Cited by 41Substance Abuse Treatment and OutcomesAlcohol Consumption and Health EffectsHealth Promotion and Cardiovascular Prevention

Screening and brief intervention targeting risky drinkers in Danish general practice - a pragmatic controlled trial

Beich, Anders, Gannik, Dorte, Saelan, Henrik, Thorsen, Thorkil·2007·Alcohol and Alcoholism

Abstract

AIMS: Recommendations for routine alcohol screening and brief counselling intervention in primary health care rest on results from intervention efficacy studies. By conducting a pragmatic controlled trial (PCT), we aimed at evaluating the effectiveness of the WHO recommendations for screening and brief intervention (SBI) in general practice. METHODS: A randomized PCT (brief counselling intervention vs no intervention) involving 39 Danish general practitioners (GPs). Systematic screening of 6897 adults led to inclusion of 906 risky drinkers, and research follow-up on 537 of these after 12-14 months. Outcome measures focused on patients' acceptance of screening and intervention and their self-reported alcohol consumption. RESULTS: Patient acceptance of screening and intervention -10.3% (N = 794) of the target population (N = 7, 691) explicitly refused screening. All intervention group subjects (N = 442) were exposed to an instant brief counselling session while only 17.9% of them (79/442) attended a follow-up consultation that was offered by their GP. Consumption Changes At one-year follow-up, average weekly consumption had increased by 0.7 drinks in both comparison groups. As secondary findings, we observed an indiscriminate absolute risk reduction (ARR = 0.08 (95% CI: -0.02; 0.18)) in male binge drinking, but adverse intervention effects for women on the secondary outcomes (binge drinking ARR = -0.30 (95% CI: -0.47; -0.09)). CONCLUSIONS: The results of brief interventions in everyday general practice performed on the basis of systematic questionnaire screening may fall short of theoretical expectations. When applied to non-selected groups in everyday general practice SBI may have little effect and engender diverse outcome. Women may be more susceptible to defensive reactions than men.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/alcalc/agm063

Cites

51 of 51 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Of these 51 studies, 27 reported quantity and corresponding standard deviation at 12 months.

    “Of these, 27 studies reported quantity and corresponding standard deviation at 12 months (Altisent 1997;Beich 2007;Bernstein 2010;Blow 2006;Córdoba 1998;Crawford 2004;Daeppen 2007;D'Onofrio 2008;D'Onofrio 2012;Drummond 2014;Fleming 1997;Fleming 1999;Fleming 2004;Fleming 2010;Helstrom 2014;Kaner 2013;Lock 2006;Maisto 2001;Richmond 1995;Rubio 2010;Schaus 2009;Scott 1990;Senft 1997;Soderstrom 2007;”
  • Three trials (4%) were at high risk of detection bias because the outcome assessor was not blinded.

    “We assessed three trials (4%) to be at high risk of detection bias because they stated that the outcome assessor was not blinded (Beich 2007;Dent 2008;Segatto 2011).”
  • Beich 2007 had low risk of bias for allocation concealment.

    “Allocation concealment (selection bias) Low risk Screening questionnaires went into a sealed envelope which had a symbol on the front which had to be uncovered scratch card style (p.594)”
  • Beich 2007 had unclear risk of bias for random sequence generation.

    “Random sequence generation (selection bias) Unclear risk Sequence generation not described.”
  • Beich 2007 had high risk of bias for blinding of treatment providers.

    “Blinding of treatment providers High risk”

Self-check

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

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 52 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. Babor, T. F., de la Fuente, J. R., Saunders, J. B. et al . (1992) The AUDIT: Guidelines for Use in Primary Care . WHO: Geneva.
  2. Babor, T. F., Higgins-Biddle, J. C., Saunders, J. B. et al . (2001) The AUDIT: Guidelines for Use in Primary Care , 2nd edn. WHO: Geneva.
  3. Saunders, J. B. and Aasland, O. G. (1987) WHO Collaborative Study on Identification and Treatment of Persons with Harmful Alcohol Consumption. Report on Phase 1: Development of a Screening Instrument . WHO: Geneva.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Beich, A., Gannik, D., Saelan, H., & Thorsen, T.
Affiliations
  • University of Copenhagen (DK)
  • Copenhagen Municipality (DK)
Corresponding author
Beich, Anders
Venue
Alcohol and Alcoholism
Published
2007-09-11
Volume
42
Issue
6
Pages
593-603
ISSN
  • 0735-0414 (ISSN-L)
  • 1464-3502
OpenAlex
W2139580845
Cited by
41
References
52
Citations by year
2022: 2 · 2021: 5 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 1 · 2013: 3 · 2012: 5
FWCI
1.60
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Alcohol and Alcoholism (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Research at the University of Copenhagen (University of Copenhagen) (submittedVersion)
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 › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Health Promotion and Cardiovascular Prevention
Keywords
alcohol screening, brief intervention, hazardous drinking, general practice, primary care, binge drinking, alcohol consumption, intervention effectiveness, sex differences, defensive reactions, WHO guidelines
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Alcohol Drinking, Alcoholism, Denmark, Family Practice, Female, Follow-Up Studies, Humans, Male, Mass Screening, Middle Aged, Physician's Role, Risk Factors

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