Assessing barriers to change in drinking behavior: results of an online employee screening program.

BACKGROUND: The impact of alcohol abuse on worker productivity is considerable and appears to be increasing over time. Although early screening and intervention may help prevent or reduce the damaging health and productivity effects of problem drinking, barriers to behavioral change may render broad-based prevention efforts ineffectual. This study examined the correlates of two potential barriers to changes in drinking behavior--underestimation of drinking and lack of knowledge of helping resources--using data from web-based employee alcohol screenings. METHODS: Anonymous screening data from 1185 employees of ten companies participating in the 2003 National Alcohol Screening Day were analyzed. The AUDIT, a 10-item screening instrument developed by the World Health Organization, was used to measure drinking behavior; employees' subjective assessments of their drinking were also obtained. RESULTS: Over 53% of participants subjectively underestimated their drinking relative to their AUDIT results, and 58% of respondents did not know whether their medical insurance included benefits for alcohol treatment. Logistic regression analysis revealed that younger and male respondents tended to have the highest AUDIT scores and also (along with married respondents) were most likely to underestimate their drinking. Younger, unmarried respondents were least likely to be aware of their alcohol treatment insurance benefits. CONCLUSIONS: Current corporate efforts to curtail problem drinking among employees may not adequately address barriers to change. Targeting at-risk employee groups for alcohol screening and dissemination of information about health insurance benefits and treatment options is recommended, as is providing personalized feedback based on screening results to raise awareness of at-risk drinking and available helping resources.

An evaluation of National Alcohol Screening Day.

AIMS: Although National Alcohol Screening Day (NASD) became the USA's largest and most visible community-based intervention targeting risky drinking over the past decade, its utility in identifying individuals who are at risk for alcohol problems and in catalyzing behaviour change has not been tested in studies including untreated controls. The purpose of this study was to assess changes in alcohol use three months following NASD participation using a quasi-experimental pretest-posttest control group design. METHODS: Participants (N = 713) were recruited from 5 NASD sites in Florida, Massachusetts, and New York, USA. Intervention subjects (N = 318) were recruited at the NASD event; control subjects (N = 395) were recruited at the same locations approximately 1 week after NASD. All participants completed brief surveys at the time of enrollment, and then again 3 months later. RESULTS: Significant decreases in the typical number of drinks consumed per occasion were observed among at-risk drinkers in the intervention group relative to controls in the 3 months following NASD. At-risk NASD participants averaged approximately 5.6 fewer drinks per week than at-risk controls. CONCLUSIONS: Findings suggest that exposure to a brief screening program with provision of feedback can result in significant reductions in alcohol consumption among risky drinkers.

Results of National Alcohol Screening Day: college demographics, clinical characteristics, and comparison with online screening.

OBJECTIVE: The authors evaluated the efficacy of the 2002 college-based National Alcohol Screening Day (NASD) by determining: (1) the demographic and clinical characteristics of the participants that were screened and (2) the degree to which those scoring at hazardous drinking levels received clinical intervention or were referred for further assessment or treatment. PARTICIPANTS: Of 45,368 participants, 23,334 were screened and 14,598 received some form of clinical intervention, defined as advice or referral. METHODS: The authors conducted nonparametric and univariate analyses to test for statistical differences in demographics, clinical-characteristics, and interventions-as a function of-screening mode. RESULTS: Nearly 34% of those screened in person had an AUDIT score of 8 or higher, indicating harmful or hazardous drinking. Of these, only 10% had ever undergone alcohol treatment. More than 58% of those screened online scored 8 or higher, and of this group, fewer than 6% had ever undergone alcohol treatment. CONCLUSIONS: These data suggest that the in-person event and the online interactive program associated with NASD are serving markedly different populations, particularly with regard to clinical indicators.

Application of The APA Practice Guidelines on Suicide to Clinical Practice.

This article presents charts from The American Psychiatric Association Practice Guideline for the Assessment and Treatment of Patients with Suicidal Behaviors, part of the Practice Guidelines for the Treatment of Psychiatric Disorders Compendium, and a summary of the assessment information in a format that can be used in routine clinical practice. Four steps in the assessment process are presented: the use of a thorough psychiatric examination to obtain information about the patient's current presentation, history, diagnosis, and to recognize suicide risk factors therein; the necessity of asking very specific questions about suicidal ideation, intent, plans, and attempts; the process of making an estimation of the patient's level of suicide risk is explained; and the use of modifiable risk and protective factors as the basis for treatment planning is demonstrated. Case reports are used to clarify use of each step in this process.

Clinical correlates of inpatient suicide.

BACKGROUND: Previous suicide assessment research has led to standard predictors of risk. Despite this, there are approximately 30,000 suicides per year in the United States, 5% to 6% of which occur in hospitals. The primary purpose of this study is to improve our ability to assess risk and intervene successfully. METHOD: Charts from 76 patients who committed suicide while in the hospital, or immediately after discharge, were reviewed. The week before suicide was rated for both standard risk predictors and, using items from the Schedule for Affective Disorders and Schizophrenia (SADS), for presence and severity of symptoms found to be correlated with acute risk in recent studies. RESULTS: Regarding standard predictors, only 49% (N = 37) had any prior suicide attempt and 25% (N = 19) were admitted for this reason. Thirty-nine percent (30/76) were admitted for suicidal ideation, but 78% denied suicidal ideation at their last communication about this; 46% (N = 35) showed no evidence of psychosis; of those on precautions (N = 45), 51% (N = 23) were on q 15 minute suicide checks or 1:1 observation; and 28% (N = 21) had a no-suicide contract in effect. On SADS ratings, 79% (N = 60) met criteria for severe or extreme anxiety and/or agitation. CONCLUSION: Standard risk assessments and standard precautions used were of limited value in protecting this group from suicide. Adding severity of anxiety and agitation to our current assessments may help identify patients at acute risk and suggest effective treatment interventions. The importance of a matched comparison group to ascertain if this sample can be blindly discriminated from inpatients who do not commit suicide is clear.