Cited by 74Substance Abuse Treatment and OutcomesAlcohol Consumption and Health EffectsBehavioral Health and Interventions

Effectiveness of brief intervention on non-dependent alcohol drinkers (EBIAL): a Spanish multi-centre study

Cordoba, R·1998·Family Practice

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The project was designed to compare the effectiveness of brief intervention (BI) versus simple advice (SA) in the secondary prevention of hazardous alcohol consumption. METHODS: A randomized controlled trial with a 12-month follow-up was conducted. A total of 74 community-based primary care practices (328 physicians) located in 13 Spanish autonomous regions were recruited initially. Out of 546 men screened, only 229 were randomized into BI (n = 104) and SA (n = 125); 44.6% of practices finalized the study. The interventions on the BI group consisted of a 15-minute counselling visit carried out by physicians which included: (i) alcohol quantification, (ii) information on safe limits, (iii) advice, (iv) drinking limits agreement, (v) self-informative booklet with drinking diary record and (vi) unscheduled reinforcement visits. The SA group spent 5 minutes which included (i), (ii) and (iii). RESULTS: There were no significant differences between both groups at baseline on alcohol use, age, socioeconomic status and CAGE score. After the 12-month follow-up there was a significant decrease in frequency of excessive drinkers (67% of BI group reached targeted consumption, versus 44% of SA; P < 0.001) as well as weekly alcohol intake reduction (BI reached 52 versus 32% in SA; P < 0.001). A trend to improve outcome with the number of reinforcement visits was found with BI. The only predictor of success was the initial alcohol consumption level. CONCLUSIONS: Brief intervention is more effective than simple advice to reduce alcohol intake on adult men who attend primary care services in Spain.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/fampra/15.6.562

Cites

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, 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?

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Cordoba, R.
Venue
Family Practice
Published
1998-12-01
Volume
15
Issue
6
Pages
562-568
ISSN
  • 0263-2136 (ISSN-L)
  • 1460-2229
OpenAlex
W2150559575
Cited by
73
References
0
Citations by year
2021: 2 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 1 · 2013: 2 · 2012: 1
FWCI
2.74
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Family Practice (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Substance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pathology and Forensic Medicine › Alcohol Consumption and Health Effects
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Behavioral Health and Interventions
Keywords
brief intervention, hazardous drinking, secondary prevention, alcohol counseling, primary care, excessive drinking, alcohol consumption reduction, predictors of treatment success, men
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Alcohol Drinking, Counseling, Family Practice, Follow-Up Studies, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Patient Education as Topic, Psychotherapy, Brief, Spain, Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, 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