Cited by 120Substance Abuse Treatment and OutcomesSmoking Behavior and CessationHomelessness and Social Issues

A brief motivational interview in a pediatric emergency department, plus 10-day telephone follow-up, increases attempts to quit drinking among youth and young adults who screen positive for problematic drinking

Open access
Bernstein, Judith, Heeren, Timothy, Edward, Erika, Dorfman, David, Bliss, Caleb, Winter, Michael, Bernstein, Edward·2010·Academic Emergency Medicine

Abstract

ACADEMIC EMERGENCY MEDICINE 2010; 17:890–902 © 2010 by the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine Objectives: Adolescents in their late teens and early 20s have the highest alcohol consumption in the United States; binge drinking peaks at age 21‐25 years. Underage drinking is associated with many negative consequences, including academic problems and risk of intentional and unintentional injuries. This study tested the effectiveness of pediatric emergency department (PED) screening and brief intervention to reduce alcohol consumption and associated risks. Methods: A three‐group randomized assignment trial was structured to test differences between intervention (I) and standard assessed control (AC) groups in alcohol consumption and alcohol‐related behaviors from baseline to 12 months and to compare the AC group with a minimally assessed control (MAC) group to adjust for the effect of assessment reactivity on control group behavior. Patients aged 14–21 years were eligible if they screened positive on the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT) or for binge drinking or high‐risk behaviors. The MAC group received a resource handout, written advice about alcohol‐related risks, and a 12‐month follow‐up appointment. Patients in the AC group were assessed using standardized instruments in addition to the MAC protocol. The I group received a peer‐conducted motivational intervention, referral to community resources and treatment if indicated, and a 10‐day booster in addition to assessment. Measurements included 30‐day self‐report of alcohol consumption and alcohol‐related behaviors, screens for depression and posttraumatic stress disorder, and self‐report of attempts to quit, cut back, or change conditions of use, all repeated at follow‐up. Motor vehicle records and medical records were also analyzed for changes from baseline to 1‐year follow‐up. Results: Among 7,807 PED patients screened, 1,202 were eligible; 853 enrolled (I, n = 283; AC, n = 284; MAC, n = 286), with a 12‐month follow‐up rate of 72%. At 12 months, more than half of enrollees in Reaching Adolescents for Prevention (RAP) attempted to cut back on drinking, and over a third tried to quit. A significantly larger proportion of the I group made efforts to quit drinking and to be careful about situations when drinking compared to AC enrollees, and there was a numerically but not significantly greater likelihood (p = 0.065) among the I group for efforts to cut back on drinking. At 3 months, the likelihood of the I group making attempts to cut back was almost triple that of ACs. For efforts to quit, it was double, and for trying to be careful about situations when drinking, there was a 72% increase in the odds ratio (OR) for the I group. Three‐month results for attempts were sustained at 12 months for quit attempts and efforts to be careful. Consumption declined in both groups from baseline to 3 months to 12 months, but there were no significant between‐group differences in alcohol‐related consequences at 12 months or in alcohol‐related risk behaviors. We found a pattern suggestive of assessment reactivity in only one variable at 12 months: the attempt to cut back (73.3% for the I group vs. 64.9% among the AC group and 54.8% among the MAC group). Conclusions: Brief motivational intervention resulted in significant efforts to change behavior (quit drinking and be careful about situations while drinking) but did not alter between‐group consumption or consequences.

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.1553-2712.2010.00818.x

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?

  • Bernstein 2010 did not use intention-to-treat analysis.

    “ITT: no.”

    From Effectiveness of brief alcohol interventions in primary care populations (2018) · cites this paper as Bernstein 2010

    The Outcomes Analysis section describes the primary comparisons but does not identify them as intention-to-treat analyses; the Results section reports only 72% follow-up at 12 months. However, the Sensitivity Analysis includes participants lost to follow-up by counting them as having made no quit attempt. Thus, 'ITT: no' may describe the primary analysis, but it overlooks an analysis that accounts for all enrollees. (LLM, conf=0.78)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Bernstein 2010 had unclear risk of bias for blinding of treatment providers.

    “Blinding of treatment providers Unclear risk Appears that peer educators who delivered the intervention only saw intervention participants but this is not clear”

    From Effectiveness of brief alcohol interventions in primary care populations (2018) · cites this paper as Bernstein 2010

    The Procedures section (page not available) says peer educators delivered the intervention to the intervention group, and the Study Protocol section says research assistants who performed assessments were blinded. The paper does not say whether peer educators also saw control participants or explicitly rate the risk of bias for provider blinding; the cited assessment is therefore only partly grounded in its account. (LLM, conf=0.78)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Bernstein 2010 had unclear risk of bias for incomplete outcome data.

    “Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes Unclear risk Loss to follow-up reported, but reasons not given.”

    From Effectiveness of brief alcohol interventions in primary care populations (2018) · cites this paper as Bernstein 2010

    The Results section (page not available) reports 70% follow-up at 3 months and 72% at 12 months, and the Sensitivity Analysis describes attrition as considerable. These passages support the reported loss to follow-up, but the paper does not itself assign an ‘unclear risk’ rating for incomplete outcome data; that is the citing authors’ assessment. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Bernstein 2010 had high risk of bias for selective reporting.

    “Selective reporting (reporting bias) High risk Abstinence was recorded as first primary outcome, but this was not reported in results”

    From Effectiveness of brief alcohol interventions in primary care populations (2018) · cites this paper as Bernstein 2010

    The Outcome Measures section lists abstinence at 12 months as a primary outcome. The Consumption and Risk Factors results report other alcohol-consumption measures but do not give an abstinence result in the passages found. The paper does not itself assess selective-reporting bias or assign a high-risk rating; that is the citing authors’ judgment. (LLM, conf=0.83)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • In 14 trials reporting baseline frequency of drinking convertible to days drinking per week, the mean was 2.07 days/week.

    “We included 14 trials that reported baseline measures of frequency of drinking which could be converted to days drinking per week; the mean value was 2.07 days/week (Aalto 2000;Bernstein 2010;Cherpitel 2009;Daeppen 2007;Fleming 1997;Fleming 2010;Helstrom 2014;Monti 2007;Noknoy 2010;Rubio 2010;Schaus 2009;Senft 1997;Soderstrom 2007;Spirito 2004).”

    From Effectiveness of brief alcohol interventions in primary care populations (2018) · cites this paper as Bernstein 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: 7

  1. [6]6. Bertholet N, Daeppen JB, Weitlisbach V, Fleming M, Burnand B. Reduction of alcohol consumption by brief intervention in primary care. Arch Intern Med. 2005; 165:986-95.
  2. [8]8. Hettema J, Steele J, Miller WR. Motivational inter- viewing. Annu Rev Clin Psychol. 2005; 1:91-111.
  3. [24]24. Sobell L, Sobell M. Time-line follow back: a tech- nique for assessing self-reported alcohol consump- tion. In: Litten R, Allen J (eds). Measuring Alcohol Consumption. Totowa, NJ: Humana Press, 1992.
  4. [26]26. Jelalian E, Spirito A, Rasile D, Vinnick L, Rohrbeck C, Arrigan M. Risk taking, reported injury, and per- ception of future injury among adolescents. J Ped Psychol. 1997; 22:513-31.
  5. [28]28. Jessor R, Donovan J, Costa FM. Adolescent prob- lem drinking: stability of psychosocial correlates across a generation. J Stud Alcohol. 1993; 60:346- 62.
  6. [45]45. Graber JA. Internalizing problems during adoles- cence. In: Lerner RM, Steinberg L (eds). Handbook of Adolescent Psychology, 2nd ed. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley, 2004.
  7. [49]49. Lohr KN. Adolescent substance abuse: foundations, applications and evaluations. Addiction. 2004; 99: S63-75.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Bernstein, J., Heeren, T., Edward, E., Dorfman, D., Bliss, C., Winter, M., & Bernstein, E.
Affiliations
Boston University (US)
Corresponding author
Bernstein, Edward
Venue
Academic Emergency Medicine
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2010-07-29
Volume
17
Issue
8
Pages
890-902
ISSN
  • 1069-6563 (ISSN-L)
  • 1553-2712
OpenAlex
W2148767909
Cited by
120
References
51
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 7 · 2022: 1 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 15 · 2017: 12 · 2016: 15 · 2015: 16 · 2014: 10 · 2013: 12 · 2012: 7
FWCI
5.31
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Academic Emergency Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (P60AA013759)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Substance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Smoking Behavior and Cessation
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Homelessness and Social Issues
Keywords
motivational interviewing, screening and brief intervention, adolescent alcohol use, binge drinking, underage drinking, alcohol-related injuries, alcohol-related depression, post-traumatic stress disorder, peer-led intervention, telephone follow-up, emergency department, alcohol use disorder screening, alcohol-related motor vehicle crashes, alcohol-related hospitalizations
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adolescent Behavior, Emergency Service, Hospital, Female, Humans, Interviews as Topic, Male, Motivation, Surveys and Questionnaires, Risk Factors, Telephone, Alcohol-Related Disorders, 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.

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