Department of Public Health Sciences, Karolinska Institutet, 171 77, Stockholm, Sweden.
Centre for Epidemiology and Community Medicine, Stockholm Health Care District, Stockholm County Council, 104 31, Stockholm, Sweden.
BMC Psychiatry. 2019 Jul 8;19(1):213. doi: 10.1186/s12888-019-2199-z.
Alcohol telephone helplines targeting alcohol consumers in the general population can extend the reach of brief interventions while preserving in-person counselling. So far, studies of client outcomes in the setting of alcohol helplines are scarce. This study aims to compare the 6-months alcohol-related outcomes of two counselling models delivered at the Swedish National Alcohol Helpline.
A pragmatic randomised trial was set up at the Swedish National Alcohol Helpline. First-time callers with current hazardous or harmful alcohol use who contacted the helpline, from May 2015 to December 2017, were invited to participate. Clients were allocated with 1:1 ratio to two groups: (1) brief, structured intervention (n = 128), including self-help material and one counsellor-initiated call, and (2) usual care (n = 133), i.e. multiple-session counselling using Motivational Interviewing (MI). The primary outcome was a downward change in AUDIT risk-zone between baseline and 6-months follow-up. The analysis followed an intention-to-treat approach.
Recruitment ended in December 2017. At 6-months follow-up, 70% of the enrolled participants had data on the outcome. In the brief, structured intervention (n = 107) 68% changed to a lower risk-level, compared to 61% in the usual care group (n = 117), yielding a risk ratio (RR) of 1.12 (95% CI 0.93 to 1.37) and risk difference of 0.08 (95% CI -0.05 to 0.20). The total AUDIT score and the scores from the AUDIT consumption questions (AUDIT-C) did not reveal any between-group differences in the mean change at follow-up.
The counselling at the Swedish National Alcohol Helpline was followed by a significant decrease in alcohol use among clients, without clear superiority for either counselling model.
This trial was retrospectively registered with ISRCNT.com (ID: ISRCTN13160878 ) 18/01/2016.
针对普通人群中饮酒者的酒精电话求助热线可以扩大简短干预的范围，同时保留面对面咨询。迄今为止，关于酒精求助热线背景下的客户结果的研究很少。本研究旨在比较两种咨询模式在瑞典国家酒精求助热线中的 6 个月酒精相关结果。
在瑞典国家酒精求助热线设立了一项实用随机试验。2015 年 5 月至 2017 年 12 月，首次联系该热线且目前存在危险或有害饮酒行为的首次呼叫者被邀请参加。以 1:1 的比例将客户分配到两组：（1）简短、结构化干预（n=128），包括自助材料和一次顾问发起的电话，以及（2）常规护理（n=133），即使用动机性访谈（MI）进行多次会话咨询。主要结局是 AUDIT 风险区在基线和 6 个月随访之间的下降变化。分析遵循意向治疗方法。
招募工作于 2017 年 12 月结束。在 6 个月随访时，70%的入组参与者有结局数据。在简短、结构化干预组（n=107）中，68%的人风险水平下降，而在常规护理组（n=117）中，61%的人风险水平下降，风险比（RR）为 1.12（95%CI 0.93 至 1.37），风险差异为 0.08（95%CI -0.05 至 0.20）。在随访时的平均变化中，AUDIT 总分和 AUDIT 消费问题（AUDIT-C）的分数没有显示出任何组间差异。
瑞典国家酒精求助热线的咨询服务后，客户的饮酒量显著下降，两种咨询模式均无明显优势。
本试验于 2016 年 1 月 18 日在 ISRCTN.com（ID：ISRCTN13160878）进行了回顾性注册。
