CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 207Substance Abuse Treatment and OutcomesAlcohol Consumption and Health EffectsEmergency and Acute Care Studies

A Brief Intervention Reduces Hazardous and Harmful Drinking in Emergency Department Patients

Open access
D'Onofrio, Gail, Fiellin, David A., Pantalon, Michael V., Chawarski, Marek C., Owens, Patricia H., Degutis, Linda C., Busch, Susan H., Bernstein, Steven L. +1 more·2012·Annals of Emergency Medicine
DOI 10.1016/j.annemergmed.2012.02.006PMC PMC3811141
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Study objective Brief interventions have been shown to reduce alcohol use and improve outcomes in hazardous and harmful drinkers, but evidence to support their use in emergency department (ED) patients is limited. The use of research assessments in studies of brief interventions may contribute to uncertainty about their effectiveness. Therefore we seek to determine (1) if an emergency practitioner-performed Brief Negotiation Interview or a Brief Negotiation Interview with a booster reduces alcohol consumption compared with standard care; and (2) the impact of research assessments on drinking outcomes using a standard care-no-assessment group. Methods We randomized 889 adult ED patients with hazardous and harmful drinking. A total of 740 received an emergency practitioner-performed Brief Negotiation Interview (n=297), a Brief Negotiation Interview with a 1-month follow-up telephone booster (Brief Negotiation Interview with booster) (n=295), or standard care (n=148). We also included a standard care with no assessments (n=149) group to examine the effect of assessments on drinking outcomes. Primary outcomes analyzed with mixed-models procedures included past 7-day alcohol consumption and 28-day binge episodes at 6 and 12 months, collected by interactive voice response. Secondary outcomes included negative health behaviors and consequences collected by telephone surveys. Results The reduction in mean number of drinks in the past 7 days from baseline to 6 and 12 months was significantly greater in the Brief Negotiation Interview with booster (from 20.4 [95% confidence interval {CI} 18.8 to 22.0] to 11.6 [95% CI 9.7 to 13.5] to 13.0 [95% CI 10.5 to 15.5]) and Brief Negotiation Interview (from 19.8 [95% CI 18.3 to 21.4] to 12.7 [95% CI 10.8 to 14.6] to 14.3 [95% CI 11.9 to 16.8]) than in standard care (from 20.9 [95% CI 18.7 to 23.2] to 14.2 [95% CI 11.2 to 17.1] to 17.6 [95% CI 14.1 to 21.2]). The reduction in 28-day binge episodes was also greater in the Brief Negotiation Interview with booster (from 7.5 [95% CI 6.8 to 8.2] to 4.4 [95% CI 3.6 to 5.2] to 4.7 [95% CI 3.9 to 5.6]) and Brief Negotiation Interview (from 7.2 [95% CI 6.5 to 7.9] to 4.8 [95% CI 4.0 to 5.6] to 5.1 [95% CI 4.2 to 5.9]) than in standard care (from 7.2 [95% CI 6.2 to 8.2] to 5.7 [95% CI 4.5 to 6.9] to 5.8 [95% CI 4.6 to 7.0]). The Brief Negotiation Interview with booster offered no significant benefit over the Brief Negotiation Interview alone. There were no differences in drinking outcomes between the standard care and standard care-no assessment groups. The reductions in rates of driving after drinking more than 3 drinks from baseline to 12 months were greater in the Brief Negotiation Interview (38% to 29%) and Brief Negotiation Interview with booster (39% to 31%) groups than in the standard care group (43% to 42%). Conclusion Emergency practitioner-performed brief interventions can reduce alcohol consumption and episodes of driving after drinking in hazardous and harmful drinkers. These results support the use of brief interventions in ED settings.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.annemergmed.2012.02.006

Cites

42 of 42 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Claims the paper makes

0 of 18 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged

  • Findingown data

    Drinking outcomes did not differ between the assessed standard care group and the non-assessed standard care group.

    “There were no differences in drinking outcomes between the SC and SC-NA groups.”
    • Also stated in: § Alcohol Consumption · plain
      “The mean (SD) number of drinks per week reported by the SC-NA group at 12 months was 16.6 (14.2), compared to 17.6 (17.7) in the SC group (p=0.67), and the number of binge days/month 6.9 (6.8) compared to 5.8 (5.6) in the SC group (p=0.60), were not significantly different.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Findingown data

    From baseline to 6 and 12 months, the mean number of drinks in the past 7 days fell significantly more in the Brief Negotiation Interview with booster group than in standard care.

    “The reduction in mean number of drinks in the past 7 days from baseline to 6 and 12 months was significantly greater in BNI with Booster: from 20.4 (95% confidence interval [CI], 18.8-22.0) to 11.6 (95% CI, 9.7-13.5) to 13.0 (95% CI, 10.5-15.5) and BNI: from 19.8 (95% CI, 18.3-21.4) to 12.7 (95% CI, 10.8-14.6), to 14.3 (95% CI, 11.9-16.8), than in SC: from 20.9 (95% CI, 18.7-23.2) to 14.2 (95% CI,”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingown data

    Alcohol consumption fell over time in all three groups.

    “All three groups decreased their alcohol consumption over time.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Findingown data

    Participants reported about 1.4 more drinks per week on Interactive Voice Response than on the face-to-face Health Questionnaire (95% CI 0.8-2.0, p<0.001).

    “we found that participants reported on average 1.4 (95%CI: 0.8-2.0) drinks more per week using the Interactive Voice Response than on the face-to-face Health Questionnaire (p<0.001).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Findingown data

    Adding a booster to the Brief Negotiation Interview produced no significant improvement in drinking outcomes over the Brief Negotiation Interview alone.

    “BNI with Booster offered no significant benefit over BNI.”
    • Also stated in: § Alcohol Consumption · plain
      “There were no statistically significant differences in drinking outcomes between the BNI with Booster and BNI groups.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • May combine two claims. 26
  • The quote only partly states this claim. 4
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. 9

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Groups did not differ significantly in changes in Treatment Services Review, Short Inventory of Problems, or Revised Injury Behavior Checklist scores, arrests for driving under the influence, or legal contacts.

    “There were no statistically significant differences among the groups on changes in TSR, SIP or IBC scores, numbers of arrests for driving under the influence, or contacts with the legal system from baseline to follow up.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The intervention effect was strongest among participants aged 26 or older, while younger participants showed a stronger return toward baseline drinking at 12 months.

    “The intervention was most pronounced among those ≥26 years old, while drinking and bingeing episodes in younger patients showed a stronger rebounding trend toward their baseline values at 12 months, suggesting that additional modifications to the intervention either in content and/or intensity may be needed for this group.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    At 12 months, the non-assessed standard care group and the assessed standard care group did not differ significantly in mean weekly drinks or monthly binge days.

    “The mean (SD) number of drinks per week reported by the SC-NA group at 12 months was 16.6 (14.2), compared to 17.6 (17.7) in the SC group (p=0.67), and the number of binge days/month 6.9 (6.8) compared to 5.8 (5.6) in the SC group (p=0.60), were not significantly different.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • The quote only partly states this claim.

    Findingown data

    From baseline to 6 and 12 months, 28-day binge episodes fell significantly more in the Brief Negotiation Interview group than in standard care.

    “The reductions in the mean number of drinks per week (p=0.045) and binge episodes (p=0.031) were significantly greater for the BNI and BNI with Booster groups compared to the SC group (Table 2).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • The quote only partly states this claim.

    Findingown data

    From baseline to 6 and 12 months, the mean number of drinks in the past 7 days fell significantly more in the Brief Negotiation Interview group than in standard care.

    “The reductions in the mean number of drinks per week (p=0.045) and binge episodes (p=0.031) were significantly greater for the BNI and BNI with Booster groups compared to the SC group (Table 2).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Age had significant main effects on weekly drinks and monthly binge episodes, and age interacted significantly with treatment group on both primary outcomes.

    “We also found significant main effects of age (p=0.016 for the number of drinks per week, and p<0.001 for the number of bingeing episodes per month), and significant interactions between age and treatment group on both primary outcome measures (p=0.002 for the number of drinks per week, and p=0.007 for the number of bingeing episodes).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Self-reported motor vehicle crashes while intoxicated and missed work days decreased over time without a treatment effect.

    “The reported numbers of motor vehicle crashes while intoxicated and missed days of work decreased over time without a treatment effect (Table 3).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • The quote only partly states this claim.

    Findingown data

    From baseline to 6 and 12 months, 28-day binge episodes fell significantly more in the Brief Negotiation Interview with booster group than in standard care.

    “The reduction in 28-day binge episodes was also greater in BNI with Booster: from 7.5 (95% CI, 6.8-8.2) to 4.4 (95% CI, 3.6-5.2) to 4.7 (95% CI, 3.9-5.6) and in BNI: from 7.2 (95% CI, 6.5-7.9) to 4.8 (95% CI, 4.0-5.6), to 5.1 (95% CI, 4.2-5.9), than in SC: from 7.2 (95% CI, 6.2-8.2) to 5.7 (95% CI, 4.5-6.9), to 5.8 (95% CI, 4.6-7.0).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Treatment outcomes did not differ by sex or by presence of an injury.

    “There were no differences in treatment outcomes related to sex or presence of an injury.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    The act of assessing alcohol use in research may by itself reduce drinking, making it hard to distinguish assessment effects from intervention effects.

    “There is an additional concern that research assessments of alcohol consumption can themselves lead to decreased drinking28 thus making it difficult to separate the assessment effect from the overall intervention outcomes.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [28] Bernstein, 2010, Mechanisms of change in control group drinking in clinical trials of brief alcohol intervention: implications for bias toward the null, Drug Alcohol source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductnone given

    The study received approval from Yale University's Human Investigation Committee and was registered on ClinicalTrials.gov under NCT00261859.

    “This study was approved by the Yale University Human Investigation Committee and registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT00261859).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductcitation

    Emergency practitioners who delivered the Brief Negotiation Interview completed a two-hour training and proficiency testing.

    “EPs who performed the BNI, including attending physicians and residents, physician associates, and advanced practice registered nurses, received a 2-hour training program and proficiency testing.33”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [33] D'Onofrio, 2005, Development and implementation of an emergency practitioner–performed brief intervention for hazardous and harmful drinkers in the emergency department, Acad Emerg Med

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    A prior meta-analysis of emergency department alcohol strategies reported no significant drinking reduction from brief intervention, but a 50% lower rate of alcohol-related injury.

    “A recent meta-analysis of strategies targeting alcohol problems in the ED found that BI did not significantly reduce drinking but was associated with a 50% reduction in alcohol-related injury.25”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [25] Havard, 2008, Systematic review and meta-analyses of strategies targeting alcohol problems in emergency departments: interventions reduce alcohol-related injuries, Addiction source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Prior work indicates that brief interventions lower drinking and improve outcomes in people with hazardous or harmful alcohol use.

    “Brief interventions (BI) have been shown to reduce alcohol use and improve outcomes in Hazardous and Harmful (HH) drinkers but evidence to support their use in emergency department (ED) patients is limited.”
    • Also stated in: § Importance · plain
      “Evidence exists for the use of brief interventions (BI) for alcohol in primary care,16,17,18 and inpatient trauma settings.19”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 4 sources checked
    • cites [16] Nilssen, 2004, Long-term effect of brief intervention in at-risk alcohol drinkers: a 9-year follow-up study, Alcohol Alcohol source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [17] Kaner, 2007, Effectiveness of brief alcohol interventions in primary care populations, Cochrane Database Syst Rev

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [18] Solberg, 2008, Primary care intervention to reduce alcohol misuse ranking its health impact and cost effectiveness, Am J Prev Med source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [19] Gentilello, 2005, Alcohol interventions for trauma patients treated in emergency departments and hospitals: a cost benefit analysis, Ann Surg source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductnone given

    Randomization used a 100-block procedure, and research associates received sealed envelopes for each study identification number.

    “randomized using a 100-block randomization procedure (RAs were provided with sealed envelopes for each of the study identification numbers).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductreasoning

    Interactive Voice Response may be more accurate for follow-up assessment, but its mechanical and slow voice limits feasibility for longer assessments.

    “While Interactive Voice Response may be a more accurate tool for follow-up assessment, the system’s voice is mechanical and slow, considerably limiting feasibility to collect longer time line follow-back and other long assessment and our study subjects were less likely to use the Interactive Voice Response system than to speak directly to an RA on the telephone.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    Using existing emergency department staff to deliver brief interventions of about seven minutes during routine visits is feasible and effective, which may improve sustainability.

    “Our findings demonstrate the feasibility and efficacy of using existing staff to perform such interventions, approximately 7 minutes in length, during routine ED visits which may enhance sustainability.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductown data

    The study was conducted at a single teaching hospital affiliated with an academic institution.

    “This study was conducted at one site: a teaching hospital associated with an academic institution.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductown data

    All participants assigned to Brief Negotiation Interview, Brief Negotiation Interview with booster, and standard care received their assigned treatment, and 81% of booster-group participants received the booster call.

    “All participants randomized to the BNI, BNI with Booster and SC, groups received treatment as assigned and 81% of BNI with Booster subjects received the booster.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductcitation

    Power calculations used a published effect size of 0.33; a sample of 900 gave more than 0.80 power to detect low-to-moderate effects with a 0.05 type I error rate.

    “Power calculations were based on published data38 indicating an expected effect of 0.33 in reduction of alcohol use between the experimental and control conditions. A total sample of 900 patients provided power (>0.80) to detect the hypothesized low-to moderate-sized effects (assuming a type I error of 0.05).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [38] Fleming, 1997, Brief physician advice for problem alcohol drinkers: a randomized controlled trial in community-based primary care practices, JAMA source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductnone given

    Research associates who collected follow-up data were blinded to participants' study group.

    “The RAs were blinded to study group assignment.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    Assessment had no significant effect on drinking reductions, which supports the effectiveness of the Brief Negotiation Interview itself.

    “However, contrary to our original hypothesis, our assessment had no significant effect on drinking reductions, thus supporting the effectiveness of the BNI itself.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    The intervention was delivered solely by existing staff during a visit to a large urban emergency department and can be effective.

    “This demonstrates that a brief intervention performed solely with existing staff, during a visit to a large, urban ED setting, can be effective.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductcitation

    The study's data are based on self-report, but the time-line follow-back method is reliable and Interactive Voice Response can reduce social desirability bias.

    “While our data are based on self report, we employed a reliable time-line follow back method34 to collect alcohol consumption data. We also employed Interactive Voice Response technology which offers an opportunity to collect data without patient-staff interaction and can reduce social desirability bias.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [34] Sobell, 1992, Timeline follow-back: a technique for assessing self-reported alcohol consumption

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductown data

    Primary analyses followed intention-to-treat and included all 740 patients in the Brief Negotiation Interview, Brief Negotiation Interview with booster, and standard care groups.

    “The primary analyses were based on the intention-to-treat principle and included all patients in the BNI, BNI with Booster and SC groups (n=740).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Previous systematic reviews of emergency department alcohol studies found substantial methodological heterogeneity and limited efficacy.

    “Previous systematic reviews of alcohol studies in adult ED populations highlighted substantial methodological heterogeneity and results have shown limited efficacy.46”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [46]

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    Brief interventions performed by emergency practitioners reduce alcohol consumption and impaired driving episodes.

    “In conclusion, brief interventions performed by EPs reduce alcohol consumption and episodes of impaired driving.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The standard care control condition used in the trial was credible.

  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductreasoning

    The current study tried to address prior methodological concerns by using universal screening, a credible control condition, Interactive Voice Response, and short assessments to limit assessment effects.

    “The current study, which demonstrated an effect of treatment, attempted to address these concerns by using universal screening, a credible control condition, Interactive Voice Response methodology to limit patient-staff interaction, and relatively short assessments in an attempt to limit the effect of assessments on drinking.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductown data

    Adherence was good: the Brief Negotiation Interview averaged 8.5 of 11 items (77.5%) and the booster averaged 9.4 of 13 items (73%).

    “The mean adherence score for the BNI was 8.5 out of 11 possible items (77.5%). The mean score for the booster was 9.4 out of 13 items (73%) indicating good adherence.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims. The quote only partly states this claim.

    Study design and conductown data

    Follow-up completion was moderate for Interactive Voice Response (about 49% to 61%) and higher for telephone interviews (about 82% to 89%).

    “The proportions of patients completing Interactive Voice Response assessment at 6 months were 179/297 (60.3%), 174/295 (59.0%), 73/148 (49.3%); and at 12 months were 181/297 (60.9%), 169/295 (57.3%), 86/148 (58.1%), for the BNI, BNI with Booster and SC groups respectively.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductown data

    Audio recordings of Brief Negotiation Interview and booster sessions were rated for fidelity by three independent trained raters who did not know the study hypotheses or treatment assignments.

    “Audiotapes of BNI and booster encounters were rated by three independent, trained raters who were blinded to study hypotheses and treatment assignment.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductcitation

    The mixed models used all available data, so participants with missing data remained in the analyses.

    “The mixed models procedures uses all available data on each subject; therefore, all study participants, including those with missing data are included in the analyses.39,40”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites [39] Little, 1996

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [40] Gueorguieva, 2004, Move over ANOVA: progress in analyzing repeated-measures data and its reflection in papers published in the Archives of General Psychiatry, Arch Gen Psychiatry source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    Brief interventions delivered by emergency practitioners reduced alcohol consumption and impaired driving in hazardous and harmful drinkers.

    “EP-performed brief interventions for HH drinkers significantly reduced alcohol consumption and decreased impaired driving.”
    • Also stated in: § DISCUSSION · plain
      “In conclusion, brief interventions performed by EPs reduce alcohol consumption and episodes of impaired driving.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The standard care control condition used in the trial was credible.
33 of 33

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The standard care control condition used in the trial was credible.

    “a credible control condition”
1 of 1

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?

  • In D'Onofrio 2012, incomplete outcome data was judged to be at high risk of attrition bias for all outcomes.

    “Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes High risk”

    From Effectiveness of brief alcohol interventions in primary care populations (2018) · cites this paper as D'Onofrio 2012

    The Limitations section acknowledges missing data at 6 and 12 months but says the mixed-model analyses were designed to handle them with little bias. The Methods section likewise describes including participants with missing data; the paper does not judge attrition bias to be high risk for all outcomes. No page numbers were available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Opportunistic screening and brief intervention and referral to treatment for individuals presenting to an Emergency Department is a World Health Organization recommended cost-effective strategy.

    “Opportunistic screening and brief intervention and referral to treatment for individuals presenting to an Emergency Department is not only a World Health Organization recommended cost-effective strategy, but represents an opportunity to identify patients at high risk of alcohol related harm and intervene at a ‘teachable moment’ specifically when suffering an alcohol related injury [6,7].”

    From Effectiveness of a brief intervention and text-based booster in the emergency department to reduce harmful and hazardous alcohol use: A pragmatic randomized adaptive clinical trial in Moshi, Tanzania (2025) · cites this paper as [7]

    The Methods (Setting and Participants) describe screening emergency-department patients, and the Discussion reports that brief interventions reduced alcohol consumption and impaired driving. The paper does not say that the World Health Organization recommends this ED strategy or establish that it is cost-effective; its reference to a cost-effectiveness study concerns primary care. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • The use of brief interventions in an Emergency Department has been shown to be a cost-effective and sustainable strategy to reduce alcohol consumption and number of binge drinking episodes.

    “The use of BIs in an ED has been shown to be a cost-effective [10] and sustainable strategy to reduce alcohol consumption [7,10,11], and number of binge drinking episodes [7]; still, there are many opportunities to improve the implementation of a BI in the ED to promote equitable reach, adoption and intervention fidelity [12]”

    From Effectiveness of a brief intervention and text-based booster in the emergency department to reduce harmful and hazardous alcohol use: A pragmatic randomized adaptive clinical trial in Moshi, Tanzania (2025) · cites this paper as [7]

    The Results (Alcohol Consumption; page unavailable) report significantly greater reductions in drinks per week and binge episodes for the brief-intervention groups than for standard care. The Discussion says using existing ED staff may enhance sustainability, but does not establish that the strategy is sustainable. Cost-effectiveness is attributed to a different citation [10], not this paper. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Opportunistic screening and brief intervention and referral to treatment represents an opportunity to identify patients at high risk of alcohol-related harm and intervene at a teachable moment when suffering an alcohol-related injury.

    “Opportunistic screening and brief intervention and referral to treatment for individuals presenting to an Emergency Department is not only a World Health Organization recommended cost-effective strategy, but represents an opportunity to identify patients at high risk of alcohol related harm and intervene at a ‘teachable moment’ specifically when suffering an alcohol related injury [6,7].”

    From Effectiveness of a brief intervention and text-based booster in the emergency department to reduce harmful and hazardous alcohol use: A pragmatic randomized adaptive clinical trial in Moshi, Tanzania (2025) · cites this paper as [7]

    The Introduction (Background; page unavailable) describes screening ED patients for hazardous or harmful drinking, including patients presenting with alcohol-related injury. The Methods (Setting and Participants; page unavailable) confirm that screening identified such drinkers for intervention. The paper does not characterize an alcohol-related injury as a specific ‘teachable moment’; its Discussion describes the intervention in general ED patients, not only injured patients. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Some global literature has found intermittent post-intervention reminders to be helpful, while other literature has found limited impact.

    “Some global literature has found intermittent post-intervention reminders to be helpful, while others have found limited impact [7,16].”

    From Effectiveness of a brief intervention and text-based booster in the emergency department to reduce harmful and hazardous alcohol use: A pragmatic randomized adaptive clinical trial in Moshi, Tanzania (2025) · cites this paper as [7]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

  • Booster-call interquartile range is understated

    Minor

    The stated quartiles are 5 minutes and 4 seconds apart, not 3 minutes. Even subtracting only their minute components gives 5 minutes.

    Reported 3 · recomputed 5

1 of 1

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
D'Onofrio, G., Fiellin, D. A., Pantalon, M. V., Chawarski, M. C., Owens, P. H., Degutis, L. C., Busch, S. H., Bernstein, S. L., & O'Connor, P. G.
Affiliations
Yale University (US)
ORCID
Venue
Annals of Emergency Medicine
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2012-08
Volume
60
Issue
2
Pages
181-192
ISSN
0196-0644 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.annemergmed.2012.02.006
PMC
PMC3811141
OpenAlex
W2069572191
Cited by
207
References
36
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 12 · 2022: 21 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 15 · 2019: 14 · 2018: 23 · 2017: 17 · 2016: 21 · 2015: 25 · 2014: 19 · 2013: 12 · 2012: 8
FWCI
15.33
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Annals of Emergency Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (R01AA014963, 1R01AA14963)
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, emergency department patients, hazardous drinking, booster intervention, alcohol consumption, binge drinking, alcohol screening, telephone follow-up, health effects of alcohol, alcohol-related injuries
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Age Factors, Alcohol Drinking, Alcoholic Intoxication, Alcoholism, Emergency Service, Hospital, Female, Humans, Male, Directive Counseling, Young Adult

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.

Claims read by deepseek-v4.1-flash under definition version 3 (extract-v3) on 2026-10-06.

Classified by jev-1.13-20260917 (gold-guideline-v0.2) on 2026-10-06.

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