The Cochrane 2018 Review on Brief Interventions in Primary Care for Hazardous and Harmful Alcohol Consumption: A Distillation for Clinicians and Policy Makers.

AIMS: An updated Cochrane systematic review assessed effectiveness of screening and brief intervention to reduce hazardous or harmful alcohol consumption in general practice or emergency care settings. This paper summarises the implications of the review for clinicians. METHODS: Cochrane methods were followed. Reporting accords with PRISMA guidance. We searched multiple resources to September 2017, seeking randomised controlled trials 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. 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 min. Our primary outcome was alcohol consumption, measured as or convertible to grams per week. We conducted meta-analyses to assess change in consumption, and subgroup analyses to explore the impact of participant and intervention characteristics. RESULTS: We included 69 studies, of which 42 were added for this update. Most studies (88%) compared brief intervention to control. The primary meta-analysis included 34 studies and provided moderate-quality evidence that brief intervention reduced consumption compared to control after one year (mean difference -20 g/wk, 95% confidence interval -28 to -12). Subgroup analysis showed a similar effect for men and women. CONCLUSIONS: Brief interventions can reduce harmful and hazardous alcohol consumption in men and women. Short, advice-based interventions may be as effective as extended, counselling-based interventions for patients with harmful levels of alcohol use who are presenting for the first time in a primary care setting.

Effectiveness of brief alcohol interventions in primary care populations.

BACKGROUND: Many trials reported that brief interventions are effective in reducing excessive drinking. However, some trials have been criticised for being clinically unrepresentative and unable to inform clinical practice. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of brief intervention, delivered in general practice or based primary care, to reduce alcohol consumption SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Drug and Alcohol Group specialised register (February 2006), MEDLINE (1966 to February 2006), EMBASE (1980 to February 2006), CINAHL (1982 to February 2006), PsycINFO (1840 to February 2006), Science Citation Index (1970 to February 2006), Social Science Citation Index (1970 to February 2006), Alcohol and Alcohol Problems Science Database (1972 to 2003), reference lists of articles. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials, patients presenting to primary care not specifically for alcohol treatment; brief intervention of up to four sessions. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently abstracted data and assessed trial quality. Random effects meta-analyses, sub-group, sensitivity analyses, and meta-regression were conducted. MAIN RESULTS: The meta-analysis included 21 RCTs (7,286 participants), showing that participants receiving brief intervention reduced their alcohol consumption compared to the control group (mean difference: -41 grams/week, 95% CI: -57 to -25), although there was substantial heterogeneity between trials (I2 = 52%). Sub-group analysis (8 studies, 2307 participants) confirmed the benefit of brief intervention in men (mean difference: -57 grams/week, 95% CI: -89 to -25, I2 = 56%), but not in women (mean difference: -10 grams/week, 95% CI: -48 to 29, I2 = 45%). Meta-regression showed a non-significant trend of an increased reduction in alcohol consumption of 1.1, 95%CI: -0.05 to 2.2 grams/week, p=0.06, for each extra minute of treatment exposure, but no relationship between the reduction in alcohol consumption and the efficacy score of the trial. Extended intervention when compared with brief intervention was associated with a non-significantly greater reduction in alcohol consumption (mean difference = -28, 95%CI: -62 to 6 grams/week, I2 = 0%) AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Brief interventions consistently produced reductions in alcohol consumption. When data were available by gender, the effect was clear in men at one year of follow up, but unproven in women. Longer duration of counselling probably has little additional effect. The lack of differences in outcomes between efficacy and effectiveness trials suggests that the current literature had clear relevance to routine primary care. Future trials should focus on women and on delineating the most effective components of interventions.

'So much post, so busy with practice--so, no time!': a telephone survey of general practitioners' reasons for not participating in postal questionnaire surveys.

BACKGROUND: Response rates by general practitioners (GPs) to postal surveys have consistently fallen, compromising the validity of this type of research. If postal survey work is to continue we need to understand GPs' reasons for not participating and respond appropriately. AIM: To investigate GPs' reasons for not responding to postal surveys. METHOD: A qualitative study was carried out to determine GPs reasons for not participating in postal surveys, which were drawn from a telephone survey of 276 non-responders to a postal questionnaire survey. Practitioners' comments were recorded and reasons for their non-response quantified using content analysis. RESULTS: Primary reasons for GPs not replying to the postal survey were that questionnaires had got lost in paperwork (34%), that GPs were too busy for the extra work involved (21%), and that questionnaires were routinely 'binned' (16%). Higher practice workloads, including increased administration, meant that participation in research had become a low priority. GPs provided some suggestions for researchers that would increase their chances of questionnaires being returned. CONCLUSIONS: Researchers need to be aware of the pressures of service general practice and to rationalize the amount of research material sent to GPs. GPs were most likely to respond to postal surveys that had a high interest factor, that involved localized research relevant to general practice, and that incorporated a personalized approach by researchers, including good-quality explanatory information.

Patient and practitioner characteristics predict brief alcohol intervention in primary care.

BACKGROUND: The effectiveness of an evidence-based health care intervention depends on it being delivered consistently to appropriate patients. Brief alcohol intervention is known to be effective at reducing excessive drinking and its concomitant health and social problems. However, a recent implementation trial reported partial delivery of brief alcohol intervention by general practitioners (GPs) which is likely to have reduced its impact. AIM: To investigate patient-practitioner characteristics influencing brief alcohol intervention in primary care. DESIGN OF STUDY: Cross-sectional analysis of 12,814 completed Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT) screening questionnaires. SETTING: Eighty-four GPs who had implemented a brief alcohol intervention programme in a previous trial based in the Northeast of England. METHOD: GPs were requested to screen all adults (aged over 16 years) presenting to their surgery and follow a structured protocol to give a brief intervention (five minutes of advice plus an information booklet) to all 'risk' drinkers. Anonymized carbon copies of the screening questionnaire were collected from all practices after a three-month implementation period. RESULTS: Although AUDIT identified 4080 'risk' drinkers, only 2043 (50%) received brief intervention. Risk drinkers that were most likely to receive brief intervention were males (58%), unemployed (61%), and technically-trained patients (55%). Risk drinkers that were least likely to receive brief intervention were females (44%), students (38%), and university educated patients (46%). Logistic regression modelling showed that patients' risk status was the most influential predictor of brief intervention. Also, GPs' experience of relevant training and longer average practice consultations predicted brief intervention. However, personal characteristics relating to patients and GPs also predicted brief intervention in routine practice. CONCLUSION: Interpersonal factors relating to patients and practitioners contributed to the selective provision of brief alcohol intervention in primary care. Ways should be found to remedy this situation or the impact of this evidence-based intervention may be reduced when implemented in routine practice.

Changes in receptionists' attitudes towards involvement in a general practice-based trial of screening and brief alcohol intervention.

BACKGROUND: Primary health care receptionists are increasingly expected to be involved in research. However, little is known about receptionists' attitudes to research or health programmes. AIM: To examine changes in receptionists' attitudes, with different levels of training and support, towards involvement in a general practice-based trial of screening and brief alcohol intervention. METHOD: Subjects were 84 receptionists, one per practice, who assisted in the implementation of a screening and brief alcohol intervention programme. Receptionists were randomly assigned to one of three conditions: control (no training or support), training alone, and training plus ongoing telephone support. Baseline and follow-up questionnaires were used to assess changes in receptionists' attitudes. RESULTS: Of 40 items that measured receptionists' attitudes to involvement in the programme, 70% had deteriorated after three months, 20% significantly so. There was no effect of training and support condition. Receptionists' and GPs' attitudes to research and health programmes conflicted. CONCLUSION: Receptionists developed more negative views about involvement in research and health programmes over the three-month study period, regardless of level of training and support.

Our Healthier Nation: are general practitioners willing and able to deliver? A survey of attitudes to and involvement in health promotion and lifestyle counselling.

BACKGROUND: The recent Green Paper, Our Healthier Nation, identifies professional advice on healthier living as a key component of its national contract for health. General practitioners (GPs) are ideally placed for this work. However, previous research has reported a discrepancy between patients' expectations of lifestyle advice from GPs and their receipt of such advice. AIMS: To describe GPs' current attitudes to and involvement in health promotion and lifestyle counselling, and to track changes in these areas over recent years. METHOD: A postal questionnaire survey of a random sample of 430 GPs, one per practice, from all general practices in Leicestershire, Derbyshire, and Nottinghamshire. GPs who had not responded after two weeks received a reminder telephone call plus two follow-up questionnaires. RESULTS: Four hundred and eleven GPs were eligible for the survey, which yielded a response rate of 68% (n = 279). GPs reported spending an average 16% of practice time on prevention and 79% reported educating patients about lifestyle risk 'most' or 'all of the time'. Solo GPs spent more time on prevention than GPs from group practices. Most enquiries and interventions related to smoking behaviour. GPs felt most effective in changing patients' use of prescription drugs, and the largest reported difference between current and potential effectiveness in helping patient change lifestyle behaviour, after information and training, related to reducing alcohol consumption. CONCLUSIONS: Despite an increasing workload, GPs remain positive about health promotion and lifestyle counselling. Over the past 10 years, there has been an increase in routine enquiries about lifestyle behaviour, but confidence about effectiveness in helping patients changes lifestyle behaviour remains low. More training and support concerning lifestyle intervention is required by GPs in order for them to contribute effectively to the Government's health promotion programme.

A randomized trial of three marketing strategies to disseminate a screening and brief alcohol intervention programme to general practitioners.

BACKGROUND: Research findings are of little benefit to patients or society if they do not reach the audience they are intended to influence. A dissemination strategy is needed to target new findings at its user group and encourage a process of consideration and adoption or rejection. AIM: To evaluate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of different marketing strategies for the dissemination of a screening and brief alcohol intervention (SBI) programme to general practitioners (GPs). METHOD: Seven hundred and twenty-nine GPs, one per practice, from the former Northern and Yorkshire Regional Health Authority were randomly assigned to one of three marketing strategies: postal marketing (mailing a promotional brochure to GPs), telemarketing (following a script to market the programme over the telephone), and personal marketing (following the same script during face-to-face marketing at GPs' practices). GPs who took up the programme were asked if they would agree to use it. Outcome measures included the proportions of GPs who took up the programme and agreement to use it. RESULTS: Of the 614 GPs eligible for the study, 321 (52%) took the programme. There was a significant difference in the proportions of GPs from the three marketing strategies who took the programme (82% telemarketing, 68% personal marketing, and 22% postal marketing). Of the 315 GPs who took the programme and were eligible to use it, 128 (41%) agreed to use the programme for three months. GPs in the postal marketing group were more likely to agree to use the programme (55% postal marketing, 44% personal marketing, and 34% telemarketing). Personal marketing was the most effective overall dissemination strategy; however, economic analysis revealed that telemarketing was the most cost-effective strategy. Costs for dissemination per GP were: 13 Pounds telemarketing, 15 Pounds postal marketing, and 88 Pounds personal marketing. CONCLUSION: Telemarketing appeared to be the most cost-effective strategy for dissemination of SBI to GPs.

A RCT of three training and support strategies to encourage implementation of screening and brief alcohol intervention by general practitioners.

BACKGROUND: Providing doctors with new research findings or clinical guidelines is rarely sufficient to promote changes in clinical practice. An implementation strategy is required to provide clinicians with the skills and encouragement needed to alter established routines. AIM: To evaluate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of different training and support strategies in promoting implementation of screening and brief alcohol intervention (SBI) by general practitioners (GPs). METHOD: Subjects were 128 GPs, one per practice, from the former Northern and Yorkshire Regional Health Authority, who agreed to use the 'Drink-Less' SBI programme in an earlier dissemination trial. GPs were stratified by previous marketing conditions and randomly allocated to three intensities of training and support: controls (n = 43) received the programme with written guidelines only, trained GPs (n = 43) received the programme plus practice-based training in programme usage, trained and supported GPs (n = 42) received the programme plus practice-based training and a support telephone call every two weeks. GPs were requested to use the programme for three months. Outcome measures included proportions of GPs implementing the programme and numbers of patients screened and intervened with. RESULTS: Seventy-three (57%) GPs implemented the programme and screened 11,007 patients for risk drinking. Trained and supported GPs were significantly more likely to implement the programme (71%) than controls (44%) or trained GPs (56%); they also screened, and intervened with, significantly more patients. Costs per patient screened were: trained and supported GPs, 1.05 Pounds; trained GPs, 1.08 Pounds; and controls, 1.47 Pounds. Costs per patient intervened with were: trained and supported GPs, 5.43 Pounds; trained GPs, 6.02 Pounds; and controls, 8.19 Pounds. CONCLUSION: Practice-based training plus support telephone calls was the most effective and cost-effective strategy to encourage implementation of SBI by GPs.

Impact of alcohol education and training on general practitioners' diagnostic and management skills: findings from a World Health Organization collaborative study.

OBJECTIVE: The potential of general practitioners (GPs) to reduce the prevalence of alcohol-related problems via alcohol intervention contrasts sharply with actual practice. One explanation for GPs' limited involvement in alcohol intervention is that they have had inadequate training or continuing medical education (CME) on alcohol-related issues. This study examined GPs' experience of alcohol-related CME and its possible relationship with attitudes and practice behavior regarding alcohol-related problems. METHOD: A questionnaire-based survey was returned by 2,139 GPs from 13 countries across Western and Eastern Europe. North America and Australasia. Diagnostic and management skills were assessed by responses to standardized case vignettes. RESULTS: The survey response rate was 54%. Approximately one third of GPs (32%) reported receiving no alcohol-related CME, while 8% could not remember whether or not they had received any such training or education. Of the remaining GPs (n = 1,217), 23% reported less than 4 hours (low levels) and 37% reported 4 or more hours (high levels) of alcohol-related CME. GPs who reported higher levels of alcohol-related CME were more likely to obtain information about alcohol, were more prepared to counsel problem drinkers and managed more patients for alcohol issues than did colleagues reporting lower levels of CME. Those with greater CME experience were also more confident about their ability to alleviate alcohol-related problems and reported more appropriate management strategies than did GPs with less CME experience. CONCLUSIONS: Greater exposure to alcohol-related CME appears to result in better diagnosis and more appropriate management of alcohol-related problems by GPs. Whether this is directly due to the CME itself or because GPs with greater interest in alcohol issues seek out such experience cannot be ascertained from the current study and requires further investigation.

Use of marketing to disseminate brief alcohol intervention to general practitioners: promoting health care interventions to health promoters.

Health research findings are of little benefit to patients or society if they do not reach the audience they are intended to influence. Thus, a dissemination strategy is needed to target new findings at its user group and encourage a process of consideration and adoption or rejection. Social marketing techniques can be utilized to aid successful dissemination of research findings and to speed the process by which new information reaches practice. Principles of social marketing include manipulating the marketing mix of product, price, place and promotion. This paper describes the development of a marketing approach and the outcomes from a trial evaluating the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of manipulating promotional strategies to disseminate actively a screening and brief alcohol intervention (SBI) programme to general practitioners (GPs). The promotional strategies consisted of postal marketing, telemarketing and personal marketing. The study took place in general practices across the Northern and Yorkshire Regional Health Authority. Of the 614 GPs eligible for the study, one per practice, 321 (52%) took the programme and of those available to use it for 3 months (315), 128 (41%) actively considered doing so, 73 (23%) actually went on to use it. Analysis of the specific impact of the three different promotional strategies revealed that while personal marketing was the most effective overall dissemination and implementation strategy, telemarketing was more cost-effective. The findings of our work show that using a marketing approach is promising for conveying research findings to GPs and in particular a focus on promotional strategies can facilitate high levels of uptake and consideration in this target group.

General practice postal surveys: a questionnaire too far?

A primary care led NHS, driven by evidence based practice, needs to build on a firm foundation of research in primary care. As researchers are making increasing use of questionnaire surveys to assess general practitioners' views and attitudes, so response rates to questionnaire surveys among general practitioners are dropping. The reasons include lack of perceived relevance of the research and lack of information and feedback about it, and researchers need to be more aware of the realities of everyday practice. Approaches that might reverse this trend include monitoring all research activities going on in an area to ensure that practices are not overused, giving general practitioners incentives to participate, and improving the relevance of research and the quality of questionnaires.

Qualitative methods in a randomised controlled trial: the role of an integrated qualitative process evaluation in providing evidence to discontinue the intervention in one arm of a trial of a decision support tool.

OBJECTIVE: To understand participants' experiences and understandings of the interventions in the trial of a computerised decision support tool in patients with atrial fibrillation being considered for anti-coagulation treatment. DESIGN: Qualitative process evaluation carried out alongside the trial: non-participant observation and semistructured interviews. PARTICIPANTS: 30 participants aged >60 years taking part in the trial of a computerised decision support tool. RESULTS: Qualitative evidence provided the rationale to undertake a decision to discontinue one arm of the trial on the basis that the intervention in that arm, a standard gamble values elicitation exercise was causing confusion and was unlikely to produce valid data on participant values. CONCLUSIONS: Qualitative methods used alongside a trial allow an understanding of the process and progress of a trial, and provide evidence to intervene in the trial if necessary, including evidence for the rationale to discontinue an intervention arm of the trial.

Intervention for excessive alcohol consumption in primary health care: attitudes and practices of English general practitioners.

General practitioners' (GPs') recognition of, attitudes towards, and intervention for, excessive drinking and alcohol problems among their patients were assessed in a postal questionnaire survey. Levels of recognition of, and intervention for, excessive drinking by GPs were low. GPs did not routinely enquire about alcohol and had managed only small numbers of patients specifically for excessive drinking or alcohol problems in the previous year. Enquiry about alcohol issues was elicited mainly by physical symptoms or by new patient registrations. Although 83% of GPs felt prepared to counsel excessive drinkers, only 21% felt effective in helping patients reduce consumption. Over the past 10 years, there appears to have been an increase in numbers of GPs who feel that they should be working with alcohol issues, but fewer GPs perceive themselves as being effective in this work. The main barriers to brief alcohol intervention were given as insufficient time and training, and lack of help from government policy; the main incentives related to availability of appropriate support services and proven efficacy of brief interventions.