Cited by 57Substance Abuse Treatment and OutcomesAlcohol Consumption and Health EffectsHomelessness and Social Issues

Alcohol Screening and Brief Interventions for Offenders in the Probation Setting (SIPS Trial): a Pragmatic Multicentre Cluster Randomized Controlled Trial

Open access
Newbury-Birch, Dorothy, Coulton, Simon, Bland, Martin, Cassidy, Paul, Dale, Veronica, Deluca, Paolo, Gilvarry, Eilish, Godfrey, Christine +11 more·2014·Alcohol and Alcoholism

Abstract

AIM: To evaluate the effectiveness of different brief intervention strategies at reducing hazardous or harmful drinking in the probation setting. Offender managers were randomized to three interventions, each of which built on the previous one: feedback on screening outcome and a client information leaflet control group, 5 min of structured brief advice and 20 min of brief lifestyle counselling. METHODS: A pragmatic multicentre factorial cluster randomized controlled trial. The primary outcome was self-reported hazardous or harmful drinking status measured by Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT) at 6 months (negative status was a score of <8). Secondary outcomes were AUDIT status at 12 months, experience of alcohol-related problems, health utility, service utilization, readiness to change and reduction in conviction rates. RESULTS: Follow-up rates were 68% at 6 months and 60% at 12 months. At both time points, there was no significant advantage of more intensive interventions compared with the control group in terms of AUDIT status. Those in the brief advice and brief lifestyle counselling intervention groups were statistically significantly less likely to reoffend (36 and 38%, respectively) than those in the client information leaflet group (50%) in the year following intervention. CONCLUSION: Brief advice or brief lifestyle counselling provided no additional benefit in reducing hazardous or harmful drinking compared with feedback on screening outcome and a client information leaflet. The impact of more intensive brief intervention on reoffending warrants further research.

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/agu046

Cites

39 of 39 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?

  • BCTTv1 has been used to code interventions across a variety of behavioural domains, including physical activity and dietary behaviours, oral hygiene, hazardous and harmful drinking, sexual health, blood pressure control/management, antibiotic-prescribing and diabetes preventative behaviours.

    “BCTTv1 has been used to code interventions across a variety of behavioural domains, including physical activity and dietary behaviours [31, 32], oral hygiene behaviours [33], hazardous and harmful drinking [34], sexual health behaviours [35–37], blood pressure control/management behaviours [38], antibiotic-prescribing [39, 40] and diabetes preventative behaviours [41].”
  • A large randomized multisite study of SBIRT for harmful alcohol use in probation settings in England found no statistically significant effect on alcohol use at 12 months, but the brief intervention group had a lower reconviction rate than the information-only group.

    “A large (N = 525) randomized, multisite study of SBIRT for harmful alcohol use in probation settings in England found no statistically significant effect on alcohol use at 12 months, although those in the brief intervention group did have a lower reconviction rate than did those in the information-only group (Newbury-Birch et al., 2014).”
  • The results of this study lend support to studies that found SBIRT to have no significant impact on drug use in medical settings or on alcohol among probationers.

    “The results of this study lend support to those studies that have found SBIRT to have no significant impact on drug use in medical settings (Roy-Byrne et al., 2014; Saitz et al., 2014) or on alcohol among probationers (Newbury-Birch et al., 2014; Stein et al., 2010).”

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

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Bertholet N, Daeppen J-B, Wietlisbach V et al . (2005) Brief alcohol intervention in primary care: systematic review and meta-analysis. Arch Int Med 165 :986 -95.
  2. Maltz M. (1984) Recidivism . Orlando, FL: Academic Press.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Newbury-Birch, D., Coulton, S., Bland, M., Cassidy, P., Dale, V., Deluca, P., Gilvarry, E., Godfrey, C., Heather, N., Kaner, E., McGovern, R., Myles, J., Oyefeso, A., Parrott, S., Patton, R., Perryman, K., Phillips, T., Shepherd, J., & Drummond, C.
Affiliations
  • University of Kent (GB)
  • University of York (GB)
  • King's College London (GB)
  • Cumbria Northumberland Tyne and Wear NHS Foundation Trust (GB)
  • Northumbria University (GB)
  • Newcastle University (GB)
  • St George's, University of London (GB)
  • University of Manchester (GB)
  • Cardiff University (GB)
Venue
Alcohol and Alcoholism
Published
2014-07-26
Volume
49
Issue
5
Pages
540-548
ISSN
  • 0735-0414 (ISSN-L)
  • 1464-3502
OpenAlex
W2151864791
Cited by
57
References
39
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 10 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 10 · 2015: 5
FWCI
5.29
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Alcohol and Alcoholism (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • TeesRep (Teesside University) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • Teesside University Research Portal (Teesside University) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • Research Portal (King's College London) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • Northumbria Research Link (Northumbria University) (acceptedVersion)
  • Kent Academic Repository (University of Kent) (submittedVersion)
  • Open Research (University of Surrey) (submittedVersion)
  • Surrey Research Insight Open Access (The University of Surrey) (submittedVersion)
  • Repository@Hull (Worktribe) (University of Hull) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • ORCA Online Research @Cardiff (Cardiff University) (submittedVersion)
  • Repository@Hull (Worktribe) (University of Hull) (submittedVersion)
  • Research Explorer (The University of Manchester) (submittedVersion)
  • Newcastle University ePrints (Newcastle Univesity)
Funders
  • National Institute for Health and Care Research (RP-PG-0609-10162, 13/86/03, CDRF 2009-81, HTA/13/86/03)
  • Medical Research Council (MR/K02325X/1, MR/K023195/1)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Substance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pathology and Forensic Medicine › Alcohol Consumption and Health Effects
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Homelessness and Social Issues
Keywords
alcohol screening, brief intervention, offenders, probation, hazardous drinking, recidivism, alcohol-related problems, health utility, readiness to change
MeSH terms
Adult, Alcohol Drinking, Counseling, Female, Humans, Male, Psychotherapy, Brief, Substance Abuse Detection, Treatment Outcome, Young Adult, Criminals

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