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

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 42 of the 42 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 18 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.

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., O'Connor, Patrick G.·2012·Annals of Emergency Medicine

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.

Overview

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.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

15 Own result · 14 Own method · 10 Not checked yet · 7 Own interpretation

Verify all 18 references — free account

Show all 13 claims

  • It may state two separate claims as one. 26
  • The quote only partly states this claim. 4
  • Probably not a substantial claim. 9
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?

Self-check

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

1 of 1

Citations

Cites

Show all 36 references

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

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)
Venue
Annals of Emergency Medicine
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2012-08
Volume
60
Issue
2
Pages
181-192
ISSN
0196-0644 (ISSN-L)
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
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.

A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-06, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).

A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-06 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).

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