Cited by 129Substance Abuse Treatment and OutcomesAlcohol Consumption and Health EffectsEmergency and Acute Care Studies

Brief intervention for hazardous and harmful drinkers in the emergency department

Open access
D'Onofrio, Gail, Pantalon, Michael V., Degutis, Linda C., Fiellin, David A., Busch, Susan H., Chawarski, Marek C., Owens, Patricia H., O'Connor, Patrick G.·2008·Annals of Emergency Medicine

Abstract

Study objective To determine the efficacy of emergency practitioner-performed brief intervention for hazardous/harmful drinkers in reducing alcohol consumption and negative consequences in an emergency department (ED) setting.Methods A randomized clinical trial (Project ED Health) was conducted in an urban ED from May 2002 to November 2003 for hazardous/harmful drinkers. Patients 18 years or older who screened above National Institute for Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism guidelines for "low-risk" drinking or presented with an injury in the setting of alcohol ingestion were eligible. The mean number of drinks per week and binge-drinking episodes during the past 30 days were collected at 6 and 12 months; negative consequences and use of treatment services, at 12 months. A Brief Negotiation Interview performed by emergency practitioners was compared to scripted Discharge Instructions.Results A total of 494 hazardous/harmful drinkers were studied. The 2 groups were similar with respect to baseline characteristics. In the Brief Negotiation Interview group, the mean number of drinks per week at 12 months was 3.8 less than the 13.6 reported at baseline. The Discharge Instructions group decreased 2.6 from 12.4 at baseline. Likewise, binge-drinking episodes per month decreased by 2.0 from a baseline of 6.0 in the Brief Negotiation Interview group and 1.5 from 5.4 in the Discharge Instructions group. For each outcome, the time effect was significant and the treatment effect was not.Conclusion Among ED patients with hazardous/harmful drinking, we did not detect a difference in efficacy between emergency practitioner-performed Brief Negotiation Interview and Discharge Instructions. Further studies to test the efficacy of brief intervention in the ED are needed.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.annemergmed.2007.11.028

Cites

36 of 36 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • 15 trials compared brief intervention to no or minimal intervention and reported frequency of drinking in terms of number of binge drinking occasions each week or each month at six or 12 months.

    “We included 15 trials that compared brief intervention to no or minimal intervention and reported frequency of drinking in terms of number of binge drinking occasions each week or each month at six or 12 months (Blow 2006;Daeppen 2007;D'Onofrio 2008;D'Onofrio 2012;Fleming 1997;Fleming 1999;Fleming 2004;Fleming 2010;Helstrom 2014;Longabaugh 2001;Ockene 1999;Rubio 2010;Spirito 2004;Soderstrom 2007;”

    From Effectiveness of brief alcohol interventions in primary care populations (2018) · cites this paper as D'Onofrio 2008

  • In D'Onofrio 2008, blinding of outcome assessment was judged to be at low risk of detection bias for all outcomes.

    “Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes Low risk”

    From Effectiveness of brief alcohol interventions in primary care populations (2018) · cites this paper as D'Onofrio 2008

  • In D'Onofrio 2008, random sequence generation was judged to be at unclear risk of selection bias.

    “Random sequence generation (selection bias) Unclear risk”

    From Effectiveness of brief alcohol interventions in primary care populations (2018) · cites this paper as D'Onofrio 2008

  • In D'Onofrio 2008, blinding of treatment providers was judged to be at unclear risk of bias.

    “Blinding of treatment providers Unclear risk”

    From Effectiveness of brief alcohol interventions in primary care populations (2018) · cites this paper as D'Onofrio 2008

  • In D'Onofrio 2008, allocation concealment was judged to be at low risk of selection bias.

    “Allocation concealment (selection bias) Low risk”

    From Effectiveness of brief alcohol interventions in primary care populations (2018) · cites this paper as D'Onofrio 2008

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
D'Onofrio, G., Pantalon, M. V., Degutis, L. C., Fiellin, D. A., Busch, S. H., Chawarski, M. C., Owens, P. H., & O'Connor, P. G.
Affiliations
Yale University (US)
Venue
Annals of Emergency Medicine
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2008-06
Volume
51
Issue
6
Pages
742-750.e2
ISSN
0196-0644 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2026525089
Cited by
129
References
34
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 11 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 15 · 2014: 14 · 2013: 7 · 2012: 13
FWCI
8.66
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Annals of Emergency Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (R01 AA 12417-01A1, R01AA012417)
  • National Institute on Drug Abuse (K23 DA15144, K23DA015144)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Substance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pathology and Forensic Medicine › Alcohol Consumption and Health Effects
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Emergency Medicine › Emergency and Acute Care Studies
Keywords
brief intervention, hazardous drinking, emergency department, alcohol consumption, binge drinking, discharge instructions, alcohol-related injuries
MeSH terms
Adult, Alcohol Drinking, Emergency Service, Hospital, Female, Humans, Male, Mass Screening, Motivation, Outcome and Process Assessment, Health Care, Referral and Consultation, Logistic Models, Treatment Outcome

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review