Suppr超能文献

急诊科酒精筛查与简短干预的效果:一项多中心实用整群随机对照试验

The effectiveness of alcohol screening and brief intervention in emergency departments: a multicentre pragmatic cluster randomized controlled trial.

作者信息

Drummond Colin, Deluca Paolo, Coulton Simon, Bland Martin, Cassidy Paul, Crawford Mike, Dale Veronica, Gilvarry Eilish, Godfrey Christine, Heather Nick, McGovern Ruth, Myles Judy, Newbury-Birch Dorothy, Oyefeso Adenekan, Parrott Steve, Patton Robert, Perryman Katherine, Phillips Tom, Shepherd Jonathan, Touquet Robin, Kaner Eileen

机构信息

Addictions Department, Institute of Psychiatry, King's College London, London, United Kingdom.

Centre for Health Service Studies, University of Kent, Canterbury, United Kingdom.

出版信息

PLoS One. 2014 Jun 25;9(6):e99463. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0099463. eCollection 2014.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Alcohol misuse is common in people attending emergency departments (EDs) and there is some evidence of efficacy of alcohol screening and brief interventions (SBI). This study investigated the effectiveness of SBI approaches of different intensities delivered by ED staff in nine typical EDs in England: the SIPS ED trial.

METHODS AND FINDINGS

Pragmatic multicentre cluster randomized controlled trial of SBI for hazardous and harmful drinkers presenting to ED. Nine EDs were randomized to three conditions: a patient information leaflet (PIL), 5 minutes of brief advice (BA), and referral to an alcohol health worker who provided 20 minutes of brief lifestyle counseling (BLC). The primary outcome measure was the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT) status at 6 months. Of 5899 patients aged 18 or more presenting to EDs, 3737 (63·3%) were eligible to participate and 1497 (40·1%) screened positive for hazardous or harmful drinking, of whom 1204 (80·4%) gave consent to participate in the trial. Follow up rates were 72% (n = 863) at six, and 67% (n = 810) at 12 months. There was no evidence of any differences between intervention conditions for AUDIT status or any other outcome measures at months 6 or 12 in an intention to treat analysis. At month 6, compared to the PIL group, the odds ratio of being AUDIT negative for brief advice was 1·103 (95% CI 0·328 to 3·715). The odds ratio comparing BLC to PIL was 1·247 (95% CI 0·315 to 4·939). A per protocol analysis confirmed these findings.

CONCLUSIONS

SBI is difficult to implement in typical EDs. The results do not support widespread implementation of alcohol SBI in ED beyond screening followed by simple clinical feedback and alcohol information, which is likely to be easier and less expensive to implement than more complex interventions.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN 93681536.

摘要

背景

在急诊科就诊的患者中,酒精滥用情况较为常见,并且有证据表明酒精筛查和简短干预(SBI)具有一定疗效。本研究调查了英格兰九个典型急诊科的医护人员实施的不同强度SBI方法的有效性:SIPS急诊科试验。

方法与结果

对前往急诊科的危险及有害饮酒者进行SBI的实用多中心整群随机对照试验。九个急诊科被随机分为三种情况:患者信息手册(PIL)、5分钟简短建议(BA),以及转介给一名提供20分钟简短生活方式咨询(BLC)的酒精健康工作者。主要结局指标是6个月时的酒精使用障碍识别测试(AUDIT)状态。在前往急诊科就诊的5899名18岁及以上患者中,3737名(63.3%)符合参与条件,1497名(40.1%)筛查出危险或有害饮酒呈阳性,其中1204名(80.4%)同意参与试验。6个月时的随访率为72%(n = 863),12个月时为67%(n = 810)。在意向性分析中,6个月或12个月时,干预组在AUDIT状态或任何其他结局指标方面均未发现有任何差异。在6个月时,与PIL组相比,简短建议组AUDIT呈阴性的比值比为1.103(95%置信区间0.328至3.715)。BLC组与PIL组相比的比值比为1.247(95%置信区间0.315至4.939)。符合方案分析证实了这些结果。

结论

在典型的急诊科中,SBI难以实施。研究结果不支持在急诊科广泛实施酒精SBI,除了进行筛查后提供简单的临床反馈和酒精信息外,因为这可能比更复杂的干预措施更容易实施且成本更低。

试验注册

当前受控试验ISRCTN 93681536。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/ee35/4070907/e9b53fe1d6d9/pone.0099463.g001.jpg

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验