Practitioner and digitally delivered interventions for reducing hazardous and harmful alcohol consumption in people not seeking alcohol treatment: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

AIM: To compare the effectiveness of practitioner versus digitally delivered interventions for reducing hazardous and harmful alcohol consumption. DESIGN: Systematic review and network meta-analysis comprising comprehensive search for randomised controlled trials, robust screening and selection methods and appraisal with the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. Network meta-analyses were conducted in Stata using random effects, frequentist models. The confidence in network meta-analysis (CINeMA) tool was used to assess confidence in effect sizes. SETTING: Online or community or health settings where the intervention was immediately accessible without referral. PARTICIPANTS: Non treatment-seeking hazardous or harmful drinkers. MEASUREMENTS: Primary outcome was mean difference in alcohol consumption (g/wk); secondary outcome was number of single high intensity drinking episodes. Baseline consumption was analysed as a covariate. FINDINGS: Of 201 included trials (94 753 participants), 152 reported a consumption outcome that could be converted to grams/week; 104 reported number of single high intensity drinking episodes. At 1 and 6 months, practitioner delivered interventions reduced consumption more than digitally delivered interventions (1 month: -23 g/wk (95% CI, -43 to -2); 6 months: -14 g/wk [95% CI, -25 to -3]). At 12 months there was no evidence of difference between practitioner and digitally delivered interventions (-6 g/wk [95% CI, -24 to 12]). There was no evidence of a difference in single high intensity drinking episodes between practitioner and digitally delivered interventions at any time point. Effect sizes were small, but could impact across a population with relatively high prevalence of hazardous and harmful drinking. Heterogeneity was a concern. Some inconsistency was indicated at 1 and 6 months, but little evidence was apparent at 12 months. CONCLUSION: Practitioner delivered interventions for reducing hazardous and harmful alcohol consumption are more effective than digitally delivered interventions up to 6 months; at 12 months there is no evidence of a difference.

A Context-Specific Digital Alcohol Brief Intervention in Symptomatic Breast Clinics (Abreast of Health): Development and Usability Study.

BACKGROUND: Potentially modifiable risk factors account for approximately 23% of breast cancer cases. In the United Kingdom, alcohol consumption alone is held responsible for 8% to 10% of cases diagnosed every year. Symptomatic breast clinics focus on early detection and treatment, but they also offer scope for delivery of low-cost lifestyle interventions to encourage a cancer prevention culture within the cancer care system. Careful development work is required to effectively translate such interventions to novel settings. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to develop a theory of change and delivery mechanism for a context-specific alcohol and lifestyle brief intervention aimed at women attending screening and symptomatic breast clinics. METHODS: A formative study combined evidence reviews, analysis of mixed method data, and user experience research to develop an intervention model, following the 6 Steps in Quality Intervention Development (6SQuID) framework. RESULTS: A Web app focused on improving awareness, encouraging self-monitoring, and reframing alcohol reduction as a positive choice to improve health was found to be acceptable to women. Accessing this in the clinic waiting area on a tablet computer was shown to be feasible. An important facilitator for change may be the heightened readiness to learn associated with a salient health visit (a teachable moment). Women may have increased motivation to change if they can develop a belief in their capability to monitor and, if necessary, reduce their alcohol consumption. CONCLUSIONS: Using the 6SQuID framework supported the prototyping and maximized acceptability and feasibility of an alcohol brief intervention for women attending symptomatic breast clinics, regardless of their level of alcohol consumption.

Socioeconomic inequalities in the delivery of brief interventions for smoking and excessive drinking: findings from a cross-sectional household survey in England.

OBJECTIVES: Brief interventions (BI) for smoking and risky drinking are effective and cost-effective policy approaches to reducing alcohol harm currently used in primary care in England; however, little is known about their contribution to health inequalities. This paper aims to investigate whether self-reported receipt of BI is associated with socioeconomic position (SEP) and whether this differs for smoking or alcohol. DESIGN: Population survey of 8978 smokers or risky drinkers in England aged 16+ taking part in the Alcohol and Smoking Toolkit Studies. MEASURES: Survey participants answered questions regarding whether they had received advice and support to cut down their drinking or smoking from a primary healthcare professional in the past 12 months as well as their SEP, demographic details, whether they smoke and their motivation to cut down their smoking and/or drinking. Respondents also completed the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT). Smokers were defined as those reporting any smoking in the past year. Risky drinkers were defined as those scoring eight or more on the AUDIT. RESULTS: After adjusting for demographic factors and patterns in smoking and drinking, BI delivery was highest in lower socioeconomic groups. Smokers in the lowest social grade had 30% (95% CI 5% to 61%) greater odds of reporting receipt of a BI than those in the highest grade. The relationship for risky drinking appeared stronger, with those in the lowest social grade having 111% (95% CI 27% to 252%) greater odds of reporting BI receipt than the highest grade. Rates of BI delivery were eight times greater among smokers than risky drinkers (48.3% vs 6.1%). CONCLUSIONS: Current delivery of BI for smoking and drinking in primary care in England may be contributing to a reduction in socioeconomic inequalities in health. This effect could be increased if intervention rates, particularly for drinking, were raised.

Using psychological theory to understand the clinical management of type 2 diabetes in Primary Care: a comparison across two European countries.

BACKGROUND: Long term management of patients with Type 2 diabetes is well established within Primary Care. However, despite extensive efforts to implement high quality care both service provision and patient health outcomes remain sub-optimal. Several recent studies suggest that psychological theories about individuals' behaviour can provide a valuable framework for understanding generalisable factors underlying health professionals' clinical behaviour. In the context of the team management of chronic disease such as diabetes, however, the application of such models is less well established. The aim of this study was to identify motivational factors underlying health professional teams' clinical management of diabetes using a psychological model of human behaviour. METHODS: A predictive questionnaire based on the Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB) investigated health professionals' (HPs') cognitions (e.g., beliefs, attitudes and intentions) about the provision of two aspects of care for patients with diabetes: prescribing statins and inspecting feet.General practitioners and practice nurses in England and the Netherlands completed parallel questionnaires, cross-validated for equivalence in English and Dutch. Behavioural data were practice-level patient-reported rates of foot examination and use of statin medication. Relationships between the cognitive antecedents of behaviour proposed by the TPB and healthcare teams' clinical behaviour were explored using multiple regression. RESULTS: In both countries, attitude and subjective norm were important predictors of health professionals' intention to inspect feet (Attitude: beta = .40; Subjective Norm: beta = .28; Adjusted R2 = .34, p < 0.01), and their intention to prescribe statins (Attitude: beta = .44; Adjusted R2 = .40, p < 0.01). Individuals' self-reported intention did not predict practice-level performance of either clinical behaviour. CONCLUSION: Using the TPB, we identified modifiable factors underlying health professionals' intentions to perform two clinical behaviours, providing a rationale for the development of targeted interventions. However, we did not observe a relationship between health professionals' intentions and our proxy measure of team behaviour. Significant methodological issues were highlighted concerning the use of models of individual behaviour to explain behaviours performed by teams. In order to investigate clinical behaviours performed by teams it may be necessary to develop measures that reflect the collective cognitions of the members of the team to facilitate the application of these theoretical models to team behaviours.

Implementation of brief alcohol interventions by nurses in primary care: do non-clinical factors influence practice?

BACKGROUND: In the UK, GPs and practice nurses selectively provide brief alcohol interventions to risk drinkers. GPs' provision of a brief alcohol intervention can be predicted by patient characteristics, practitioner characteristics and structural factors such as the features of the practice and how it is organized. However, much less is known about possible modifiers of nurse practice. OBJECTIVE: Our aim was to investigate if patient characteristics, nurse characteristics and practice factors influence provision of a brief alcohol intervention by practice nurses in primary health care. METHODS: One hundred and twenty-eight practice nurses who had implemented a brief alcohol intervention programme in a previous trial based in the North of England were requested to screen adults presenting to their surgery and follow a structured protocol to give a brief intervention (5 min of advice plus an information booklet) to all 'risk' drinkers. Anonymized carbon copies of 5541 completed Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT) screening questionnaires were collected after a 3-month implementation period and analysed by logistic regression analysis. RESULTS: Although AUDIT identified 1500 'risk' drinkers, only 926 (62%) received a brief intervention. Logistic regression modelling showed that patients' risk status as measured by AUDIT score was the most influential predictor of a brief intervention by practice nurses. However, risk drinkers who were most likely to receive a brief intervention were male. Patients' age or social class did not independently predict a brief intervention. The multilevel model was unable to identify any independent nurse characteristics that could predict a brief intervention, but indicated significant variation between nurses in their tendency to offer the intervention to patients. No structural factors were found to be positively associated with selective provision. CONCLUSIONS: Patient and nurse factors contributed to the selective provision of a brief intervention in primary care. If patients are to experience the beneficial effects of a brief alcohol intervention, then there is a need to improve the accuracy of delivery.