Historique
Article de Périodique
The effectiveness of brief alcohol interventions delivered by community pharmacists: randomized controlled trial (2015)
Auteur(s) :
DHITAL, R. ;
NORMAN, I. ;
WHITTLESEA, C. ;
MURRELLS, T. ;
McCAMBRIDGE, J.
Année
2015
Page(s) :
1586-1594
Langue(s) :
Anglais
Refs biblio. :
48
Domaine :
Alcool / Alcohol
Thésaurus géographique
ROYAUME-UNI
Thésaurus mots-clés
EFFICACITE
;
PHARMACIEN
;
INTERVENTION BREVE
;
ALCOOL
;
ETUDE RANDOMISEE
;
ABUS
;
USAGE PROBLEMATIQUE
;
AUDIT
;
EVALUATION
Résumé :
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.
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.
Affiliation :
King's College London, Florence Nightingale Faculty of Nursing and Midwifery, London, UK
Autre(s) lien(s) :
http://findings.org.uk/PHP/dl.php?file=Dhital_R_2.txt
Cote :
Abonnement