Skip to main content
×
×
Home

Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a stepped care intervention for alcohol use disorders in primary care: pilot study

  • Colin Drummond (a1), Simon Coulton (a2), Darren James (a3), Christine Godfrey (a4), Steve Parrott (a4), John Baxter (a5), David Ford (a5), Bruce Lervy (a5), Stephen Rollnick (a6), Ian Russell (a7) and Timothy Peters (a8)...
Abstract
Background

Screening for alcohol use disorders identifies a wide range of needs, varying from hazardous and harmful drinking to alcohol dependence. Stepped care offers a potentially resource-efficient way of meeting these needs, but requires evaluation in a randomised controlled trial.

Aims

To evaluate the feasibility, effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of opportunistic screening and a stepped care intervention in primary care.

Method

A total of 1794 male primary care attendees at six practices in South Wales were screened using the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT). Of these, 112 participants who scored 8 or more on the AUDIT and who consented to enter the study were randomised to receive either 5 minutes of minimal intervention delivered by a practice nurse (control group) or stepped care intervention consisting of three successive steps (intervention group): a single session of behaviour change counselling delivered by a practice nurse; four 50-minute sessions of motivational enhancement therapy delivered by a trained alcohol counsellor; and referral to a community alcohol treatment agency.

Results

Both groups reduced alcohol consumption 6 months after randomisation with a greater, although not significant, improvement for the stepped care intervention. Motivation to change was greater following the stepped care intervention. The stepped care intervention resulted in greater cost savings compared with the minimal intervention.

Conclusions

Stepped care was feasible to implement in the primary care setting and resulted in greater cost savings compared with minimal intervention.

  • View HTML
    • Send article to Kindle

      To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

      Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

      Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

      Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a stepped care intervention for alcohol use disorders in primary care: pilot study
      Available formats
      ×
      Send article to Dropbox

      To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

      Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a stepped care intervention for alcohol use disorders in primary care: pilot study
      Available formats
      ×
      Send article to Google Drive

      To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

      Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a stepped care intervention for alcohol use disorders in primary care: pilot study
      Available formats
      ×
Copyright
Corresponding author
Professor Colin Drummond, National Addiction Centre, PO48, Institute of Psychiatry, King's College London, 4 Windsor Walk, London SE5 8BB, UK. Email: Colin.drummond@iop.kcl.ac.uk
Footnotes
Hide All

The study was funded by the Wales Office for Research and Development. All of the authors are independent of the funding body.

Declaration of interest

None.

Footnotes
References
Hide All
1 Prime Minister's Strategy Unit. Interim Analytical Report. Prime Minister's Strategy Unit, 2004.
2 Drummond, DC, Oyefeso, N, Phillips, T, Cheeta, S, DeLuca, P, Perryman, K, et al. Alcohol Needs Assessment Research Project: The 2004 National Alcohol Needs Assessment for England. Department of Health, 2005.
3 Prime Minister's Strategy Unit. Alcohol Harm Reduction Strategy for England. Prime Minister's Strategy Unit, 2004.
4 Department of Health. Choosing Health: Making Healthy Choices Easier. Department of Health, 2004.
5 Kaner, EF, Beyer, F, Dickinson, HO, Pienaar, E, Campbell, F, Schlesinger, C, et al. Effectiveness of brief alcohol interventions in primary care populations. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2007; (2): CD004148.
6 Poikolainen, K. Effectiveness of brief interventions to reduce alcohol intake in primary health care populations: a meta-analysis. Prev Med 1999; 28: 503–9.
7 Ballesteros, J, Duffy, JC, Querejeta, I, Arino, J, Gonzalez-Pinto, A. Efficacy of brief interventions for hazardous drinkers in primary care: systematic review and meta-analysis. Alcohol Clin Exp Res 2004; 28: 608–18.
8 Whitlock, EP, Polen, MR, Green, CA, Orleans, T, Klein, J. Behavioral counselling interventions in primary care to reduce risky/harmful alcohol use by adults: a summary of the evidence for the US Preventive Services Task Force. Ann Intern Med 2004; 140: 557–68.
9 Bertholet, N, Daeppen, JB, Wietlisbach, V, Fleming, M, Burnand, B. Brief alcohol intervention in primary care: systematic review and meta-analysis. Arch Intern Med 2005; 165: 986–95.
10 Moyer, A, Finney, J, Swearingen, C, Vergun, P. Brief Interventions for alcohol problems: a meta-analytic review of controlled investigations in treatment-seeking and non-treatment seeking populations. Addiction 2002; 97: 279–92.
11 Heather, N. Interpreting the evidence on brief interventions for excessive drinkers: the need for caution. Alcohol Alcohol 1995; 30: 287–96.
12 Heather, N. Effectiveness of brief interventions proved beyond reasonable doubt. Addiction 2002; 97: 293–4.
13 Edwards, AG, Rollnick, S. Outcome studies of brief alcohol intervention in general practice: the problem of lost subjects. Addiction 1997; 92: 1699–704.
14 Howard, MO. Assessing the cost-effectiveness of alcoholism treatments: a comment on Holder, Longabaugh, Miller and Rubonis. J Stud Alcohol 1993; 54: 667–74.
15 Jonson, H, Hermansson, U, Rönnberg, S, Gyllenhammar, C, Forsberg, L. Comments on brief intervention of alcohol problems: a review of a review. Addiction 1995; 90: 1118–9.
16 Drummond, DC. Alcohol interventions: do the best things come in small packages? Addiction 1997; 92: 375–9.
17 Deehan, A, Templeton, L, Taylor, C, Drummond, DC, Strang, J. How do general practitioners manage alcohol misusing patients? Results from a national survey of GPs in England and Wales. Drug Alcohol Rev 1998; 17: 259–66.
18 Orleans, TC. Treating nicotine dependence in medical settings: a stepped care approach. In Nicotine Addiction: Principles and Management (eds Orleans, TC, Slade, J): 145–61. Oxford University Press, 1993.
19 Abrams, DB, Orleans, TC, Niaura, RS, Goldstein, MG, Prochaska, JO, Velcier, W. Integrating individual and public health perspectives for treatment of tobacco dependence under managed health care: a combined stepped care and matching model. Ann Behav Med 1996; 18: 290304.
20 Sobell, MB, Sobell, LC. Treatment for problem drinkers: a public health priority. In Addictive Behaviours Across the Lifespan: Prevention, Treatment, and Policy Issues (eds Baer, JS, Marlatt, GA, McMahon, RJ): 138–57. Sage, 1993.
21 Breslin, FC, Sobell, MB, Sobell, LC, Buchan, G, Cunningham, JA. Toward a stepped care approach to treating problem drinkers: the predictive utility of within treatment variables and therapist prognostic ratings. Addiction 1997; 92: 1479–89.
22 Wallace, P, Cutler, S, Haines, A. Randomized controlled trial of general practitioner intervention with excessive alcohol consumption. BMJ 1988; 297: 663–8.
23 Saunders, JB, Aasland, OG, Babor, TF, De La Fuente, JR, Grant, M. Development of the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT): WHO collaborative project on early detection of persons with harmful alcohol consumption. II. Addiction 1993; 88: 791804.
24 World Health Organization. Composite International Diagnostic Interview. Version 2.1. World Health Organization, 1997.
25 Miller, WR. Form 90: A Structured Assessment Interview for Drinking and Related Behaviors. Test Manual. Project MATCH Monograph Series, Vol. 5. DHHS Publication No. 96-4004. National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, 1996.
26 Rollnick, S, Butler, CC, Allison, J, Barth, T, Rosengren, D, Balliostes, S, et al. Brief adaptations of motivational interviewing. In Motivational Interviewing: Preparing People to Change (2nd edn) (eds Miller, W, Rollnick, S). Guilford Press, 2002.
27 Miller, WR, Zweben, A, DiClemente, CC, Rychtarik, RG. Motivational Enhancement Therapy Manual: A Clinical Research Guide for Therapists Treating Individuals with Alcohol Abuse and Dependence. National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, 1992.
28 Rollnick, S, Heather, N, Gold, R, Hall, W. Development of a short Readiness to Change Questionnaire for use in brief, opportunistic interventions among excessive drinkers. Br J Addict 1992; 87: 743–54.
29 Stockwell, T, Hodgson, R., Edwards, G. Taylor, C, Rankin, H. The development of a questionnaire to measure severity of alcohol dependence. Br J Addict Alcohol Other Drugs 1979; 74: 7987.
30 Drummond, DC. The relationship between alcohol dependence and alcohol-related problems in a clinical population. Br J Addict 1990; 85: 357–66.
31 Annis, HM, Graham, JM. Situational Confidence Questionnaire (Users Guide). Addiction Research Foundation, 1988.
32 Ware, J Jr, Kosinski, M, Keller, SD. A 12-Item Short-Form Health Survey: construction of scales and preliminary tests of reliability and validity. MedCare 1996; 34: 220–33.
33 Netten, A, Rees, T, Harrison, H. Unit Costs of Health and Social Care 2001. Personal Social Services Research Unit, University of Canterbury, 2001.
34 Coyle, D, Godfrey, C, Hardman, G, Raistrick, D. Costing substance misuse services. Addiction 1997; 92: 1007–15.
35 Brand, S, Price, R. The Economic and Social Costs of Crime. Home Office Research Study 217. Home Office, 2000.
36 EuroQol Group. EuroQol – a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life. Health Policy 1990; 16: 199208.
37 Brooks, R, Rabin, RE, de Charro, FTH. The Measurement and Valuation of Health Status using EQ–5D: A European Perspective. Springer, 2003.
38 Richardson, G, Manca, A. Calculation of Quality-Adjusted Life Years in the published literature: a review of methodology and transparency. Health Econ 2004; 13: 1203–10.
39 Vickers, AJ. The use of percentage change from baseline as an outcome in a controlled trial is statistically inefficient: a simulation study. BMC Med Res Methodol 2001; 1: 6.
40 Fenwick, E, Claxton, K, Sculpher, M. Representing uncertainty: the role of cost-effectiveness acceptability curves. Health Econ 2001; 10: 779–87.
41 Coulton, S, Drummond, C, James, D, Godfrey, C, Parrott, S, Peters, T. Opportunistic screening for alcohol use disorders in primary care: a comparison of screening methods. BMJ 2006; 332: 511–7.
42 Beich, A, Thorsen, T, Rollnick, S. Screening in brief intervention trials targeting excessive drinkers in general practice: systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ 2003; 327: 536.
43 Saitz, R. Alcohol screening as good as other recommended screens (eLetter). BMJ 2003; 28 September (http://www.bmj.com/cgi/eletters/327/7414/536g37131).
44 Babor, TF, Steinberg, K, Anton, R, Del Boca, F. Talk is cheap: measuring drinking outcomes in clinical trials. J Stud Alcohol 2000; 61: 5563.
45 Coulton, S, Watson, J, Bland, M, Drummond, C, Kaner, E, Godfrey, C, et al. The effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of opportunistic screening and stepped care interventions for older hazardous alcohol users in primary care (AESOPS) – a randomised control trial protocol. BMC Health Serv Res 2008; 8: 129.
Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

The British Journal of Psychiatry
  • ISSN: 0007-1250
  • EISSN: 1472-1465
  • URL: /core/journals/the-british-journal-of-psychiatry
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *
×

Metrics

Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed

Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a stepped care intervention for alcohol use disorders in primary care: pilot study

  • Colin Drummond (a1), Simon Coulton (a2), Darren James (a3), Christine Godfrey (a4), Steve Parrott (a4), John Baxter (a5), David Ford (a5), Bruce Lervy (a5), Stephen Rollnick (a6), Ian Russell (a7) and Timothy Peters (a8)...
Submit a response

eLetters

No eLetters have been published for this article.

×

Reply to: Submit a response


Your details


Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *