Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of opportunistic screening and stepped-care interventions for older alcohol users in primary care.

Hdl Handle:
http://hdl.handle.net/10149/621454
Title:
Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of opportunistic screening and stepped-care interventions for older alcohol users in primary care.
Authors:
Newbury-Birch, D. (Dorothy)
Affiliation:
Teesside University School of Health and Social Care
Publisher:
Oxford University Press
Journal:
Alcohol and Alcoholism.
Issue Date:
8-Sep-2017
URI:
http://hdl.handle.net/10149/621454
DOI:
10.1093/alcalc/agx065
Abstract:
Objective: To compare the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a stepped-care intervention versus a minimal intervention for the treatment of older hazardous alcohol users in primary care. Design: A multi-centre, pragmatic RCT. Setting: Primary care general practices in England and Scotland. Participants: Patients aged >= 55 years scoring >=8 on the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test. Interventions: Minimal intervention consisted of 5-minutes of brief advice. Stepped care consisted of an initial 20-minutes of behavioural change counselling. Step 2 was three sessions of Motivational Enhancement Therapy. Step 3 was a referral to local alcohol services. Progression between each step was determined by outcomes one month after each step. Main outcome measures: Average drinks per day, AUDIT-C, alcohol-related problems using the Drinking Problems Index, health-related quality of life using the Short Form 12. Costs measured from a NHS/Personal Social Care perspective. Estimated health gains in quality adjusted life-years measured assessed EQ-5D. Results: Both groups reduced alcohol consumption at 12 months but the difference between groups was small and not significant. No significant differences were observed between the groups on secondary outcomes. In economic terms stepped care was less costly and more effective than the minimal intervention. Conclusions: Stepped care does not confer an advantage over a minimal intervention in terms of reduction in alcohol use for older hazardous alcohol users in primary care. However stepped care has a greater probability of being more cost-effective. Trial Registration: Current controlled trials ISRCTN52557360
Type:
Article
Language:
en
ISSN:
0735-0414
Rights:
Subject to 12 month embargo author can archive post-print (ie final draft post-refereeing http://www.sherpa.ac.uk/romeo/issn/0735-0414/ [07/09/2017]

Full metadata record

DC FieldValue Language
dc.contributor.authorNewbury-Birch, D. (Dorothy)en
dc.date.accessioned2017-10-12T14:54:53Z-
dc.date.available2017-10-12T14:54:53Z-
dc.date.issued2017-09-08-
dc.identifier.issn0735-0414-
dc.identifier.doi10.1093/alcalc/agx065-
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10149/621454-
dc.description.abstractObjective: To compare the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a stepped-care intervention versus a minimal intervention for the treatment of older hazardous alcohol users in primary care. Design: A multi-centre, pragmatic RCT. Setting: Primary care general practices in England and Scotland. Participants: Patients aged >= 55 years scoring >=8 on the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test. Interventions: Minimal intervention consisted of 5-minutes of brief advice. Stepped care consisted of an initial 20-minutes of behavioural change counselling. Step 2 was three sessions of Motivational Enhancement Therapy. Step 3 was a referral to local alcohol services. Progression between each step was determined by outcomes one month after each step. Main outcome measures: Average drinks per day, AUDIT-C, alcohol-related problems using the Drinking Problems Index, health-related quality of life using the Short Form 12. Costs measured from a NHS/Personal Social Care perspective. Estimated health gains in quality adjusted life-years measured assessed EQ-5D. Results: Both groups reduced alcohol consumption at 12 months but the difference between groups was small and not significant. No significant differences were observed between the groups on secondary outcomes. In economic terms stepped care was less costly and more effective than the minimal intervention. Conclusions: Stepped care does not confer an advantage over a minimal intervention in terms of reduction in alcohol use for older hazardous alcohol users in primary care. However stepped care has a greater probability of being more cost-effective. Trial Registration: Current controlled trials ISRCTN52557360en
dc.language.isoenen
dc.publisherOxford University Pressen
dc.rightsSubject to 12 month embargo author can archive post-print (ie final draft post-refereeing http://www.sherpa.ac.uk/romeo/issn/0735-0414/ [07/09/2017]en
dc.titleEffectiveness and cost-effectiveness of opportunistic screening and stepped-care interventions for older alcohol users in primary care.en
dc.typeArticleen
dc.contributor.departmentTeesside University School of Health and Social Careen
dc.identifier.journalAlcohol and Alcoholism.en
dc.eprint.versionPost-printen
dc.embargo12 monthsen
dc.date.accepted2017-08-18-
All Items in TeesRep are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.