The Variability of Outcomes Used in Efficacy and Effectiveness Trials of Alcohol Brief Interventions: A Systematic Review.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to characterize recent alcohol brief intervention (ABI) efficacy and effectiveness trials, summarize outcomes, and show how variability in outcomes and reporting compromises the evidence base. METHOD: A systematic review and narrative synthesis of articles from 10 databases were undertaken (January 2000-November 2017); study selection represented recent, readily available publications. The National Institute of Care Excellence (NICE) Public Health Guideline 24 (Alcohol use disorders: prevention) informed ABI definitions. The review was conducted using Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (CRD) guidance and pre-registered on PROSPERO (CRD42016047185). Seven a priori specified domains were used to classify outcomes: biomarkers, alcohol-related outcomes, economic factors/resource use, health measures, life impact, intervention factors, and psychological/behavioral factors. RESULTS: The search identified 405 trials from 401 eligible papers. In 405 trials, 2,641 separate outcomes were measured in approximately 1,560 different ways. The most common outcomes used were the number of drinks consumed in a week and frequency of heavy episodic drinking. Biomarkers were least frequently used. The most common primary outcome was weekly drinks. By trial type, the most frequent outcome in efficacy and effectiveness trials was frequency of heavy drinking. CONCLUSIONS: Consumption outcomes predominated; however, no single outcome was found in all trials. This comprehensive outcome map and methodological detail on ABI effectiveness and efficacy trials can aid decision making in future trials. There was a diversity of instruments, time points, and outcome descriptions in methods and results sections. Compliance with reporting guidance would support data synthesis and improve trial quality. This review establishes the need for a core outcome set (COS)/minimum data standard and supports the Outcome Reporting in Brief Interventions: Alcohol initiative (ORBITAL) to improve standards in the ABI field through a COS for effectiveness and efficacy randomized trials.

A Systematic Review of the Efficacy of Alcohol Interventions for Incarcerated People.

AIM: The aim of this current study was to systematically review the literature on brief alcohol interventions for incarcerated individuals to ascertain the efficacy or effectiveness in making changes to either consumption of alcohol or other social outcomes. SHORT SUMMARY: Levels of risky drinking and dependency are high amongst incarcerated individuals. Eleven studies from nine articles were included in the systematic review. Six of the studies included brief intervention and three extended interventions. Interventions have the potential to positively impact on risky drinking. More studies are needed in this setting. INTRODUCTION: It has been shown that around three times as many incarcerated individuals are risky drinkers and alcohol dependency is ten times higher than in the general population. METHODS: Systematic review of randomised controlled trials or matched group trials of the efficacy of psychosocial alcohol interventions for incarcerated individuals: we searched seven databases, with no restrictions on language, year or location from inception through to August 2017. The Critical Appraisal Skills Programme tool was used to assess the quality of included studies. The Template for Intervention Description and Replication checklist was used to ascertain intervention descriptions. RESULTS: Nine studies from 11 papers were included in the analysis. Six of the studies included brief interventions and three extended interventions. Every study used a different measure of alcohol consumption. Three of the studies that looked at brief interventions and all of the three extended intervention studies found significant reductions in relation to alcohol outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Results show that interventions in the prison setting have the potential to positively impact on alcohol use; however, because of small numbers and the use of different outcome measures we could not conduct a meta-analysis or generalise findings. Future studies are needed to standardise approaches to ensure greater rigour and efficacy.