Brief interventions for smoking and alcohol associated with the COVID-19 pandemic: a population survey in England.

BACKGROUND: Following the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, in March 2020 health care delivery underwent considerable changes. It is unclear how this may have affected the delivery of Brief Interventions (BIs) for smoking and alcohol. We examined the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the receipt of BIs for smoking and alcohol in primary care in England and whether certain priority groups (e.g., less advantaged socioeconomic positions, or a history of a mental health condition) were differentially affected. METHODS: We used nationally representative data from a monthly cross-sectional survey in England between 03/2014 and 06/2022. Monthly trends in the receipt of BIs for smoking and alcohol were examined using generalised additive models among adults who smoked in the past-year (weighted N = 31,390) and those using alcohol at increasing and higher risk levels (AUDIT score 38, weighted N = 22,386), respectively. Interactions were tested between social grade and the change in slope after the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, and results reported stratified by social grade. Further logistic regression models assessed whether changes in the of receipt of BIs for smoking and alcohol, respectively, from 12/2016 to 01/2017 and 10/2020 to 06/2022 (or 03/2022 in the case of BIs for alcohol), depended on history of a mental health condition. RESULTS: The receipt of smoking BIs declined from an average prevalence of 31.8% (95%CI 29.4-35.0) pre-March 2020 to 24.4% (95%CI 23.5-25.4) post-March 2020. The best-fitting model found that after March 2020 there was a 12-month decline before stabilising by June 2022 in social grade ABC1 at a lower level (~ 20%) and rebounding among social grade C2DE (~ 27%). Receipt of BIs for alcohol was low (overall: 4.1%, 95%CI 3.9-4.4) and the prevalence was similar pre- and post-March 2020. CONCLUSIONS: The receipt of BIs for smoking declined following March 2020 but rebounded among priority socioeconomic groups of people who smoked. BIs for alcohol among those who use alcohol at increasing and higher risk levels were low and there was no appreciable change over time. Maintaining higher BI delivery among socioeconomic and mental health priority groups of smokers and increasing and higher risk alcohol users is important to support reductions in smoking and alcohol related inequalities.

Evaluating the Acceptability of the Drink Less App and the National Health Service Alcohol Advice Web Page: Qualitative Interview Process Evaluation.

BACKGROUND: The extent to which interventions are perceived as acceptable to users impacts engagement and efficacy. OBJECTIVE: In this study, we evaluated the acceptability of (1) the smartphone app Drink Less (intervention) and (2) the National Health Service (NHS) alcohol advice web page (usual digital care and comparator) among adult drinkers in the United Kingdom participating in a randomized controlled trial evaluating the effectiveness of the Drink Less app. METHODS: A subsample of 26 increasing- and higher-risk drinkers (Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test score≥8) assigned to the intervention group (Drink Less; n=14, 54%; female: n=10, 71%; age: 22-72 years; White: n=9, 64%) or usual digital care group (NHS alcohol advice web page; n=12, 46%; female: n=5, 42%; age: 23-68 years: White: n=9, 75%) took part in semistructured interviews. The interview questions were mapped on to the 7 facets of acceptability according to the Theoretical Framework of Acceptability: affective attitude, burden, perceived effectiveness, ethicality, intervention coherence, opportunity costs, and self-efficacy. Alongside these constructs, we also included a question on perceived personal relevance, which previous research has linked to acceptability and engagement. Framework and thematic analysis of data was undertaken. RESULTS: The Drink Less app was perceived as being ethical, easy, user-friendly, and effective for the period the app was used. Participants reported particularly liking the tracking and feedback sections of the app, which they reported increased personal relevance and which resulted in positive affect when achieving their goals. They reported no opportunity cost. Factors such as negative affect when not meeting goals and boredom led to disengagement in the longer term for some participants. The NHS alcohol advice web page was rated as being easy and user-friendly with no opportunity costs. However, the information presented was not perceived as being personally relevant or effective in changing drinking behavior. Most participants reported neutral or negative affect, most participants thought the alcohol advice web page was accessible, and some participants reported ethical concerns around the availability of suggested resources. Some participants reported that it had acted as a starting point or a signpost to other resources. Participants in both groups discussed motivation to change and contextual factors such as COVID-19 lockdowns, which influenced their perceived self-efficacy regardless of their assigned intervention. CONCLUSIONS: Drink Less appears to be an acceptable digital intervention among the recruited sample. The NHS alcohol advice web page was generally considered unacceptable as a stand-alone intervention among the recruited sample, although it may signpost and help people access other resources and interventions.

Who would be affected by a ban on disposable vapes? A population study in Great Britain.

OBJECTIVES: The UK government is consulting on banning disposable e-cigarettes. This study aimed to describe trends in disposable e-cigarette use among adults in Great Britain since 2021 and establish who would currently be affected by a ban on disposables. STUDY DESIGN: Nationally-representative monthly cross-sectional survey. METHODS: We analysed data from 69,973 adults surveyed between January 2021 and August 2023. We estimated monthly time trends in the weighted prevalence of current disposable e-cigarette use among adults and by sociodemographic characteristics and smoking status. RESULTS: From January 2021 to August 2023, the prevalence of disposable e-cigarette use grew from 0.1 % to 4.9 %. This rise was observed across all population subgroups but was most pronounced among younger adults (e.g. reaching 15.9 % of 18-year-olds compared with 1.3 % of 65-year-olds), those who currently smoke (16.3 %), and those who stopped smoking in the past year (18.2 %). Use among never smokers remained relatively rare (1.5 %), except among 18- to 24-year-olds (7.1 %). Use was significantly higher in England than Wales or Scotland (5.3 % vs. 2.0 % and 2.8 %) and among less (vs. more) advantaged social grades (6.1 % vs. 4.0 %), those with (vs. without) children (6.4 % vs. 4.4 %), and those with (vs. without) a history of mental health conditions (9.3 % vs. 3.1 %). CONCLUSIONS: A ban on disposable e-cigarettes would currently affect one in 20 adults in Great Britain (approximately 2.6 million people). The proportion who would be affected would be greatest among young people, including the 316,000 18-24 year-olds who currently use disposables but who have never regularly smoked tobacco, which may discourage uptake of vaping in this group. However, a ban would also affect 1.2 million people who currently smoke and a further 744,000 who previously smoked. It would also have a disproportionate impact on disadvantaged groups that have higher rates of smoking and typically find it harder to quit.

Trends in purchasing cross-border, illicit and home-brewed alcohol: A population study in Great Britain, 2020-2023.

INTRODUCTION: The last 3 years have seen substantial changes in Great Britain (GB) including the COVID-19 pandemic, cost-of-living crisis and policy changes such as minimum unit pricing. We examined changes in purchasing cross-border, illicit and home-brewed alcohol among risky drinkers over this period. METHODS: Data were used from 22,086 adult (≥18 years) increasing/higher-risk drinkers (AUDIT-C ≥5) participating in a monthly cross-sectional survey between October 2020 and August 2023. We estimated time trends in the proportion reporting obtaining alcohol from: (i) cross-border (any/within-GB/international); (ii) illicit; and (iii) home-brewed sources in the past 6 months. RESULTS: Between October 2020 and August 2023, the proportion reporting cross-border alcohol purchases increased (from 8.5% to 12.5% overall; prevalence ratio [PR] = 1.47 [95% CI 1.17-1.86]). This was largely driven by an increase in cross-border purchases abroad (PR = 1.52 [1.13-2.05]), with a smaller, uncertain increase in cross-border purchases within GB (PR = 1.37 [0.96-1.95]). The prevalence of cross-border alcohol purchasing was higher in Wales (13.8% [12.3-15.4%]) and Scotland (6.1% [5.4-6.8%]) than England (3.6% [3.3-3.9%]). There was little change in illicit alcohol purchasing in England or Wales (4.1% [3.7-4.4%]; 4.2% [3.2-5.1%]), but in Scotland it fell from 5.7% to 2.4% (PR = 0.42 [0.19-0.81]). Home-brewed alcohol was rare (GB: 3.1% [2.9-3.4]) and stable. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: The proportion of increasing/higher-risk drinkers in GB purchasing cross-border alcohol increased between October 2020 and August 2023, due to an increase in people buying alcohol abroad. Cross-border alcohol purchases within GB were more commonly reported in Wales and Scotland. The small proportion purchasing illicit alcohol did not change substantially in England or Wales, but fell by half in Scotland.

Methodological Insights on Recruitment and Retention From a Remote Randomized Controlled Trial Examining the Effectiveness of an Alcohol Reduction App: Descriptive Analysis Study.

BACKGROUND: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with no in-person contact (ie, remote) between researchers and participants offer savings in terms of cost and time but present unique challenges. OBJECTIVE: The goal of this study is to examine the differences between different forms of remote recruitment (eg, National Health Service [NHS] website, social media, and radio advertising) in the proportion of participants recruited, demographic diversity, follow-up rates, and cost. We also examine the cost per participant of sequential methods of follow-up (emails, phone calls, postal surveys, and postcards). Finally, our experience with broader issues around study advertising and participant deception is discussed. METHODS: We conducted a descriptive analysis of 5602 increasing-and-higher-risk drinkers (Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test score ≥8), taking part in a 2-arm, parallel group, remote RCT with a 1:1 allocation, comparing the intervention (Drink Less app) with usual digital care (NHS alcohol advice web page). Participants were recruited between July 2020 and March 2022 and compensated with gift vouchers of up to £36 (a currency exchange rate of £1=US $1.26988 is applicable) for completing follow-up surveys, with 4 stages of follow-up: email reminders, phone calls, postal survey, and postcard. RESULTS: The three main recruitment methods were advertisements on (1) social media (2483/5602, 44.32%), (2) the NHS website (1961/5602, 35.01%), and (3) radio and newspapers (745/5602, 13.3%), with the remaining methods of recruitment accounting 7.37% (413/5602) of the sample. The overall recruitment cost per participant varied from £0 to £11.01. Costs were greater when recruiting participants who were men (£0-£28.85), from an ethnic minority group (£0-£303.81), and more disadvantaged (£0-£49.12). Targeted approaches were useful for recruiting more men but less useful in achieving diversity in ethnicity and socioeconomic status. Follow-up at 6 months was 79.58% (4458/5602). Of those who responded, 92.4% (4119/4458) responded by email. Each additional stage of follow-up resulted in an additional 2-3 percentage points of the overall sample being followed up, although phone calls, postal surveys, and postcards were more resource intensive than email reminders. CONCLUSIONS: For remote RCTs, researchers could benefit from using a range of recruitment methods and cost-targeted approaches to achieve demographic diversity. Automated emails with substantial financial incentives for prompt completion can achieve good follow-up rates, and sequential, offline follow-up options, such as phone calls and postal surveys, can further increase follow-up rates but are comparatively expensive. We also make broader recommendations focused on striking the right balance when designing remote RCTs. Careful planning, ongoing maintenance, and dynamic decision-making are required throughout a trial to balance the competing demands of participation among those eligible, deceptive participation among those who are not eligible, and ensuring no postrandomization bias is introduced by data-checking protocols.

Cutting consumption without diluting the experience: Preferences for different tactics for reducing alcohol consumption among increasing-and-higher-risk drinkers based on drinking context.

Contexts in which people drink vary. Certain drinking contexts may be more amenable to change than others and the effectiveness of alcohol reduction tactics may differ across contexts. This study aimed to explore how helpful context-specific tactics for alcohol reduction were perceived as being amongst increasing-and-higher-risk drinkers. Using the Behaviour Change Technique Taxonomy, context-specific tactics to reduce alcohol consumption were developed by the research team and revised following consultation with experts in behaviour change. In four focus groups (two online, two in-person), N = 20 adult increasing-and-higher-risk drinkers in the UK discussed how helpful tactics developed for four drinking contexts would be: drinking at home alone (19 tactics), drinking at home with partner or family (21 tactics), in the pub with friends (23 tactics), and a meal out of the home (20 tactics). Transcripts were analysed using constant comparison methods. Participants endorsed four broad approaches to reducing alcohol consumption which encompassed all the individual tactics developed by the research team: Diluting and substituting drinks for those containing less alcohol (e.g. switching to soft drinks or no- or low-alcohol drinks); Reducing external pressure to drink (e.g. setting expectations in advance); Creating barriers to drinking (e.g. not buying alcohol to keep at home or storing it in less visible places), and Setting new habits (e.g. breaking old patterns and taking up new hobbies). Three cross-cutting themes influenced how applicable these approaches were to different drinking contexts. These were: Situational pressure, Drinking motives, and Financial motivation. Diluting and substituting drinks which enabled covert reduction and Reducing external pressure to drink were favoured in social drinking contexts. Diluting and substituting drinks which enabled participants to feel that they were having 'a treat' or which facilitated relaxation and Creating barriers to drinking were preferred at home. Interventions to reduce alcohol consumption should offer tactics tailored to individuals' drinking contexts and which account for context-specific individual and situational pressure to drink.

Effectiveness of a smartphone app (Drink Less) versus usual digital care for reducing alcohol consumption among increasing-and-higher-risk adult drinkers in the UK: a two-arm, parallel-group, double-blind, randomised controlled trial.

Background: Digital interventions, including apps and websites, can be effective for reducing alcohol consumption. However, many are not evidence- or theory-informed and have not been evaluated. We tested the effectiveness of the Drink Less app for reducing alcohol consumption compared with usual digital care in the UK. Methods: In this two-arm, parallel group, double-blind, randomised controlled trial, we enrolled increasing-and-higher-risk drinkers (AUDIT ≥ 8) in the UK, who were motivated to reduce their alcohol consumption and willing to use a digital intervention to do so, via online methods. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1), using an online algorithm, to receive a web link to download the Drink Less app (intervention) or to the NHS alcohol advice webpage (usual digital care). Researchers were masked to group allocation. Participants were followed up at one, three and six months. The primary outcome was self-reported weekly alcohol consumption at six months, adjusting for baseline consumption. The full analytic sample was used in most analyses, though missing data was treated in different ways. The primary, pre-registered intention-to-treat analysis assumed baseline-carried-forwards. Secondary pre-registered analyses also focused on the full analytic sample and used alternatives including multiple imputation and last observation carried forwards. This trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN64052601. Findings: Between 07/13/2020 and 03/29/2022, 5602 people were randomly assigned to the Drink Less app (n = 2788) or comparator (n = 2814) groups. Six-month follow-up rates were 79% and 80%, respectively. The primary pre-registered conservative intention-to-treat approach assuming non-responders were drinking at baseline levels of consumption, found a non-significant greater reduction of 0.98 units in weekly alcohol consumption in the intervention group at 6-month follow-up (95% CI -2.67 to 0.70). The data were insensitive to detect the hypothesised effect (Bayes factor = 1.17). Data were not missing completely at random, with 6-month follow-up rates differing in terms of education, occupation, and income. We therefore conducted the pre-registered sensitivity analysis using multiple imputation, showing that the Drink Less app resulted in a 2.00-unit greater weekly reduction at 6-month follow-up compared with the NHS alcohol advice webpage (95% CI -3.76 to -0.24). Fewer than 0.1% of participants in both arms who responded to one, three or six-month follow-up reported adverse events linked to participation in the trial. Interpretation: The Drink Less app may be effective in reducing the alcohol consumption in increasing-and-higher-risk drinkers motivated to reduce their consumption. Funding: NIHR Public Health Research Programme.

Do engagement and behavioural mechanisms underpin the effectiveness of the Drink Less app?

This is a process evaluation of a large UK-based randomised controlled trial (RCT) (n = 5602) evaluating the effectiveness of recommending an alcohol reduction app, Drink Less, compared with usual digital care in reducing alcohol consumption in increasing and higher risk drinkers. The aim was to understand whether participants' engagement ('self-reported adherence') and behavioural characteristics were mechanisms of action underpinning the effectiveness of Drink Less. Self-reported adherence with both digital tools was over 70% (Drink Less: 78.0%, 95% CI = 77.6-78.4; usual digital care: 71.5%, 95% CI = 71.0-71.9). Self-reported adherence to the intervention (average causal mediation effect [ACME] = -0.250, 95% CI = -0.42, -0.11) and self-monitoring behaviour (ACME = -0.235, 95% CI = -0.44, -0.03) both partially mediated the effect of the intervention (versus comparator) on alcohol reduction. Following the recommendation (self-reported adherence) and the tracking (self-monitoring behaviour) feature of the Drink Less app appear to be important mechanisms of action for alcohol reduction among increasing and higher risk drinkers.