Development and differentiability of three brief interventions for risky alcohol use that include varying doses of motivational interviewing.

BACKGROUND: While brief intervention (BI) for risky alcohol use generally yields positive effects among those identified by screening, effect sizes are small and there is unexplained heterogeneity in outcome. The heterogeneity may be related to differences in intervention style and content, including elements of motivational interviewing (MI). To date, it has been difficult to interpret the role of MI in BI and these gaps in knowledge interfere with efforts to train, disseminate and implement BI that retains and maximizes efficacy. This study sought to develop BI protocols with varying doses of MI and test their differentiability. Differentiable BI protocols could allow for future studies that prospectively evaluate the role MI plays in affecting BI outcome. METHODS: We developed three intervention protocols: brief advice, standard BI (NIAAA Clinician's Guide), and MI-enhanced BI and administered them to 45 primary care patients who reported exceeding recommended drinking limits. We then rated the BI sessions for fidelity to the assigned protocol as well as MI consistency based on Motivational Interviewing Treatment Integrity (MITI) scale scores. The differentiability of BI protocols was determined by calculating fidelity to assigned protocols and comparing MITI scores using pairwise, Tukey-adjusted comparisons of least squares mean scores. RESULTS: High rates of fidelity to each protocol were achieved. The three BI protocols were also highly differentiable based on MITI scores. CONCLUSIONS: The three interventions can be used in future trials to prospectively examine the role MI has in determining BI outcome. Trial registration clinicaltrials.gov NCT02978027, retrospectively registered 11/28/16.

Prospective, Randomized, Surgeon-Blinded Comparison of Standard Magnification Assumption vs Magnification Marker Usage for Preoperative Templating in Total Hip Arthroplasty.

BACKGROUND: We undertook this prospective, randomized, surgeon-blinded study to compare the accuracy of using of a magnification marker on preoperative radiographs for templating vs using a standard 21% magnification. METHODS: One hundred consecutive total hip arthroplasties were randomized to preoperative templating using a 25-mm magnification marker (50 patients) or a standard 21% magnification (50 patients). Intraoperative data were collected regarding the actual and predicted size of the femoral and acetabular components. RESULTS: The 2 groups were found to be comparable with respect to body mass index (28.9 vs 27.9, P = .26) and gender (P = .69). In the magnification marker group, we predicted the femoral size within 1 size in 80% of the cases and the acetabular component in 94%. In the group of a standard 21% magnification, we predicted the femoral size within 1 size in 90% of the cases and the acetabular component in 96%. These proportions did not statistically differ (femur: χ2P = .16, odds ratio = 2.3, 95% confidence interval = 0.7-7.1; acetabulum: χ2P = .65, odds ratio = 1.5, 95% confidence interval = 0.3-9.6). CONCLUSION: We did not detect a statistically significant difference in accuracy by using one method over the other when comparing the accuracy of component size selection. As the use of the magnification marker adds to the time and expense of preoperative radiographic acquisition, we feel using a standard 21% magnification is an equally accurate technique.