Prospective changes in drinking during the COVID-19 pandemic among adults with unhealthy alcohol use.

AIMS: This study examined differential changes in alcohol use during the COVID-19 pandemic among adults with unhealthy alcohol use. METHODS: Among 62 924 adults identified with unhealthy alcohol use in primary care prepandemic (1 January 2019 to 29 February 2020), changes in alcohol use during the pandemic (1 March 2020 to 30 June 2022) were examined using electronic health record data from Kaiser Permanente Northern California. Outcomes were changes in heavy drinking days in the past three months (HDDs) and overall consumption (drinks/week), including continuous and categorical measures. Differences in outcomes by sex, age, race/ethnicity, and alcohol use disorder (AUD) were examined. RESULTS: On average, drinking was reduced by 3.0 HDDs (in the past three months) (SD = 18.4) and 4.1 drinks/week (SD = 12.2), but women, certain age groups, White patients, and patients without AUD had smaller decreases than their counterparts. Overall, 9.1% increased, 34.4% maintained, and 56.5% decreased HDDs, and 20.2% increased, 19.8% maintained, and 60.1% decreased drinks/week. Women, patients aged ≥35 years, White patients, and patients with AUD had higher odds of increasing versus decreasing HDDs, and maintaining versus decreasing, compared to their counterparts. Patients aged 18-20 years, White patients, and patients without AUD had higher odds than their counterparts of increasing versus decreasing drinks/week. Women, patients aged 18-20 years, Asian/Pacific Islander, and Latino/Hispanic patients had higher odds of maintaining versus decreasing drinks/week. CONCLUSIONS: While alcohol use decreased overall among this sample of primary care patients with unhealthy drinking prepandemic, certain subgroups were more likely to increase drinking, suggesting a greater risk of alcohol-related problems.

No improvement in AUDIT-C screening and brief intervention rates among wait-list controls following support of Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Services: evidence from a cluster randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: While Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians are less likely to drink any alcohol than other Australians, those who drink are more likely to experience adverse alcohol-related health consequences. In a previous study, providing Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Services (ACCHSs) with training and support increased the odds of clients receiving AUDIT-C alcohol screening. A follow-up study found that these results were maintained for at least two years, but there was large variability in the effectiveness of the intervention between services. In this study, we use services that previously received support as a comparison group to test whether training and support can improve alcohol screening and brief intervention rates among wait-list control ACCHSs. METHODS: Design: Cluster randomised trial using routinely collected health data. SETTING: Australia. CASES: Twenty-two ACCHSs that see at least 1000 clients a year and use Communicare as their practice management software. Intervention and comparator: After initiating support, we compare changes in screening and brief intervention between wait-list control services and services that had previously received support. MEASUREMENT: Records of AUDIT-C screening and brief intervention activity in routinely collected data. RESULTS: During the reference period we observed 357,257 instances where one of 74,568 clients attended services at least once during a two-monthly data extraction period. Following the start of support, the odds of screening (OR = 0.94 [95% CI 0.67, 1.32], p = 0.74, [Formula: see text]≈ 0.002) and brief intervention (OR = 1.43 [95% CI 0.69, 2.95], p = 0.34, [Formula: see text]≈ 0.002) did not improve for the wait-list control group, relative to comparison services. CONCLUSIONS: We did not replicate the finding that support and training improves AUDIT-C screening rates with wait-list control data. The benefits of support are likely context dependent. Coincidental policy changes may have sensitised services to the effects of support in the earlier phase of the study. Then the COVID-19 pandemic may have made services less open to change in this latest phase. Future efforts could include practice software prompts to alcohol screening and brief intervention, which are less reliant on individual staff time or resources. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Retrospectively registered on 2018-11-21: ACTRN12618001892202.

Agile implementation of alcohol screening in primary care.

BACKGROUND: Despite the United States Preventive Services Task Force recommendation to screen adults for unhealthy alcohol use, the implementation of alcohol screening in primary care remains suboptimal. METHODS: A pre and post-implementation study design that used Agile implementation process to increase screening for unhealthy alcohol use in adult patients from October 2021 to June 2022 at a large primary care clinic serving minority and underprivileged adults in Indianapolis. RESULTS: In comparison to a baseline screening rate of 0%, the agile implementation process increased and sustained screening rates above 80% for alcohol use using the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test - Consumption tool (AUDIT-C). CONCLUSIONS: Using the agile implementation process, we were able to successfully implement evidence-based recommendations to screen for unhealthy alcohol use in primary care.

Applying the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research to investigate factors of implementing alcohol screening and brief intervention among primary care physicians and nurses in Hong Kong, China: an exploratory sequential mixed-method study.

BACKGROUND: Alcohol screening and brief intervention (SBI) is an evidence-based intervention recommended by the World Health Organization. This study applied the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) to understand facilitators and barriers of SBI implementation in primary care settings in Hong Kong, China. METHODS: This was a sequential mixed-method study. In-depth interviews of 21 physicians and 20 nurses working in the primary care settings from the public and private sectors were first conducted to identify CFIR constructs that were relevant to SBI implementation in the Chinese context and potential factors not covered by the CFIR. A questionnaire was then developed based on the qualitative findings to investigate factors associated with SBI implementation among 282 physicians and 295 nurses. RESULTS: The in-depth interviews identified 22 CFIR constructs that were facilitators or barriers of SBI implementation in Hong Kong. In addition, the stigmatization of alcohol dependence was a barrier and the belief that it was important for people to control the amount of alcohol intake in any situation was mentioned as a facilitator to implement SBI. In the survey, 22% of the participants implemented SBI in the past year. Factors associated with the SBI implementation echoed most of the qualitative findings. Among physicians and nurses in both sectors, they were more likely to implement SBI when perceiving stronger evidence supporting SBI, better knowledge and self-efficacy to implement SBI, more available resources, and clearer planning for SBI implementation in the clinics but less likely to do so when perceiving SBI implementation to be complicated and of higher cost, and drinking approved by the Chinese culture. Participants were more likely to implement SBI when perceiving SBI fit better with the existing practice and better leadership engagement in the public sector, but not in the private sector. Perceiving a stronger need and greater importance to implement SBI were associated with higher likelihood of SBI implementation among physicians, but not among nurses. Perceiving better organizational culture supporting SBI was positively associated with SBI implementation among nurses, but not among physicians. CONCLUSIONS: There was a significant gap between SBI evidence and its implementation. Some strategies to improve SBI implementation may be different between physicians and nurses and between those in the public and private sectors. The CFIR is a useful framework for understanding facilitators and barriers of SBI implementation in primary care settings.

Assessing the acceptability of implementing a Screening, Brief Intervention and Referral to Treatment for alcohol use among transgender women in Bangkok, Thailand: A mixed-method pre-implementation study using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Health inequities related to alcohol use exist for transgender individuals. While the Thailand Ministry of Public Health recently published a clinical guideline to implement a Screening, Brief Intervention and Referral to Treatment (SBIRT) in primary care, there has been no study regarding transgender women's (TGW) alcohol use and the acceptability of implementing SBIRT in a Thai context, a gap this study aimed to fill. DESIGN: A mixed-method approach was used. In the first phase, TGW service users and health-care providers (HCPs) completed a survey on the acceptability of prospective implementation of SBIRT. TGW service users completed the Alcohol Use Disorder Identification Test-Consumption (AUDIT-C). In the second phase, TGW service users, HCPs, clinic administrators and national-level alcohol, HIV and transgender health policymakers participated in in-depth qualitative interviews. SETTING: The Tangerine Clinic, a transgender-led sexual health clinic in Bangkok, Thailand. PARTICIPANTS: In the first phase, TGW service users (n = 100) and HCP (n = 8) were surveyed. In the second phase, 22 stakeholders (n = 10 TGW service users; n = 8 HCP; n = 1 clinic administrator; n = 3 policymakers) were interviewed. MEASUREMENTS: Simple proportions were calculated for each survey item. Differences in acceptability by various demographic factors were calculated using univariate analysis. The qualitative data were coded using thematic analysis and a deductive approach. The results were mapped to the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research domains and constructs. The quantitative and qualitative results were triangulated to expand understanding. FINDINGS: Fifty per cent of the TGW participants exhibited problematic drinking levels (AUDIT-C ≥ 4). Implementing SBIRT was highly acceptable, as more than 95% of participants reported agreeing or completely agreeing to receive SBIRT for alcohol use. Barriers, such as complexity, time constraint and lack of knowledge and skills, were anticipated. Adaptability, such as tailoring the content of brief intervention to suit TGW health needs and SBIRT to fit with existing clinic procedures, might facilitate successful implementation. CONCLUSION: Screening, Brief Intervention and Referral to Treatment (SBIRT) for alcohol use has the potential to be successfully implemented in transgender-led sexual health clinic settings, with some adaptations to overcome anticipated barriers.

Content Validity and Cognitive Testing in the Development of a Motivational Interviewing Self-Assessment Questionnaire.

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.

Unintended consequences: Alcohol screening at urban Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Services was suppressed during COVID-19 lockdowns.

INTRODUCTION: Regular screening for risky drinking is important to improve the health of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians. We explored whether the rate of screening for risky drinking using the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test-Consumption (AUDIT-C) questions was disrupted at Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Services (ACCHS) during state-wide and territory-wide COVID-19 lockdowns in 2020. METHODS: Retrospective analysis of screening data from 22 ACCHSs located in New South Wales, the Northern Territory, Queensland, South Australia, Victoria and Western Australia. These services provide holistic and culturally appropriate primary care. A multi-level Poisson regression, including AR(1) autocorrelation, was used to predict counts of AUDIT-C screening at ACCHSs. RESULTS: AUDIT-C screening was suppressed during state-wide and territory-wide lockdowns in 2020 (incident rate ratio [IRR] 0.42 [0.29, 0.61]). The effect of lockdowns differed by service remoteness. While there was a substantial reduction in AUDIT-C screening for urban and inner regional services (IRR 0.25 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.15, 0.42]), there was not a statistically significant change in screening at outer regional and remote (IRR 0.60 [95% CI 0.33, 1.09]) or very remote services (IRR 0.67 [95% CI 0.40, 1.11]). DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: The COVID-19 lockdowns in Australia likely suppressed rates of screening for risky drinking in urban and inner regional regions. As harm from alcohol consumption may have increased during lockdowns, policymakers should consider implementing measures to enable screening for risky drinking to continue during future lockdowns.

Residence in a Medicaid-expansion state and receipt of alcohol screening and brief counseling by adults with lower incomes: Is increased access to primary care enough?

BACKGROUND: We investigate whether living in a state that expanded Medicaid eligibility is associated with receiving alcohol screening and brief counseling among nonelderly, low-income adults and a subgroup with chronic health conditions caused or exacerbated by alcohol use. METHOD: Data are from the 2017 and 2019 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (N = 15,743 low-income adults; n = 7062 with a chronic condition). We used propensity score-weighted, covariate-adjusted, modified Poisson regression to estimate associations between residence in a Medicaid-expansion state and receipt of alcohol screening and brief counseling. Models estimated associations in the overall sample and chronic conditions subsample, as well as differential associations across sex, race, and ethnicity using interaction terms. RESULTS: Living in a state that expanded Medicaid eligibility was associated with being asked whether one drank (prevalence ratio (PR) = 1.15, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.08, 1.22), but not with further alcohol screening, guidance about harmful drinking, or advice to reduce drinking. Among individuals with alcohol-related chronic conditions, expansion state residence was associated with being asked about drinking (PR = 1.13, 95% CI = 1.05, 1.20) and, among past 30-day drinkers with chronic conditions, being asked how much one drank (PR = 1.28, 95% CI = 1.04, 1.59) and about binge drinking (PR = 1.43, 95% CI = 1.03, 1.99). Interaction terms suggest that some associations differ by race and ethnicity. CONCLUSIONS: Living in a state that expanded Medicaid is associated with a higher prevalence of receiving some alcohol screening at a check-up in the past 2 years among low-income residents, particularly among individuals with alcohol-related chronic conditions, but not with the receipt of high-quality screening and brief counseling. Policies may have to address provider barriers to delivery of these services in addition to access to care.

Who benefits from alcohol screening and brief intervention? A mini-review on socioeconomic inequalities with a focus on evidence from the United States.

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.

Country and policy factors influencing the implementation of primary care-based alcohol screening: A comparison of Colombia, Mexico and Peru.

Researchers and practitioners recognise the importance of context when implementing healthcare interventions, but the influence of wider environment is rarely mapped. This paper identifies the country and policy-related factors potentially explaining the country differences in outcomes of an intervention focused on improving detection and management of heavy alcohol use in primary care in Colombia, Mexico and Peru. Qualitative data obtained through interviews, logbooks and document analysis are used to explain quantitative data on number of alcohol screenings and screening providers in each of the countries. Existing alcohol screening standards in Mexico, and policy prioritisation of primary care and consideration of alcohol as a public health issue in Colombia and Mexico positively contributed to the outcome, while the COVID-19 pandemic had a negative impact. In Peru, the context was unsupportive due to a combination of: political instability amongst regional health authorities; lack of focus on strengthening primary care due to the expansion of community mental health centres; alcohol considered as an addiction rather than a public health issue; and the impact of COVID-19 on healthcare. We found that wider environment-related factors interacted with the intervention implemented and can help explain country differences in outcomes.

Integrating pragmatic and implementation science randomized clinical trial approaches: a PRagmatic Explanatory Continuum Indicator Summary-2 (PRECIS-2) analysis.

BACKGROUND: Over the past two decades, pragmatic and implementation science clinical trial research methods have advanced substantially. Pragmatic and implementation studies have natural areas of overlap, particularly relating to the goal of using clinical trial data to leverage health care system policy changes. Few investigations have addressed pragmatic and implementation science randomized trial methods development while also considering policy impact. METHODS: The investigation used the PRagmatic Explanatory Continuum Indicator Summary-2 (PRECIS-2) and PRECIS-2-Provider Strategies (PRECIS-2-PS) tools to evaluate the design of two multisite randomized clinical trials that targeted patient-level effectiveness outcomes, provider-level practice changes and health care system policy. Seven raters received PRECIS-2 training and applied the tools in the coding of the two trials. Descriptive statistics were produced for both trials, and PRECIS-2 wheel diagrams were constructed. Interrater agreement was assessed with the Intraclass Correlation (ICC) and Kappa statistics. The Rapid Assessment Procedure Informed Clinical Ethnography (RAPICE) qualitative approach was applied to understanding integrative themes derived from the PRECIS-2 ratings and an end-of-study policy summit. RESULTS: The ICCs for the composite ratings across the patient and provider-focused PRECIS-2 domains ranged from 0.77 to 0.87, and the Kappa values ranged from 0.25 to 0.37, reflecting overall fair-to-good interrater agreement for both trials. All four PRECIS-2 wheels were rated more pragmatic than explanatory, with composite mean and median scores ≥ 4. Across trials, the primary intent-to-treat analysis domain was consistently rated most pragmatic (mean = 5.0, SD = 0), while the follow-up/data collection domain was rated most explanatory (mean range = 3.14-3.43, SD range = 0.49-0.69). RAPICE field notes identified themes related to potential PRECIS-2 training improvements, as well as policy themes related to using trial data to inform US trauma care system practice change; the policy themes were not captured by the PRECIS-2 ratings. CONCLUSIONS: The investigation documents that the PRECIS-2 and PRECIS-2-PS can be simultaneously used to feasibly and reliably characterize clinical trials with patient and provider-level targets. The integration of pragmatic and implementation science clinical trial research methods can be furthered by using common metrics such as the PRECIS-2 and PRECIS-2-PS. Future study could focus on clinical trial policy research methods development. TRIAL REGISTRATION: DO-SBIS ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00607620. registered on January 29, 2008. TSOS ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02655354, registered on July 27, 2015.

Disparities in the receipt of alcohol brief intervention: The intersectionality of sex, age, and race/ethnicity.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The increasing trend in alcohol consumption among women, exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic, is of growing concern. Screening, brief intervention, and referral to treatment in primary care is an efficacious and cost-effective treatment approach for unhealthy alcohol use. However, disparities exist in delivery of brief interventions by sex, age and race/ethnicity. This study measures brief intervention rates among eligible patients by sex, age and race/ethnicity and their intersectionality, in the context of a program of systematic alcohol screening and brief intervention program in adult primary care in a large, integrated health-care delivery system. DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: This was a population-based observational study among primary care clinics in an integrated health-care delivery system in Northern California, USA. The participants comprised adult (18+) patients (n = 287 551) screening positive for unhealthy alcohol use between January 2014 and December 2017. MEASUREMENTS: Receipt of brief intervention, patient and provider characteristics from electronic health records. FINDINGS: Multi-level logistic regression showed that women had lower odds of receiving brief intervention than men among all age, racial/ethnic groups and drinking levels. Sex differences were greater among those aged 35-49 years [odds ratio (OR) = 0.67, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.64, 0.69]) and 50-65 years (OR = 0.69, 95% CI =0.66, 0.72) than among other age groups. Sex differences in odds of receiving brief intervention were greater for the Latino/Hispanic group for women versus men (OR = 0.69, 95% CI = 0.66, 0.72) and smaller for the Asian/Pacific Islander group (OR = 0.76, 95% CI = 0.72, 0.81). CONCLUSION: In the United States, compared with men, women appear to have lower odds of receiving brief intervention for unhealthy alcohol use across all age groups, particularly during middle age. Black women and Latina/Hispanic women appear to be less likely to receive brief intervention than women in other race/ethnicity groups. Receipt of brief intervention does not appear to differ by drinking levels between men and women.

Midwives' knowledge and perceived barriers to screening alcohol use among pregnant women in a southwestern US state.

INTRODUCTION: Alcohol consumption during pregnancy can produce multiple damaging outcomes to the foetus, commonly referred to as fetal alcohol spectrum disorders (FASD). FASD represents the leading non-genetic cause of preventable birth defects in the United States where alcohol guidelines recommend pregnant woman abstain from alcohol use. This study examined: (i) midwives' knowledge, attitude and intent to screen for prenatal alcohol use; and (ii) assessed perceived barriers to communicating alcohol-related information. METHODS: Using an online questionnaire, data were obtained from midwives (n = 61) in a southwestern US state between March and May 2018. Descriptive statistics were used to describe midwives' knowledge, attitude, intent and perceived barriers. RESULTS: Several midwives considered one alcoholic beverage per occasion to be safe for the foetus (20.3%), some thought alcohol was safe during the 3rd trimester (14.8%) only and few thought it was safe in all trimesters. Many midwives (63.3%) were unaware that the TWEAK and T-ACE were validated alcohol screening tools for pregnant women. Furthermore, most midwives (>50%) agreed that limited time with patients, a need for additional training and lack of information on referral resources interfered with their sharing of alcohol abstinence guidelines. Midwives reported highly favourable attitudes and intentions toward sharing alcohol abstinence messages with their pregnant patients. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: More in-depth research and larger samples are needed to explore barriers (knowledge gaps, limited time with patients, need for additional training) that hinder midwives' dissemination of abstinence messages to pregnant women and limit the uptake of validated alcohol screening tools.

An Alcohol Symptom Checklist identifies high rates of alcohol use disorder in primary care patients who screen positive for depression and high-risk drinking.

BACKGROUND: Although alcohol use disorder can complicate depression management, there is no standard process for assessing AUD symptoms (i.e., AUD diagnostic criteria) in primary care for patients who screen positive for depression. This study characterizes the association between depressive symptoms and high-risk drinking reported by primary care patients on screening measures in routine care. Then, using data from a novel clinical program, this study characterizes the association between depressive symptoms and AUD symptoms reported by primary care patients with high-risk drinking via an Alcohol Symptom Checklist. METHODS: In this cross-sectional study, electronic health record data were obtained from patients who visited 33 Kaiser Permanente Washington primary care clinics between 03/2018 and 02/2020 and completed depression (PHQ-2) and alcohol consumption (AUDIT-C) screening measures as part of routine care (N = 369,943). Patients who reported high-risk drinking (AUDIT-C scores 7-12) also completed an Alcohol Symptom Checklist where they reported the presence or absence of 11 AUD criteria as defined by the DSM-5 (N = 8,184). Generalized linear models estimated and compared the prevalence of high-risk drinking (AUDIT-C scores 7-12) and probable AUD (2-11 AUD symptoms on Alcohol Symptom Checklists) for patients with and without positive depression screens. RESULTS: Patients who screened positive for depression had a 131% higher prevalence of high-risk drinking than those who screened negative (5.2% vs. 2.2%; p < 0.001). Among patients with high-risk drinking, positive depression screens were associated with a significantly higher prevalence of probable AUD (69.8% vs. 48.0%; p < 0.001), with large differences in the prevalence of probable AUD observed with increasing PHQ-2 scores (e.g., probable AUD prevalence of 37.6%, 55.3% and 65.2%, for PHQ-2 scores of 0, 1, and 2, respectively). Although the overall prevalence of high-risk drinking was higher for male patients, similar patterns of association between depression screens, high-risk drinking, and AUD symptoms were observed for male and female patients. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with positive depression screens are more likely to have high-risk drinking. Large percentages of patients with positive depression screens and high-risk drinking report symptoms consistent with AUD to healthcare providers when given the opportunity to do so using an Alcohol Symptom Checklist.

Predictors of alcohol screening quality in a US general population sample and subgroups of heavy drinkers.

Alcohol screening is one of the most cost-effective clinical preventive services and important for intervening in the development of alcohol problems. We examine predictors of the quality of alcohol screening, approximated by alcohol quantity screening, which is a prerequisite for appropriate counseling, and compare conventional regression approach with Classification and Regression Trees (CART). Data come from the 2020 National Alcohol Survey, a population survey of US adults aged 18 years and over. Analyses focus on those reporting any alcohol screening at all (N = 989). The primary outcome was whether a healthcare profession had ever asked how much they drink, which is necessary to identify heavy drinking. We examined 12 potential predictors of alcohol quantity: gender, age, race and ethnicity, education, marital status, having a usual source of primary care, insurance, and health conditions. Analyses were replicated in heavy episodic drinking (HED) and high intensity drinking (HID) subgroups, both warranting alcohol counseling. Logistic regression results show that having diabetes and not having a college degree predict missed alcohol quantity screening in the sample overall, and younger age predicts missed alcohol quantity screening in the HED/HID subgroups. CART identified Black and Hispanic respondents who had not attended college at high risk of missed screening for heavy drinking in the overall sample, and those with public insurance at high risk of missed screening for heavy drinking in the HED/HID subgroups. The quality of alcohol screening needs improvement in general, and to avoid unintended disparities in alcohol-related health services.

Predicting severe alcohol use disorders in primary care using number of heavy drinking days.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Although screening for unhealthy alcohol use is becoming more common, severe alcohol use disorders (AUDs) associated with the most severe medical and socio-economic sequelae still often go unidentified in primary care. To improve identification of severe AUDs and aid clinical decision-making, we aimed to identify a threshold of heavy drinking days (HDDs) associated with severe AUDs. DESIGN, SETTING AND CASES: This cohort study analyzed electronic health record data of 138 765 adults who reported ≥ 1 HDD (4+ drinks/occasion for women and men aged ≥ 65 years, 5+ for men aged 18-64 years) during a 3-month period at a routine alcohol screening in primary care in a large Northern California, USA health-care system from 2014 to 2017. Our sample was 66.5% male, 59.7% white, 11.0% Asian/Pacific Islander, 5.0% black, 17.4% Latino/Hispanic and 7.0% other/unknown race/ethnicity; the mean age was 40.6 years (standard deviation = 15.2). MEASUREMENTS: We compared sensitivity and specificity of different thresholds of the reported number of HDDs during a 3-month period for predicting severe AUD diagnoses in the following year, in the full sample and by sex and age. FINDINGS: The prevalence of severe AUD diagnoses in the year after the screening was 0.6%. The optimal threshold predicting future severe AUD diagnoses in the full sample was ≥ 5 HDDs during a 3-month period [sensitivity = 68.9%, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 65.9, 72.0; specificity = 63.2%, 95% CI = 62.9, 63.4], but varied by sex and age. Women had a lower threshold than men (4 versus 6 HDDs), which decreased as women aged (from 5 HDDs among 18-24 years to 4 HDDs ≥ 25 years), but increased as men aged (from 5 HDDs among 18-24 years to 6 HDDs among 25-64 years, to 7 HDDs ≥ 65 years). CONCLUSIONS: Five or more heavy drinking days in a 3-month period may indicate heightened risk of future severe alcohol use disorder in an adult primary care population. The optimal thresholds are lower for women than for men, and thresholds decrease as women age but increase as men age.

Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of face-to-face and electronic brief interventions versus screening alone to reduce alcohol consumption among high-risk adolescents presenting to emergency departments: three-arm pragmatic randomized trial (SIPS Junior high risk trial).

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Alcohol use increases throughout adolescence. Emergency department (ED) attendance is an opportunity for alcohol screening and brief intervention (ASBI), which is effective for adults. This trial evaluated the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of ASBI compared with screening alone (SA) in high-risk adolescents. DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Multi-centre, three-group, single-blind, individually randomized trial with follow-ups after 6 and 12 months in 10 ED settings in England. From October 2014 to May 2015 we screened 3327 adolescents aged 14 to 18 years, of whom 756 (22.7%) scored at least 3 on the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test: consumption (AUDIT-C) and consented to participate in this trial. Mean age was 16.1 years; 50.2% were female and 84.9% were white. INTERVENTIONS: Interventions were personalized feedback and brief advice (PFBA), personalized feedback plus electronic brief intervention (eBI) and SA. MEASURES: The primary outcome was the weekly alcohol consumed in standard UK units (8 g ethanol) at 12 months post-randomization, derived from extended AUDIT-C. Economic outcomes included quality of life and service use, from perspectives of both the National Health Service and personal social services (NHS&PSS) and society. FINDINGS: At 12 months, mean weekly consumption was 2.99 [95% confidence interval (CI) = 2.38-3.70] standard units for the SA group, 3.56 (95% CI = 2.90, 4.32) for PFBA and 3.18 (95% CI = 2.50, 3.97) for eBI, showing no significant differences. The PFBA group consumed mean 0.57 (-0.36, 1.70) units more than SA; and eBIs consumed 0.19 (-0.71, 1.30) more. Bayes factors suggested lack of effectiveness explained non-significance. From the NHS&PSS perspective, economic analysis showed that PFBA and eBI were not cost-effective compared with SA: PFBA yielded incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £6213 (-£736 843, £812 884), with the intervention having 54% probability of being cost-effective compared with SA at the £20 000 WTP threshold. CONCLUSIONS: In emergency departments in England, neither personalized feedback and brief advice nor personalized feedback plus electronic brief intervention showed evidence of being effective or cost-effective when compared with screening alone in reducing alcohol consumption among adolescents.

[Interest of the use of the "MYDEFI" smartphone application to help reduce alcohol consumption in the involvement of pharmacists in the prevention of at-risk consumption: Results of a survey in the Hauts-de-France]. / Intérêt de l'utilisation de l'application smartphone « MYDEFI ¼ d'aide à la réduction de la consommation d'alcool dans l'implication des pharmaciens dans la prévention de la consommation à risque : résultats d'une enquête dans les Hauts-de-France.

OBJECTIVES: Evaluate the interest in the MyDéfi application as a tool to help pharmacists identify and manage excessive alcohol consumption, as well as their perception and knowledge of alcohol and their possible role in its management. METHODS: Prospective mixed qualitative and quantitative study, based on face-to-face semi-directive interviews. RESULTS: The 101 pharmacists interviewed in Hauts-de-France region considered that the detection of alcohol consumption was part of their mission, even if it is a difficult subject, and that they had received specific training in alcohology during their university training. Only 12% were aware of early screening and brief intervention on alcohol. Several obstacles were mentioned, such as the lack of training and confidentiality, and difficulties related to patient specificities. Forty-one percent said that the pharmacy was not suitable and almost 72% said that the MyDéfi application could be useful for screening and 91% would recommend the application as one of the best supports, easy to advise with a personalised follow-up. For 32%, the application is accessible to patients (40% think that the main drawback of the application is inaccessibility and 27% its cost). CONCLUSION: Pharmacists consider that excessive alcohol use is a major problem that should mobilise them but many do not feel ready to offer brief interventions. After seeing how the MyDéfi application worked, the majority considered that it could help them in their prevention mission.

Effects of service-wide support on regularity of alcohol screening of clients in Australian Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Community Controlled Health Services: a cluster randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: We have previously shown that service-wide support can increase the odds of alcohol screening in any 2-month period in a cluster randomized trial of service-wide support to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Community Controlled Health Services (ACCHS). Here we report an exploratory analysis on whether the resulting pattern of screening was appropriate. AIM: we assess whether that increase in screening was associated with: (i) increased first-time screening, (ii) increased annual screening, (iii) whether frequently screened clients fell into one of four risk categories as defined by national guidelines. METHODS: Setting and participants: 22 ACCHS; randomized to receive the support model in the treatment ('early-support') arm over 24-months or to the waitlist control arm. INTERVENTION: eight-component support, including training, sharing of experience, audit-and-feedback and resource support. ANALYSIS: records of clients with visits before and after start of implementation were included. Multilevel logistic modelling was used to compare (i) the odds of previously unscreened clients receiving an AUDIT-C screen, (ii) odds of clients being screened with AUDIT-C at least once annually. We describe the characteristics of a sub-cohort of clients who received four or more screens annually, including if they were in a high-risk category. RESULTS: Of the original trial sample, 43,054 met inclusion criteria, accounting for 81.7% of the screening events in the overall trial. The support did not significantly increase the odds of first-time screening (OR = 1.33, 95% CI 0.81-2.18, p = 0.25) or of annual screening (OR = 0.99, 95% CI 0.42-2.37, p = 0.98). Screening more than once annually occurred in 6240 clients. Of the 841 clients with four or more screens annually, over 50% did not fall into a high-risk category. Females were overrepresented. More males than females fell into high-risk categories. CONCLUSION: The significant increase in odds of screening observed in the main trial did not translate to significant improvement in first-time or annual screening following implementation of support. This appeared to be due to some clients being screened more frequently than annually, while more than half remained unscreened. Further strategies to improve alcohol screening should focus on appropriate screening regularity as well as overall rates, to ensure clinically useful information about alcohol consumption. Trial Registration ACTRN12618001892202, retrospectively registered 16 November 2018 https://anzctr.org.au/Trial/Registration/TrialReview.aspx?ACTRN=12618001892202 .

Alcohol Screening During US Primary Care Visits, 2014-2016.

BACKGROUND: Unhealthy alcohol use is a significant health issue for the US population. The US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommends screening adults 18 years or older for unhealthy alcohol use during primary care visits. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate alcohol screening among ambulatory visits made by US adult primary care patients and identify characteristics predictive of alcohol screening. DESIGN: A series of cross-sectional analysis of the National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (NAMCS) data collected from 2014 to 2016 was used to examine US primary care providers' use of alcohol screening questionnaires and delivery of counseling on alcohol use. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 19,213 visits made by patients aged 18 years or older to a US primary care physician trained in family medicine or internal medicine. MAIN MEASURES: Administration of a validated alcohol screening questionnaire and counseling/education on alcohol use. Variation in alcohol screening by patient demographic characteristics, reason for office visit, length of office visit, chronic medical conditions, evaluation by assigned primary care physician, new patient to practice, and region. KEY RESULTS: Alcohol screening with a validated questionnaire occurred during 2.6% (95% Cl: 0.9%, 4.3%) of visits. Alcohol counseling, provided either by the physician or by referral, was documented in 0.8% (95% Cl: 0.3%, 1.3%) of visits. Screening was significantly more likely if patients were seen by their assigned primary care physician (adjOR 4.38 (95% Cl: 1.41, 13.61)), a new patient to the practice (adjOR 4.18 (95% Cl: 2.30, 7.79)), or had several chronic medical conditions (adjOR 3.40 (95% Cl: 1.48, 7.78)). Patients' sex, race/ethnicity, age group, or length of appointment time was not associated with screening for unhealthy alcohol use. CONCLUSIONS: Screening for unhealthy alcohol use using a validated questionnaire is uncommonly performed during US primary care visits. Interventions or incentives may be needed to increase uptake of USPSTF alcohol screening recommendations.