RESUMO
Brief intervention (BI) research has traditionally examined alcohol and drug use outcomes; however it is unknown whether BIs can also impact on-the-job productivity. This exploratory study examines changes in workplace productivity and related costs for clients receiving a BI for at-risk drinking in the employee assistance program (EAP). Participants were 44 clients attending the EAP for behavioral health concerns, screened for at-risk drinking, assigned to BI+Usual Care (n=25) or UC alone (n=19), and who completed 3-month follow-up. Absenteeism, presenteeism, and productivity costs were derived as outcomes. At follow-up, participants in the BI+UC group had improved productivity when at work (presenteeism) compared to the UC group. The estimated cost savings from improved productivity for the BI+UC group was $1200 per client over the UC group. Groups did not differ by absenteeism (missed days of work). Preliminary evidence suggests the broad impact BIs may have. Implications for future BI research are discussed.
Assuntos
Consumo de Bebidas Alcoólicas/economia , Eficiência , Serviços de Saúde do Trabalhador/economia , Absenteísmo , Adulto , Consumo de Bebidas Alcoólicas/terapia , Feminino , Humanos , Masculino , Serviços de Saúde do Trabalhador/métodos , Resultado do Tratamento , Local de Trabalho/economia , Local de Trabalho/estatística & dados numéricosRESUMO
OBJECTIVE: The current pilot study examined the preliminary efficacy of a brief intervention (BI) for at-risk drinking in an employee assistance program. METHOD: Clients (N = 107) entering the employee assistance program (EAP) for mental health services were screened and met criteria for at-risk drinking. EAP therapists were randomly assigned to deliver either the BI plus EAP services as usual (SAU) or SAU only. Participants in the final analyses consisted of 44 BI + SAU (30 women, 14 men) and 30 SAU (21 women, 9 men) EAP clients who completed a 3-month follow-up. RESULTS: Results suggested that participants in the BI + SAU group had significant reductions in peak blood alcohol concentration, peak quantity, and alcohol-related consequences compared with the SAU group. Men in the BI + SAU group had greater reductions in alcohol-related problems compared with men in the SAU group. Groups did not differ by number of total EAP sessions attended or rates of presenting problem resolution. CONCLUSIONS: Results provide preliminary evidence to support the integration of alcohol screening and BI as a low-cost method of intervening with clients with at-risk drinking in the context of co-occurring presenting problems.