Adjunctive Medication Management and Contingency Management to enhance adherence to acamprosate for alcohol dependence: the ADAM trial RCT.

Background: Acamprosate is an effective and cost-effective medication for alcohol relapse prevention but poor adherence can limit its full benefit. Effective interventions to support adherence to acamprosate are therefore needed. Objectives: To determine the effectiveness of Medication Management, with and without Contingency Management, compared to Standard Support alone in enhancing adherence to acamprosate and the impact of adherence to acamprosate on abstinence and reduced alcohol consumption. Design: Multicentre, three-arm, parallel-group, randomised controlled clinical trial. Setting: Specialist alcohol treatment services in five regions of England (South East London, Central and North West London, Wessex, Yorkshire and Humber and West Midlands). Participants: Adults (aged 18 years or more), an International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, Tenth Revision, diagnosis of alcohol dependence, abstinent from alcohol at baseline assessment, in receipt of a prescription for acamprosate. Interventions: (1) Standard Support, (2) Standard Support with adjunctive Medication Management provided by pharmacists via a clinical contact centre (12 sessions over 6 months), (3) Standard Support with adjunctive Medication Management plus Contingency Management that consisted of vouchers (up to £120) to reinforce participation in Medication Management. Consenting participants were randomised in a 2 : 1 : 1 ratio to one of the three groups using a stratified random permuted block method using a remote system. Participants and researchers were not blind to treatment allocation. Main outcome measures: Primary outcome: self-reported percentage of medication taken in the previous 28 days at 6 months post randomisation. Economic outcome: EuroQol-5 Dimensions, a five-level version, used to calculate quality-adjusted life-years, with costs estimated using the Adult Service Use Schedule. Results: Of the 1459 potential participants approached, 1019 (70%) were assessed and 739 (73 consented to participate in the study, 372 (50%) were allocated to Standard Support, 182 (25%) to Standard Support with Medication Management and 185 (25%) to Standard Support and Medication Management with Contingency Management. Data were available for 518 (70%) of participants at 6-month follow-up, 255 (68.5%) allocated to Standard Support, 122 (67.0%) to Standard Support and Medication Management and 141 (76.2%) to Standard Support and Medication Management with Contingency Management. The mean difference of per cent adherence to acamprosate was higher for those who received Standard Support and Medication Management with Contingency Management (10.6%, 95% confidence interval 19.6% to 1.6%) compared to Standard Support alone, at the primary end point (6-month follow-up). There was no significant difference in per cent days adherent when comparing Standard Support and Medication Management with Standard Support alone 3.1% (95% confidence interval 12.8% to -6.5%) or comparing Standard Support and Medication Management with Standard Support and Medication Management with Contingency Management 7.9% (95% confidence interval 18.7% to -2.8%). The primary economic analysis at 6 months found that Standard Support and Medication Management with Contingency Management was cost-effective compared to Standard Support alone, achieving small gains in quality-adjusted life-years at a lower cost per participant. Cost-effectiveness was not observed for adjunctive Medication Management compared to Standard Support alone. There were no serious adverse events related to the trial interventions reported. Limitations: The trial's primary outcome measure changed substantially due to data collection difficulties and therefore relied on a measure of self-reported adherence. A lower than anticipated follow-up rate at 12 months may have lowered the statistical power to detect differences in the secondary analyses, although the primary analysis was not impacted. Conclusions: Medication Management enhanced with Contingency Management is beneficial to patients for supporting them to take acamprosate. Future work: Given our findings in relation to Contingency Management enhancing Medication Management adherence, future trials should be developed to explore its effectiveness and cost-effectiveness with other alcohol interventions where there is evidence of poor adherence. Trial registration: This trial is registered as ISRCTN17083622 https://doi.org/10.1186/ISRCTN17083622. Funding: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 27, No. 22. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Many people who are trying to stop drinking alcohol can find it difficult to remain alcohol free. There is a medication called acamprosate (Campral) that can reduce cravings thereby increasing the likelihood of abstinence. However, some people have trouble taking the right amount of acamprosate tablets needed every day at the right time, preferably at mealtimes. This means the medication is not as effective. We have tested some new ways to help support people taking acamprosate. We tested three different strategies to find the best way to support people taking acamprosate. We recruited 739 people aged 18 and over who were receiving alcohol treatment to stop drinking and were taking acamprosate. We randomly allocated these people to three groups. The first was Standard Support, the usual support people receive when taking acamprosate. The second group received Standard Support plus Medication Management. This consisted of 12 telephone calls over 6 months with a trained pharmacist to discuss the importance of taking the right amount of the medication, how the medication works and strategies to help people take the medication correctly. The third group received Standard Support, Medication Management and Contingency Management. This involved giving people shopping vouchers for participating with Medication Management calls. The maximum value of vouchers per person was £120. People who were in the group receiving Medication Management and Contingency Management took a greater number of acamprosate tablets. We also found that Medication Management plus Contingency Management was more cost-effective; there were greater gains in health with a smaller cost per person compared to Standard Support alone. This shows that there is likely to be a benefit to patients of Medication Management plus Contingency Management for supporting people taking acamprosate.

A meta-ethnography of participatory health research and co-production in Nepal.

As global health research seeks to decolonialise, democratise, and become more culturally engaging, researchers are increasingly employing participatory and co-productive methods. Working from post-structural perspectives, this meta-ethnographic review explores how such health research in Nepal engages with the epistemological, methodological, and ethical questions it encounters. Five databases including Nepali NepJOL were searched for studies from inception to March 2021. The review included seven studies covering women's group co-production, interviews guided by photo-elicitation, observational methods to explore maternal and child health, mental health, and environmental determinants of health. This meta-ethnography identified that, against the background of a pluralist heritage of health practices, global collaborations involving Nepali researchers and practitioners used participatory research methodology to work with the local populations to improve health and co-production seek primarily to promote Western biomedical and psychosocial interventions. Both advantages and disadvantages were acknowledged. Empirical verification and global acceptance of Western biomedical and psychosocial knowledge were seen as beneficial. Moreover, Western biomedicine was perceived by some as more effective than some local practices in improving health; nevertheless, Nepal faces many challenges that neither can address alone. For participatory and co-productive approaches to become epistemologically enculturated within Nepali health research, researchers need to co-develop more local models and methods which are culturally sensitive and appropriate. Meaningful and effective participatory research can promote active involvement of people who deliver as well as people who use the community-based health care support. These are crucial to optimise sustainable change that global health research partnerships set out to achieve. This meta-ethnography recommends that researchers engage at a deeper level with the epistemological differences between themselves and the communities with whom they seek partnership. Cross-cultural research teams should discuss and address the power differentials which might affect them.

Effect of digital psychoeducation and peer support on the mental health of family carers supporting individuals with psychosis in England (COPe-support): a randomised clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Psychoeducation delivered face-to-face is effective in alleviating mental health morbidities in family carers of individuals with psychosis. However, research in such interventions delivered online is scarce. We evaluated the effectiveness of a digital multicomponent intervention-COPe-support-in improving carers' mental wellbeing and caregiving-related outcomes. METHODS: In this two-arm, individually randomised, superiority trial, people aged 18 years or older who provided at least weekly support in any format for a relative or close friend affected by psychosis across England were randomly assigned (1:1) to either COPe-support or a passive online information resource using an independent online system. Participants were recruited through 30 mental health UK National Health Service trusts. The study team were masked to allocation and assessment of outcomes as all data collection took place online. Participants had access to either condition for 40 weeks and were advised to spend at least half an hour per week over the initial 20 weeks to go through materials at their own pace and to allow time to integrate knowledge and skills learned into practice. It was not feasible to mask participants or the online facilitator to intervention allocation. COPe-support provided psychoeducation on psychosis-related caregiving strategies and forums with professionals and other carers, and the control intervention comprised a passive online information resource. The primary outcome at 20 weeks was mental wellbeing measured by the Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Wellbeing Scale (WEMWBS; minimally clinically important difference [MCID] 3). This trial is registered with ISRCTN, 89563420. FINDINGS: Between March 1, 2018, and Feb 14, 2020, 407 participants were randomly assigned, with 204 allocated to COPe-support and 203 allocated to control. The participants (mean age 53·1 years, SD 13·2) were mostly female (330 [81%] of 407 participants) and White (359 [88%] of 407 participants). 346 (85%) of 407 participants provided primary endpoint data, 174 (85%) of 204 participants in the COPe-support group and 172 (85%) of 203 participants in the control group. The mean WEMWBS score at 20 weeks was 44·5 (SD 8·31) for the COPe-support group and 43·3 (9·19) for the control group. We found no evidence of a difference in wellbeing between the two groups (adjusted mean difference 0·37, 95% CI -1·14 to 1·88; p=0·63). In the COPe-support group, 106 (52%) of 204 participants met the complier definition of a minimum of two logins in separate weeks. The complier average causal effect analysis increased the difference in WEMWBS scores (adjusted difference 0·83, 95% CI -1·45 to 3·11; p=0·47), but this was lower than the MCID. There were no adverse events. INTERPRETATION: Our findings did not support the use of COPe-support over a passive online information resource. However, further research to optimise digital interventions adjunctive to face-to-face support for carers remains important. FUNDING: National Institute for Health Research.

Service Users' Views and Experiences of Alcohol Relapse Prevention Treatment and Adherence: New Role for Pharmacists?

AIMS: To understand service users' views and experiences of alcohol relapse prevention medication, views of a telephone behavioural modification intervention delivered by pharmacists and the use of Contingency Management (CM) to support acamprosate adherence following assisted alcohol withdrawal. METHODS: Four focus groups were conducted within four alcohol treatment and recovery groups across England (UK), with service users with lived experience of alcohol dependence (26 participants). Semi-structured topic guide was used to explore participants' views and experiences of alcohol relapse prevention medication, a telephone behavioural modification medication intervention delivered by pharmacists, and the use of CM to support acamprosate adherence. These were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim and thematically analysed inductively and deductively. RESULTS: Four themes were identified: concerns about support and availability of alcohol relapse prevention medication; lack of knowledge and understanding about acamprosate treatment; positive perceptions of acamprosate adherence telephone support from pharmacists; and negative perceptions of CM to support acamprosate adherence. There were misunderstandings about acamprosate's mode of action and strong negative beliefs about CM. However, most were positive about pharmacists' new role to support acamprosate adherence. CONCLUSION: This study highlighted challenges service users face to commence alcohol relapse prevention medication. It appears service users could benefit from a pharmacist-led telephone intervention to improve understanding about acamprosate medication, particularly, if delivered in an engaging and motivating way.

Addressing complex pharmacy consultations: methods used to develop a person-centred intervention to highlight alcohol within pharmacist reviews of medications.

BACKGROUND: Alcohol is challenging to discuss, and patients may be reluctant to disclose drinking partly because of concern about being judged. This report presents an overview of the development of a medications review intervention co-produced with the pharmacy profession and with patients, which breaks new ground by seeking to give appropriate attention to alcohol within these consultations. METHODS: This intervention was developed in a series of stages and refined through conceptual discussion, literature review, observational and interview studies, and consultations with advisory groups. In this study we reflect on this process, paying particular attention to the methods used, where lessons may inform innovations in other complex clinical consultations. RESULTS: Early work with patients and pharmacists infused the entire process with a heightened sense of the complexity of consultations in everyday practice, prompting careful deliberation on the implications for intervention development. This required the research team to be highly responsive to both co-production inputs and data gathered in formally conducted studies, and to be committed to working through the implications for intervention design. The intervention thus evolved significantly over time, with the greatest transformations resulting from patient and pharmacist co-design workshops in the second stage of the process, where pharmacists elaborated on the nature of the need for training in particular. The original research plans provided a helpful structure, and unanticipated issues for investigation emerged throughout the process. This underscored the need to engage dynamically with changing contexts and contents and to avoid rigid adherence to any early prescribed plan. CONCLUSIONS: Alcohol interventions are complex and require careful developmental research. This can be a messy enterprise, which can nonetheless shed new insights into the challenges involved in optimising interventions, and how to meet them, if embraced with an attitude of openness to learning. We found that exposing our own research plans to scrutiny resulted in changes to the intervention design that gained the confidence of different stakeholders. Our understanding of the methods used, and their consequences, may be bounded by the person-centred nature of this particular intervention.

A pilot cluster randomised trial of the medicines and alcohol consultation (MAC): an intervention to discuss alcohol use in community pharmacy medicine review services.

BACKGROUND: Alcohol interventions are important to the developing public health role of community pharmacies. The Medicines and Alcohol Consultation (MAC) is a new intervention, co-produced with community pharmacists (CPs) and patients, which involves a CP practice development programme designed to integrate discussion of alcohol within existing NHS medicine review services. We conducted a pilot trial of the MAC and its delivery to investigate all study procedures to inform progression to a definitive trial. METHODS: This cluster pilot RCT was conducted in 10 community pharmacies in Yorkshire, UK, with a CP from each who regularly conducted Medicine Use Review (MUR) and New Medicine Service (NMS) consultations. Randomisation was conducted using a secure remote randomisation service. Intervention CPs (n = 5) were trained to deliver the MAC in MUR/NMS consultations. Control CPs (n = 5) provided these services as usual. Consecutive MUR/NMS patients were asked by CPs to participate, screened for eligibility (consumption of alcohol at least twice per week), and baseline data collected for those eligible. A two-month follow-up telephone interview was conducted. Blinding of CPs was not possible, but patients were blinded to the alcohol focus of the trial. Primary outcomes were total weekly UK units (8 g of ethanol per unit) of alcohol consumption in the week prior to follow-up, and confidence in medications management. Trial procedures were assessed by recruitment, attrition, and follow-up rates. RESULTS: 260 patients were approached by CPs to take part in the trial, 68% (n = 178) were assessed for eligibility and 30% (n = 54) of these patients were eligible. Almost all eligible patients (n = 51; 94%) consented to participate, of whom 92% (n = 47) were followed-up at 2 months; alcohol consumption was lower in the intervention arm and confidence in medication management reduced slightly for both groups. Exploration of recall issues at follow-up showed a high level of agreement between a two-item quantity/frequency measure and 7-day guided recall of alcohol consumption. CONCLUSIONS: The pilot trial demonstrates the feasibility of implementing the MAC in community pharmacy and trial recruitment and data collection procedures. However, decommissioning of MURs means that it is not possible to conduct a definitive trial of the intervention in this service. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN57447996.

Community pharmacist led medication reviews in the UK: A scoping review of the medicines use review and the new medicine service literatures.

BACKGROUND: Medicines Use Reviews (MURs) and the New Medicine Service (NMS) are services delivered by UK community pharmacists to improve adherence, improve patient understanding of their medicines and reduce medicines wastage. AIM: In this scoping review we aim to identify, map and critically examine the nature of existing empirical evidence in peer reviewed journals relating to MUR and NMS consultations. METHOD: Systematic searches identified the available MUR and NMS empirical literature. We sought data on barriers and facilitators to conducting MUR or NMS consultations, the perceptions of pharmacists and patients, the conduct of consultations, and outcomes of consultations. Searches from 2005 (when MURs were introduced) to May 2018 were conducted in MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Embase and Scopus databases. Data were extracted into Excel for examination of study characteristics, participant characteristics, type of intervention/services delivered and key study quantitative and/or qualitative findings. RESULTS: Forty-one papers from 37 studies met the inclusion criteria: 28 papers were of MURs, 10 of NMS and 3 for both services. Studies focused on the introduction and implementation of these services, with little attention to outcomes for patients; effectiveness was not evaluated beyond in a single NMS RCT. Observational data indicated that pharmacists and patients view MURs and the NMS positively, despite challenges implementing these services and apparent lack of communication between pharmacists and GPs. Consultations were reported to be short, typically 10-12 min, characterised by limited engagement with patients and their health problems. The extent and nature of advice on health behaviours during consultations or other content was rarely examined. CONCLUSION: The research literature on MURs and the NMS has developed slowly. There is much scope for further research attention to developing more patient-centred care.

Qualitative process study of community pharmacist brief alcohol intervention effectiveness trial: Can research participation effects explain a null finding?

AIMS: This qualitative process study, nested within a randomised controlled trial evaluating community pharmacist brief alcohol intervention delivery, aims to explore participants' engagement with the trial, so as to identify whether research participation effects may explain why the brief intervention was not found to be effective. METHOD: Qualitative interviews were conducted with 24 randomly selected participants approximately one month after the end of the trial. Semi structured Interviews were conducted by telephone in which participants were asked to give a chronological account of their trial participation, leading to a discussion of possible impacts. These were digitally recorded, transcribed verbatim, and analysed using the Framework method. RESULTS: A range of motivations for taking part in the trial were identified, including pharmacy visitors wanting to obtain an assessment of their drinking. Participants in both arms of the trial spoke of the potent effect that screening had on them. All participants were exposed to discussions about alcohol with empathic pharmacists and, as this is an integral intervention component, this constitutes contamination. Participants' pre-existing ideas about the nature of alcohol problems had an important bearing on how relevant they thought the intervention was to them. CONCLUSION: A detailed appreciation of participant engagement with the trial can provide a strong basis for interpretation of trial outcome data, and in this instance does help explain the null finding. Other findings also indicate the need for dedicated studies of public understanding of the nature of alcohol problems, and their implications for receptivity to brief interventions.

Developing a framework of care for opioid medication misuse in community pharmacy.

BACKGROUND: Prescription opioid misuse is a major public health concern in the US. Few resources exist to support community pharmacists engaging patients who misuse or are at risk for misuse. OBJECTIVES: This report describes the results of the execution of the ADAPT-ITT model (a model for modifying evidence-based behavioral interventions to new populations and service settings) to guide the development of a behavioral health framework for opioid medication misuse in the community pharmacy setting. METHODS: Pharmacy, addiction, intervention, and treatment experts were convened to attend a one-day meeting to review the empirical knowledgebase and discuss adapting the screening, brief intervention, and referral to treatment (SBIRT) protocol for addressing opioid medication misuse in community pharmacy. Qualitative data gathered from the meeting were analyzed by 2 independent coders in a 2-cycle process using objective coding schemes. Percentage of agreement and Cohen's Kappa were calculated to assess coder agreement. RESULTS: First-cycle coding identified 4 distinct themes, with coder percentage of agreement ranging from 93.5 to 99.6% and with Kappa values between 0.81 and 0.93. Second-cycle coding identified 10 sub-themes, with coder percentage of agreement ranging from 83 to 99.8% and with Kappa values between 0.58 and 0.93. Identified themes and sub-themes encompassed patient identification, intervention, prevention, and referral to treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Focus of screening efforts in the emerging model should capitalize on pharmacists' knowledge of medication management. Screening likewise should be multidimensional in order to facilitate patient-centered interventions that activate additional disciplines able to interface with patients at risk or involved in medication misuse.

The effectiveness of brief alcohol interventions delivered by community pharmacists: randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: To undertake the first randomized controlled trial to evaluate the effectiveness of a brief intervention delivered by community pharmacists to reduce hazardous or harmful drinking. DESIGN: This parallel group randomized trial allocated participants individually to brief alcohol intervention (n = 205) or a leaflet-only control condition (n = 202), with follow-up study after 3 months. SETTING: Sixteen community pharmacies in one London Borough, UK. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 407 pharmacy customers (aged 18 years or over) with Alcohol Use Disorder Identification Test (AUDIT) scores 8-19, inclusive. INTERVENTION: A brief motivational discussion of approximately 10 minutes' duration, for which 17 pharmacists received a half-day of training. MEASUREMENTS: Hazardous or harmful drinking was assessed using the AUDIT administered by telephone by a researcher blind to allocation status. The two primary outcomes were: (1) change in AUDIT total scores and (2) the proportions no longer hazardous or harmful drinkers (scoring < 8) at 3 months. The four secondary outcomes were: the three subscale scores of the AUDIT (for consumption, problems and dependence) and health status according to the EQ-5D (a standardized instrument for use as a measure of health outcome). FINDINGS: At 3 months 326 (80% overall; 82% intervention, 78% control) participants were followed-up. The difference in reduction in total AUDIT score (intervention minus control) was -0.57, 95% confidence interval (CI) = -1.59 to 0.45, P = 0.28. The odds ratio for AUDIT ˂ 8 (control as reference) was 0.87, 95% CI = 0.50 to 1.51, P = 0.61). For two of the four secondary outcomes (dependence score: -0.46, 95% CI = -0.82 to -0.09, P = 0.014; health status score: -0.09, 95% CI = -0.16 to -0.02, P = 0.013) the control group did better, and in the other two there were no differences (consumption score: -0.05, 95% CI = -0.54 to 0.44, P = 0.85; non-dependence problems score: -0.13, 95% CI = -0.66 to 0.41). Sensitivity analyses did not change these findings. CONCLUSIONS: A brief intervention delivered by community pharmacists appears to have had no effect in reducing hazardous or harmful alcohol consumption.

Alcohol brief intervention in community pharmacies: a feasibility study of outcomes and customer experiences.

BACKGROUND: Studies indicate that community pharmacy-based alcohol brief intervention (BI) is feasible. However, few studies report significant reductions in post-BI alcohol consumption and customer experience. Cost-effectiveness has not been previously examined. OBJECTIVES: This 5 month study adopted a single group pre- and post-experimental design to: (1) assess uptake of the community pharmacy alcohol BI service; (2) establish post-BI changes in alcohol consumption for hazardous drinkers; (3) report the acceptability of the service to customers who received it; and (4) undertake a preliminary economic evaluation of the service through establishing whether pharmacy-based alcohol BI affected health and social care costs, including lost employment costs, and whether it was cost-effective. SETTING: 26 community pharmacies in south London, UK. METHOD: Trained pharmacists used the AUDIT-C and a retrospective 7-day Drinking Diary to identify risky drinkers and inform feedback and advice. Harmful drinkers were referred to their general practitioner and/or specialist alcohol services. A confidential service feedback questionnaire was completed by alcohol BI recipients. Baseline and 3-month follow-up telephone interviews were conducted with hazardous and low risk drinkers to assess post-BI alcohol use change and service cost-effectiveness. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: AUDIT-C, 7-day alcohol unit consumption, drinking days, cost utilisation data. RESULTS: Of the 663 eligible customers offered alcohol BI, 141 (21 %) took up the service. Three-quarters of customers were identified as risky drinkers. Follow-up interviews were conducted with 61 hazardous/low risk drinkers (response rate = 58 %). Hazardous drinkers were found to significantly reduce their 7-day alcohol unit consumption and drinking days, but not AUDIT-C scores. The majority of harmful drinkers (91 %, n = 10) who were contactable post-BI had accessed further alcohol related services. Customer feedback was generally positive. Over 75 % of customers would recommend the service to others. The cost of delivering the service was estimated to be £ 134. The difference in service costs pre-BI and post-BI was not statistically significant and remained non-significant when calculated on 500 customers receiving the intervention. CONCLUSION: Community pharmacy-based alcohol BI is a low cost service that may not have immediate beneficial impact on health and social service use, but can be effective in reducing drinking in hazardous drinkers.

Effectiveness of alcohol brief intervention delivered by community pharmacists: study protocol of a two-arm randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: There is strong evidence to support the effectiveness of Brief Intervention (BI) in reducing alcohol consumption in primary healthcare. METHODS AND DESIGN: This study is a two-arm randomised controlled trial to determine the effectiveness of BI delivered by community pharmacists in their pharmacies. Eligible and consenting participants (aged 18 years or older) will be randomised in equal numbers to either a BI delivered by 17 community pharmacists or a non-intervention control condition. The intervention will be a brief motivational discussion to support a reduction in alcohol consumption and will take approximately 10 minutes to deliver. Participants randomised to the control arm will be given an alcohol information leaflet with no opportunity for discussion. Study pharmacists will be volunteers who respond to an invitation to participate, sent to all community pharmacists in the London borough of Hammersmith and Fulham. Participating pharmacists will receive 7 hours training on trial procedures and the delivery of BI. Pharmacy support staff will also receive training (4 hours) on how to approach and inform pharmacy customers about the study, with formal trial recruitment undertaken by the pharmacist in a consultation room. At three month follow up, alcohol consumption and related problems will be assessed with the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT) administered by telephone. DISCUSSION: The UK Department of Health's stated aim is to involve community pharmacists in the delivery of BI to reduce alcohol harms. This will be the first RCT study to assess the effectiveness of BI delivered by community pharmacists. Given this policy context, it is pragmatic in design. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN95216873.

The impact of training and delivering alcohol brief intervention on the knowledge and attitudes of community pharmacists: a before and after study.

INTRODUCTION AND AIMS: Alcohol misuse is the third leading cause of ill health in the UK. Alcohol brief intervention can identify risky drinkers and motivate individuals to take action. Community pharmacists have been identified as having a role in providing brief interventions. This study aimed to evaluate: pharmacists' attitudes towards hazardous/harmful drinkers and knowledge before training and after delivering brief intervention; and their experience of training. DESIGN AND METHODS: Pharmacists' attitudes to alcohol problems were assessed using Short Alcohol and Alcohol Problems Perception Questions before training and after brief intervention delivery. Alcohol misuse knowledge was assessed by questionnaire prior to and immediately after training, and after the delivery period. Following brief intervention delivery, pharmacists' experience of training was obtained using a questionnaire and focus groups. Qualitative thematic analysis identified experiences of brief intervention training. Quantitative data were analysed using spss. RESULTS: One hundred and thirty-nine alcohol interventions were delivered by 19 pharmacists over five months (recruiters). Ten pharmacists completed no interventions (non-recruiters). Both groups improved their alcohol knowledge between baseline and immediately following training; and their knowledge decreased between the end of training and following service delivery. Pharmacists who were initially more motivated recruited more participants and increased their work satisfaction. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: This confirmed findings of previous studies that pharmacists unfamiliar with brief intervention could be trained to deliver this service. Pharmacists with positive attitude towards drinkers delivered a greater number of alcohol interventions and experienced increased work satisfaction than those pharmacists with less positive attitudes.

Community pharmacy service users' views and perceptions of alcohol screening and brief intervention.

INTRODUCTION AND AIMS: Community pharmacists have the potential to deliver alcohol screening and brief interventions (SBI) to pharmacy users. However, little is known if SBI would be utilised and views of people who might use the service. Therefore, the aim was to investigate potential barriers and enablers of pharmacy SBI. DESIGN AND METHODS: Purposive sampling was used to select four pharmacies within the London borough of Westminster, UK. Semistructured interview schedule recorded participants' views of pharmacy SBI. The Alcohol Use Disorder Identification Test-Consumption (AUDIT-C) was incorporated to record views of high and low-risk drinkers. Categorical data were analysed and content analysis undertaken. RESULTS: Of the 237 participants (149 female) approached 102 (43%) agreed to be interviewed (63 female). Of these 98 completed AUDIT-C, with 51 (52%) identified as risky drinkers. Risky drinkers were significantly identified among the younger age group (χ(2) =11.03, P=0.004), professional occupations (χ(2) =10.41, P=0.015), with higher qualifications (χ(2)=10.46, P=0.033), were least frequent visitors to a pharmacy (χ(2) =11.58, P=0.021) and more frequently identified in multiple pharmacy establishments than independents (χ(2) =8.52, P=0.004). Most were willing to discuss drinking (97, 96%) and accept written information (99, 98%). Accessibility and anonymity were reported as positive aspects and concerns were expressed about lack of privacy and time (pharmacist and user). DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: This study reports the first results of pharmacy users' views on SBI. Regardless of drinking status, most were willing to utilise the service and positive about pharmacists' involvement.[Dhital R, Whittlesea CM, Norman IJ, Milligan P. Community pharmacy service users' views and perceptions of alcohol screening and brief intervention.