No improvement in AUDIT-C screening and brief intervention rates among wait-list controls following support of Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Services: evidence from a cluster randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: While Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians are less likely to drink any alcohol than other Australians, those who drink are more likely to experience adverse alcohol-related health consequences. In a previous study, providing Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Services (ACCHSs) with training and support increased the odds of clients receiving AUDIT-C alcohol screening. A follow-up study found that these results were maintained for at least two years, but there was large variability in the effectiveness of the intervention between services. In this study, we use services that previously received support as a comparison group to test whether training and support can improve alcohol screening and brief intervention rates among wait-list control ACCHSs. METHODS: Design: Cluster randomised trial using routinely collected health data. SETTING: Australia. CASES: Twenty-two ACCHSs that see at least 1000 clients a year and use Communicare as their practice management software. Intervention and comparator: After initiating support, we compare changes in screening and brief intervention between wait-list control services and services that had previously received support. MEASUREMENT: Records of AUDIT-C screening and brief intervention activity in routinely collected data. RESULTS: During the reference period we observed 357,257 instances where one of 74,568 clients attended services at least once during a two-monthly data extraction period. Following the start of support, the odds of screening (OR = 0.94 [95% CI 0.67, 1.32], p = 0.74, [Formula: see text]≈ 0.002) and brief intervention (OR = 1.43 [95% CI 0.69, 2.95], p = 0.34, [Formula: see text]≈ 0.002) did not improve for the wait-list control group, relative to comparison services. CONCLUSIONS: We did not replicate the finding that support and training improves AUDIT-C screening rates with wait-list control data. The benefits of support are likely context dependent. Coincidental policy changes may have sensitised services to the effects of support in the earlier phase of the study. Then the COVID-19 pandemic may have made services less open to change in this latest phase. Future efforts could include practice software prompts to alcohol screening and brief intervention, which are less reliant on individual staff time or resources. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Retrospectively registered on 2018-11-21: ACTRN12618001892202.

Alcohol screening in 22 Australian Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Organisations: Clinical context and who is screened.

INTRODUCTION: Alcohol screening among Indigenous Australians is important to identify individuals needing support to reduce their drinking. Understanding clinical contexts in which clients are screened, and which clients are more or less likely to be screened, could help identify areas of services and communities that might benefit from increased screening. METHODS: We analysed routinely collected data from 22 Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Organisations Australia-wide. Data collected between February 2016 and February 2021 were analysed using R, and aggregated to describe screening activity per client, within 2-monthly extraction periods. Descriptive analyses were performed to identify contexts in which clients received an Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test consumption (AUDIT-C) screen. Multi-level logistic regression determined demographic factors associated with receiving an AUDIT-C screen. Three models are presented to examine if screening was predicted by: (i) age; (ii) age and gender; (iii) age, gender and service remoteness. RESULTS: We observed 83,931 occasions where AUDIT-C was performed at least once during a 2-monthly extraction period. Most common contexts were adult health check (55.0%), followed by pre-consult examination (18.4%) and standalone item (9.9%). For every 10 years' increase in client age, odds of being screened with AUDIT-C slightly decreased (odds ratio 0.98; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.98, 0.99). Women were less likely to be screened with AUDIT-C (odds ratio 0.95; 95% CI 0.93, 0.96) than men. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: This study identified areas where alcohol screening can be increased (e.g., among women). Increasing AUDIT-C screening across entire communities could help reduce or prevent alcohol-related harms. Future Indigenous-led research could help identify strategies to increase screening rates.