Cited by 241Substance Abuse Treatment and OutcomesAlcohol Consumption and Health EffectsOpioid Use Disorder Treatment

Alcohol screening and brief intervention in primary care: Absence of evidence for efficacy in people with dependence or very heavy drinking

Open access
SAITZ, RICHARD·2010·Drug and Alcohol Review

Abstract

Issues. Although screening and brief intervention (BI) in the primary‐care setting reduces unhealthy alcohol use, its efficacy among patients with dependence has not been established. This systematic review sought to determine whether evidence exists for BI efficacy among patients with alcohol dependence identified by screening in primary‐care settings. Approach. We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) extracted from eight systematic reviews and electronic database searches published through September 2009. These RCTs compared outcomes among adults with unhealthy alcohol use identified by screening who received BI in a primary‐care setting with those who received no intervention. Key Findings. Sixteen RCTs, including 6839 patients, met the inclusion criteria. Of these, 14 excluded some or all persons with very heavy alcohol use or dependence; one in which 35% of 175 patients had dependence found no difference in an alcohol severity score between groups; and one in which 58% of 24 female patients had dependence showed no efficacy. Conclusion and Implications. Alcohol screening and BI has efficacy in primary care for patients with unhealthy alcohol use, but there is no evidence for efficacy among those with very heavy use or dependence. As alcohol screening identifies both dependent and non‐dependent unhealthy use, the absence of evidence for the efficacy of BI among primary‐care patients with screening‐identified alcohol dependence raises questions regarding the efficiency of screening and BI, particularly in settings where dependence is common. The finding also highlights the need to develop new approaches to help such patients, particularly if screening and BI are to be disseminated widely.[Saitz R. Alcohol screening and brief intervention in primary care: Absence of evidence for efficacy in people with dependence or very heavy drinking. Drug Alcohol Rev 2010;29;631–640]

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 · 10.1111/j.1465-3362.2010.00217.x

Cites

65 of 65 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?

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: 7

  1. [5]Manwell LB Fleming MF Johnson K Barry KL Tobacco, alcohol, and drug use in a primary care sample: 90-day prevalence and associated factors J Addict Dis 1998 17 67 81 9549604
  2. [10]Harris RP Helfand M Woolf SH Current methods of the US Preventive Services Task Force: a review of the process Am J Prev Med 2001 20 21 35 11306229
  3. [11]Cochrane Drugs and Alcohol Group Resources for review authors: guidelines to assess study quality 2003 Available from: http://cdag.cochrane.org/resources-review-authors Accessed May 20, 2010
  4. [25]Richmond R Heather N Wodak A Kehoe L Webster I Controlled evaluation of a general practice-based brief intervention for excessive drinking Addiction 1995 90 119 32 7888970
  5. [29]WHO Brief Intervention Study Group A cross-national trial of brief interventions with heavy drinkers Am J Public Health 1996 86 948 55 8669518 PMC1380435
  6. [70]Rodriguez-Martos A Santamarina E Torralba L Escayola M Marti J Plasencia A Short-term effectiveness of brief interventions in alcohol-positive traffic casualties Gac Sanit 2005 19 45 9 15745668
  7. [73]Salaspuro M Berglund M Thelander S Jonsson E Intervention against hazardous alcohol consumption: secondary prevention of alcohol problems Treating alcohol and drug abuse: an evidence based review Weinheim, Germany Wiley-VCH 2003 1 41

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
SAITZ, R.
Affiliations
Boston University (US)
Corresponding author
SAITZ, RICHARD
Venue
Drug and Alcohol Review
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2010-10-26
Volume
29
Issue
6
Pages
631-640
ISSN
  • 0959-5236 (ISSN-L)
  • 1465-3362
OpenAlex
W1649156037
Cited by
241
References
65
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 14 · 2021: 18 · 2020: 12 · 2019: 15 · 2018: 21 · 2017: 15 · 2016: 17 · 2015: 30 · 2014: 20 · 2013: 23 · 2012: 20
FWCI
1.93
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Drug and Alcohol Review (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (R01AA010870, R01AA10019)
  • National Institute on Drug Abuse (R01DA025068, R01DA010019)
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 › Opioid Use Disorder Treatment
Keywords
alcohol screening, brief intervention, alcoholism, primary care, treatment efficacy, unhealthy alcohol use
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Aged, Alcohol Drinking, Ethanol, Alcoholism, Counseling, Female, Humans, Male, Mass Screening, Middle Aged, Primary Health Care, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Treatment Outcome, 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.

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