomes in internet-based interventions for adult problem drinking (iAIs). Methods and findings Systematic searches were performed in medical and psychological databases to 31 December 2016. A one-stage individual patient data meta-analysis (IPDMA) was conducted with a linear mixed model complete-case approach, using baseline and first follow-up data. The primary outcome measure was mean weekly alcohol consumption in standard units (SUs, 10 grams of ethanol). Secondary outcome was treatment response (TR), defined as less than 14/21 SUs for women/men weekly. Putative participant, intervention, and study moderators were included. Robustness was verified in three sensitivity analyses: a two-stage IPDMA, a one-stage IPDMA using multiple imputation, and a missing-not-at-random (MNAR) analysis. We obtained baseline data for 14,198 adult participants (19 randomised controlled trials [RCTs], mean age 40.7 [SD = 13.2], 47.6% women). Their baseline mean weekly alcohol consumption was 38.1 SUs (SD = 26.9). Most were regular problem drinkers (80.1%, SUs 44.7, SD = 26.4) and 19.9% (SUs 11.9, SD = 4.1) were binge-only drinkers. About one third were heavy drinkers, meaning that women/men consumed, respectively, more than 35/50 SUs of alcohol at baseline (34.2%, SUs 65.9, SD = 27.1). Post-intervention data were available for 8,095 participants. Compared with controls, iAI participants showed a greater mean weekly decrease at follow-up of 5.02 SUs (95% CI −7.57 to −2.48, p < 0.001) and a higher rate of TR (odds ratio [OR] 2.20, 95% CI 1.63–2.95, p < 0.001, number needed to treat [NNT] = 4.15, 95% CI 3.06–6.62). Persons above age 55 showed higher TR than their younger counterparts (OR = 1.66, 95% CI 1.21–2.27, p = 0.002). Drinking profiles were not significantly associated with treatment outcomes. Human-supported interventions were superior to fully automated ones on both outcome measures (comparative reduction: −6.78 SUs, 95% CI −12.11 to −1.45, p = 0.013; TR: OR = 2.23, 95% CI 1.22–4.08, p = 0.009). Participants treated in iAIs based on personalised normative feedback (PNF) alone were significantly less likely to sustain low-risk drinking at follow-up than those in iAIs based on integrated therapeutic principles (OR = 0.52, 95% CI 0.29–0.93, p = 0.029). The use of waitlist control in RCTs was associated with significantly better treatment outcomes than the use of other types of control (comparative reduction: −9.27 SUs, 95% CI −13.97 to −4.57, p < 0.001; TR: OR = 3.74, 95% CI 2.13–6.53, p < 0.001). The overall quality of the RCTs was high; a major limitation included high study dropout (43%). Sensitivity analyses confirmed the robustness of our primary analyses. Conclusion To our knowledge, this is the first IPDMA on internet-based interventions that has shown them to be effective in curbing various patterns of adult problem drinking in both community and healthcare settings. Waitlist control may be conducive to inflation of treatment outcomes.

O’Connor E.A., Perdue L.A., Senger C.A., Rushkin M., Patnode C.D., Bean S.I., Jonas D.E.

Unhealthy alcohol use is common, increasing, and a leading cause of premature mortality.To review literature on the effectiveness and harms of screening and counseling for unhealthy alcohol use to inform the US Preventive Services Task Force.MEDLINE, PubMed, PsycINFO, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials through October 12, 2017; literature surveillance through August 1, 2018.Test accuracy studies and randomized clinical trials of screening and counseling to reduce unhealthy alcohol use.Independent critical appraisal and data abstraction by 2 reviewers. Counseling trials were pooled using random-effects meta-analyses.Sensitivity, specificity, drinks per week, exceeding recommended limits, heavy use episodes, abstinence (for pregnant women), and other health, family, social, and legal outcomes.One hundred thirteen studies (N = 314 466) were included. No studies examined benefits or harms of screening programs to reduce unhealthy alcohol use. For adolescents (10 studies [n = 171 363]), 1 study (n = 225) reported a sensitivity of 0.73 (95% CI, 0.60 to 0.83) and specificity of 0.81 (95% CI, 0.74 to 0.86) using the AUDIT-C (Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test-Consumption) to detect the full spectrum of unhealthy alcohol use. For adults (35 studies [n = 114 182]), brief screening instruments commonly reported sensitivity and specificity between 0.70 and 0.85. Two trials of the effects of interventions to reduce unhealthy alcohol use in adolescents (n = 588) found mixed results: one reported a benefit in high-risk but not moderate-risk drinkers, and the other reported a statistically significant reduction in drinking frequency for boys but not girls; neither reported health or related outcomes. Across all populations (68 studies [n = 36 528]), counseling interventions were associated with a decrease in drinks per week (weighted mean difference, -1.6 [95% CI, -2.2 to -1.0]; 32 studies [37 effects; n = 15 974]), the proportion exceeding recommended drinking limits (odds ratio [OR], 0.60 [95% CI, 0.53 to 0.67]; 15 studies [16 effects; n = 9760]), and the proportion reporting a heavy use episode (OR, 0.67 [95% CI, 0.58 to 0.77]; 12 studies [14 effects; n = 8108]), and an increase in the proportion of pregnant women reporting abstinence (OR, 2.26 [95% CI, 1.43 to 3.56]; 5 studies [n = 796]) after 6 to 12 months. Health outcomes were sparsely reported and generally did not demonstrate group differences in effect. There was no evidence that these interventions could be harmful.Among adults, screening instruments feasible for use in primary care are available that can effectively identify people with unhealthy alcohol use, and counseling interventions in those who screen positive are associated with reductions in unhealthy alcohol use. There was no evidence that these interventions have unintended harmful effects.

Frost H., Campbell P., Maxwell M., O’Carroll R.E., Dombrowski S.U., Williams B., Cheyne H., Coles E., Pollock A.

Background The challenge of addressing unhealthy lifestyle choice is of global concern. Motivational Interviewing has been widely implemented to help people change their behaviour, but it is unclear for whom it is most beneficial. This overview aims to appraise and synthesise the review evidence for the effectiveness of Motivational Interviewing on health behaviour of adults in health and social care settings. Methods A systematic review of reviews. Methods were pre-specified and documented in a protocol (PROSPERO–CRD42016049278). We systematically searched 7 electronic databases: CDSR; DARE; PROSPERO; MEDLINE; CINAHL; AMED and PsycINFO from 2000 to May 2018. Two reviewers applied pre-defined selection criteria, extracted data using TIDIER guidelines and assessed methodological quality using the ROBIS tool. We used GRADE criteria to rate the strength of the evidence for reviews including meta-analyses. Findings Searches identified 5222 records. One hundred and four reviews, including 39 meta-analyses met the inclusion criteria. Most meta-analysis evidence was graded as low or very low (128/155). Moderate quality evidence for mainly short term (

Freyer-Adam J., Baumann S., Haberecht K., Bischof G., Meyer C., Rumpf H., John U., Gaertner B.

AbstractBackgroundLittle is known about the impact of brief alcohol interventions on mental and general health. The aim was to investigate whether brief interventions for general hospital inpatients with at-risk drinking can improve mental and general health over 2 years; and whether effects are dependent on how they are delivered: in-person or through computer-generated feedback letters (CO).MethodsThree-arm randomized controlled trial with 6-, 12-, 18-, and 24-month follow-ups. Data were collected on 13 general hospital wards from four medical departments (internal medicine, surgical medicine, trauma surgery, and ear-nose-throat) of one university hospital in northeastern rural Germany. A consecutive sample of 961 18- to 64-year-old general hospital inpatients with at-risk alcohol use was recruited through systematic screening. Inpatients with particularly severe alcohol problems were excluded. Participants were allocated to: in-person counseling (PE), CO, and assessment only (AO). PE and CO included three contacts: on the ward, 1, and 3 months later. Mental and general health were assessed using the five-item mental health inventory (0–100) and a one-item general health measure (0, poor – 4, excellent).ResultsLatent growth models including all participants revealed: after 24 months and in contrast to AO, mental and general health were improved in PE (change in mean difference, ΔMmental = 5.13, p = 0.002, Cohen's d = 0.51; ΔMgeneral = 0.20, p = 0.005, d = 0.71) and CO (ΔMmental = 6.98, p < 0.001, d = 0.69; ΔMgeneral = 0.24, p = 0.001, d = 0.86). PE and CO did not differ significantly.ConclusionsBeyond drinking reduction, PE and CO can improve general hospital inpatients’ self-reported mental and general health over 2 years.

Beyer F., Lynch E., Kaner E.

Excessive drinking is a major public health problem that adversely affects all parts of the population. Previous systematic reviews and meta-analyses have reported that brief interventions delivered in primary care are effective at reducing alcohol consumption, albeit with small effect sizes that have decreased over time. This review summarises the updated evidence base on practitioner and digitally delivered brief interventions. Using Cochrane methodology, 69 primary care brief intervention trials (33,642 participants) and 57 digital intervention trials (34,390 participants) were identified. Meta-analyses showed both approaches significantly reduced consumption compared to controls. Five trials (390 participants) compared practitioner-delivered and digital interventions directly with no evidence of difference in outcomes at follow-up. Brief interventions have the potential to impact at both individual and population levels. Future research should focus on optimising components and delivery mechanisms, and on alcohol-related harms. Digital interventions may overcome some of the implementation barriers faced by practitioner-delivered interventions.

Kaner E.F., Beyer F.R., Muirhead C., Campbell F., Pienaar E.D., Bertholet N., Daeppen J.B., Saunders J.B., Burnand B.

Baumann S., Gaertner B., Haberecht K., Bischof G., John U., Freyer-Adam J.

The aim was to test if people with different alcohol use problem severity benefitted differentially from brief alcohol interventions delivered in-person versus through computer-generated feedback letters.Nine hundred sixty-one 18-64year old general hospital inpatients with at-risk alcohol use (mean age=40.9years [standard deviation=14.1], 75% men) were randomized to a) in-person counseling, b) computer-generated individualized feedback letters, or c) assessment only. Both interventions were delivered on the ward and 1 and 3 months later. Outcome was the change in the self-reported alcohol use per day at 6-, 12-, 18-, and 24-month follow-up. The Alcohol Use Disorder Identification Test (AUDIT) score was tested as a moderator of the effect of in-person counseling and computer-generated feedback letters, with higher AUDIT scores indicating more severe alcohol problems.Compared to assessment only, computer-generated feedback letters more strongly reduced alcohol use over 24 months among persons with AUDIT scores of about 8 and lower (ps

Freyer-Adam J., Baumann S., Haberecht K., Tobschall S., Bischof G., John U., Gaertner B.

To investigate the comparative 2-year efficacy of brief alcohol interventions delivered in-person versus through computer-generated feedback letters among general hospital inpatients with at-risk alcohol use.In 2011-2012, all general hospital inpatients aged 18-64 years on 13 wards at 4 medical departments in 1 general hospital were systematically screened for at-risk alcohol use. Nine-hundred sixty-one inpatients who screened positive for at-risk alcohol use and negative for more severe alcohol problems were randomized by timeframe to in-person counseling (PE), computer-generated feedback letters (CO) and assessment only (AO). Both interventions included 3 contacts: on the ward and 1 and 3 months later and were based on the transtheoretical model (TTM). After 6, 12, 18, and 24 months computer-assisted telephone interviews assessed self-report outcomes: gram alcohol per week (primary), at-risk alcohol use and highest blood alcohol concentration (both secondary). Latent growth models were used.After 24 months, CO resulted in a greater reduction of self-reported gram alcohol per week than AO (p = .027); PE did not differ significantly from AO (p = .503) and CO (p = .088); and group differences concerning secondary outcomes were not statistically significant (ps > 0.07). After 6 months, the odds of at-risk alcohol use were reduced by half in PE versus AO (odds ratio = 0.50, 95% confidence interval: 0.25-0.98).No significant group differences between in-person counseling and computer-generated feedback letters were found. TTM-based computer-generated feedback letters reduced self-reported gram alcohol over 2 years and can be considered a long-term effective alternative in medical settings when addressing at-risk alcohol use. (PsycINFO Database Record

Kaner E.F., Beyer F.R., Garnett C., Crane D., Brown J., Muirhead C., Redmore J., O'Donnell A., Newham J.J., de Vocht F., Hickman M., Brown H., Maniatopoulos G., Michie S.

Paz Castro R., Haug S., Kowatsch T., Filler A., Schaub M.P.

Introduction Moderators of outcome are investigated in a technology-based intervention that has been shown to effectively reduce binge drinking among adolescents. Methods Secondary data analyses were performed on socio-demographic, health-related, and socio-cognitive moderators of intervention efficacy. Students attending 80 vocational and upper secondary school classes with different levels of alcohol use were randomized to either a web- and text messaging-based intervention (n = 547) or an assessment-only control group (n = 494). Moderators of outcome were analysed across the entire sample, and separately for lower-risk and higher-risk drinkers. Results Based on an intention-to-treat analysis, we identified smoking status and educational level to moderate the intervention effectiveness across the total sample and in the lower-risk subsample, with a greater reduction in binge-drinking prevalence in smokers versus non-smokers, and in more highly-educated versus less-educated adolescents. Conclusions Technology-based interventions targeting heavy drinking might be especially effective in smokers and highly-educated adolescents. Interventions can prevent low-risk drinkers that smoke from developing a problematic alcohol use.

Katikireddi S.V., Whitley E., Lewsey J., Gray L., Leyland A.H.

Alcohol-related mortality and morbidity are high in socioeconomically disadvantaged populations compared with individuals from advantaged areas. It is unclear if this increased harm reflects differences in alcohol consumption between these socioeconomic groups, reverse causation (ie, downward social selection for high-risk drinkers), or a greater risk of harm in individuals of low socioeconomic status compared with those of higher status after similar consumption. We aimed to investigate whether the harmful effects of alcohol differ by socioeconomic status, accounting for alcohol consumption and other health-related factors.The Scottish Health Surveys are record-linked cross-sectional surveys representative of the adult population of Scotland. We obtained baseline demographics and data for alcohol consumption (units per week and binge drinking) from Scottish Health Surveys done in 1995, 1998, 2003, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, and 2012. We matched these data to records for deaths, admissions, and prescriptions. The primary outcome was alcohol-attributable admission or death. The relation between alcohol-attributable harm and socioeconomic status was investigated for four measures (education level, social class, household income, and area-based deprivation) using Cox proportional hazards models. The potential for alcohol consumption and other risk factors (including smoking and body-mass index [BMI]) mediating social patterning was explored in separate regression models. Reverse causation was tested by comparing change in area deprivation over time.50 236 participants (21 777 men and 28 459 women) were included in the analytical sample, with 429 986 person-years of follow-up. Low socioeconomic status was associated consistently with strikingly raised alcohol-attributable harms, including after adjustment for weekly consumption, binge drinking, BMI, and smoking. Evidence was noted of effect modification; for example, relative to light drinkers living in advantaged areas, the risk of alcohol-attributable admission or death for excessive drinkers was increased (hazard ratio 6·12, 95% CI 4·45-8·41 in advantaged areas; and 10·22, 7·73-13·53 in deprived areas). We found little support for reverse causation.Disadvantaged social groups have greater alcohol-attributable harms compared with individuals from advantaged areas for given levels of alcohol consumption, even after accounting for different drinking patterns, obesity, and smoking status at the individual level.Medical Research Council, NHS Research Scotland, Scottish Government Chief Scientist Office.

Hyland K., Romero D., Andreasson S., Hammarberg A., Hedman-Lagerlöf E., Johansson M.

Abstract Background and aims Little is known regarding predictors of outcome in treatment of alcohol dependence via the internet and in primary care. The aim of the present study was to investigate the role of socio-demographic and clinical factors for outcomes in internet-based cognitive behavioral treatment (ICBT) added to treatment as usual (TAU) for alcohol dependence in primary care. Design Secondary analyses based on data from a randomized controlled trial in which participants were randomized to ICBT + TAU or to TAU only. Setting The study was conducted in collaboration with 14 primary care centers in Stockholm, Sweden. Participants The randomized trial included 264 adult primary care patients with alcohol dependence enrolled between September 2017 and November 2019. Interventions Patients in the parent trial were randomized to ICBT that was added to TAU (n = 132) or to TAU only (n = 132). ICBT was a 12-week intervention based on motivational interviewing, relapse prevention and behavioral self-control training. Measures Primary outcome was number of standard drinks last 30 days. Sociodemographic and clinical predictors were tested in separate models using linear mixed effects models. Findings Severity of dependence, assessed by ICD-10 criteria for alcohol dependence, was the only predictor for changes in alcohol consumption and the only moderator of the effect of treatment. Participants with severe dependence showed a larger reduction in alcohol consumption between baseline and 3-months follow-up compared to participants with moderate dependence. The patients with moderate dependence continued to reduce their alcohol consumption between 3- and 12-months follow-up, while patients with severe dependence did not. Conclusions Dependence severity predicted changes in alcohol consumption following treatment of alcohol dependence in primary care, with or without added ICBT. Dependence severity was also found to moderate the effect of treatment. The results suggest that treatment for both moderate and severe alcohol dependence is viable in primary care. Clinical trial registration: The study was approved by the Regional Ethics Board in Stockholm, no. 2016/1367–31/2. The study protocol was published in Trials 30 December 2019. The trial identifier is ISRCTN69957414, available at http://www.isrctn.com, assigned 7 June 2018, retrospectively registered.

Egan K.K., Becker U., M⊘ller S.P., Pisinger V., Tolstrup J.S.

Few people with problematic alcohol use reach treatment and dropout is frequent. Therapy for problematic alcohol use delivered via video conference (e-alcohol therapy) might overcome treatment barriers. In this randomised study, we tested whether proactive e-alcohol therapy outperformed face-to-face alcohol therapy (standard care) regarding treatment initiation, compliance, and weekly alcohol intake at 3-month and 12-month follow-up.

HOČEVAR T., ANSTISS T., ROTAR PAVLIČ D.

ABSTRACT Aim To develop and content validate a self-assessment questionnaire on motivational interviewing (MI) practice as the first stages in forming the questionnaire to be used in cross-sectional studies involving practitioners conducting the MI-based alcohol screening and brief intervention (ASBI). Methods A comprehensive mixed methods approach included a literature review, 3 rounds of expert panel (EP) opinions (n=10), cognitive testing (CT) with 10 MI-based ASBI practitioners, and questionnaire piloting with 31 MI-based ASBI practitioners. Based on the EP opinions in the second round, content validity indices (CVIs) and the modified kappa coefficient (k*) were calculated, focusing on the relevance and understandability of questions and comprehensiveness and meaningfulness of the response options. This analysis was performed in 2020, at the conclusion of the national “Together for a Responsible Attitude Towards Alcohol Consumption” (“Skupaj za odgovoren odnos do pitja alkohola”, SOPA) project’s pilot implementation. Results On a scale level, CVI values based on universal agreement for the entire questionnaire were high for 3/4 categories (S-CVI-UA>0.80), and CVI values based on average agreement were high across all categories (S-CVI-Ave>0.90). At the item level, CVI values (I-CVI) were never <0.50 (automatic item rejection), and the modified kappa value (k*) indicated poor validity for two items in the understandability category (k*=0.33). All problematic parts of the questionnaire were further tested and successfully modified based on the results of CT, and accepted in the third round of testing. Conclusions The final version of the questionnaire demonstrated appropriate content validity for use in studies among Slovenian MI-based ASBI practitioners and is now ready for further psychometric testing.

Guertler D., Krause K., Moehring A., Bischof G., Batra A., Freyer-Adam J., Ulbricht S., Rumpf H.J., Wurm S., Cuijpers P., Lucht M., John U., Meyer C.

There is evidence for e-Health interventions for full-blown depression. Little is known regarding commonly untreated subthreshold depression in primary care. This randomized controlled multi-centre trial assessed reach and two-year-effects of a proactive e-Health intervention (ActiLife) for patients with subthreshold depression. Primary care and hospital patients were screened for subthreshold depression. Over 6 months, ActiLife participants received three individualized feedback letters and weekly messages promoting self-help strategies against depression, e.g., dealing with unhelpful thoughts or behavioural activation. The primary outcome depressive symptom severity (Patient Health Questionnaire;PHQ-8) and secondary outcomes were assessed 6, 12 and 24 months. Of those invited, n = 618(49.2 %) agreed to participate. Of them, 456 completed the baseline interview and were randomized to ActiLife (n = 227) or assessment only (n = 226). Generalised estimation equation analyses adjusting for site, setting and baseline depression revealed that depressive symptom severity declined over time, with no significant group differences at 6 (mean difference = 0.47 points; d = 0.12) and 24 months (mean difference = −0.05 points; d = −0.01). Potential adverse effects were observed at 12 months, with higher depressive symptom severity for ActiLife than control participants (mean difference = 1.33 points; d = 0.35). No significant differences in rates of reliable deterioration or reliable improvement of depressive symptoms were observed. ActiLife increased applied self-help strategies at 6 (mean difference = 0.32; d = 0.27) and 24 months (mean difference = 0.22; d = 0.19), but not at 12 months (mean difference = 0.18; d = 0.15). Self-report measures and lack of information on patients' mental health treatment. ActiLife yielded satisfactory reach and increased the use of self-help strategies. Data were inconclusive in terms of depressive symptom changes.

Kilian C., Lemp J.M., Probst C.

Alcohol-attributable mortality contributes to growing health inequalities. Addressing hazardous alcohol use and alcohol use disorders through alcohol screening and brief intervention is therefore a promising public health strategy to improve health equity. In this narrative mini-review, we discuss the extent to which socioeconomic differences exist in the alcohol screening and brief intervention cascade, highlighting the example of the United States. We have searched PubMed to identify and summarize relevant literature addressing socioeconomic inequalities in (a) accessing and affording healthcare, (b) receiving alcohol screenings, and/or (c) receiving brief interventions, focusing predominantly on literature from the Unites States. We found evidence for income-related inequalities in access to healthcare in the United States, partly due to inadequate health insurance coverage for individuals with low socioeconomic status. Alcohol screening coverage appears to be generally very low, as is the probability of receiving a brief intervention when indicated. However, research suggests that the latter is more likely to be provided to individuals with low socioeconomic status than those with high socioeconomic status. Individuals with low socioeconomic status also tend to benefit more from brief interventions, showing greater reductions in their alcohol use. Once access to and affordability of healthcare is ensured and high coverage of alcohol screening is achieved for all, alcohol screening and brief interventions have the potential to enhance health equity by reducing alcohol consumption and alcohol-related health harms.