Skip to navigation bar Skip to breadcrumbs Skip to page content
clear place holder
Envelope icon E-mail Updates Teal square Text size:  a A A

Evidence Summary

Other Supporting Document for Alcohol Misuse: Screening and Behavioral Counseling Interventions in Primary Care

Preface

Behavioral Counseling After Screening for Alcohol Misuse in Primary Care

A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force

Release Date: September 25, 2012


By Daniel E. Jonas, MD, MPH; James C. Garbutt, MD; Halle R. Amick, MSPH; Janice M. Brown, PhD; Kimberly A. Brownley, PhD; Carol L. Council, MSPH; Anthony J. Viera, MD, MPH; Tania M. Wilkins, MS; Cody J. Schwartz, MPH; Emily M. Richmond, MPH; John Yeatts, MPH; Tammeka Swinson Evans, MOP; Sally D. Wood, BA; and Russell P. Harris, MD, MPH


The information in this article is intended to help clinicians, employers, policymakers, and others make informed decisions about the provision of health care services. This article is intended as a reference and not as a substitute for clinical judgment.

This article may be used, in whole or in part, as the basis for the development of clinical practice guidelines and other quality enhancement tools, or as a basis for reimbursement and coverage policies. AHRQ or U.S. Department of Health and Human Services endorsement of such derivative products may not be stated or implied.

This article was first published in Annals of Internal Medicine on September 25, 2012 (Ann Intern Med; http://www.annals.org).

Abstract

Background: Alcohol misuse, which includes the full spectrum from risky drinking to alcohol dependence, is a leading cause of preventable death in the United States.

Purpose: To evaluate the benefits and harms of behavioral counseling interventions for adolescents and adults who misuse alcohol.

Data Sources: MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and reference lists of published literature (January 1985 through January 2012, limited to English-language articles).

Study Selection: Controlled trials at least 6 months in duration that enrolled persons with alcohol misuse identified by screening in primary care settings and evaluated behavioral counseling interventions.

Data Extraction: One reviewer extracted data and a second checked accuracy. Two independent reviewers assigned quality ratings and graded the strength of the evidence.

Data Synthesis: The 23 included trials generally excluded persons with alcohol dependence. The best evidence was for brief (10- to 15-minute) multicontact interventions. Among adults receiving behavioral interventions, consumption decreased by 3.6 drinks per week from baseline (weighted mean difference, 3.6 drinks/wk [95% CI, 2.4 to 4.8 drinks/wk]; 10 trials; 4332 participants), 12% fewer adults reported heavy drinking episodes (risk difference, 0.12 [CI, 0.07 to 0.16]; 7 trials; 2737 participants), and 11% more adults reported drinking less than the recommended limits (risk difference, 0.11 [CI, 0.08 to 0.13]; 9 trials; 5973 participants) over 12 months compared with control participants (moderate strength of evidence). Evidence was insufficient to draw conclusions about accidents, injuries, or alcohol-related liver problems. Trials enrolling young adults or college students showed reduced consumption and fewer heavy drinking episodes (moderate strength of evidence). Little or no evidence of harms was found.

Limitations: Results may be biased to the null because the behavior of control participants could have been affected by alcohol misuse assessments. In addition, evidence is probably inapplicable to persons with alcohol dependence and selective reporting may have occurred.

Conclusions: Behavioral counseling interventions improve behavioral outcomes for adults with risky drinking.

Primary Funding Source: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.

Introduction

Alcohol misuse, which includes the full spectrum from risky or hazardous drinking to alcohol dependence1-3, is associated with numerous health and social problems and more than 85,000 deaths per year in the United States4, 5. Alcohol misuse is the third leading cause of preventable death in the United States, after tobacco use and being overweight6. It contributes to hypertension, cirrhosis, gastritis, gastric ulcers, pancreatitis, breast cancer, neuropathy, cardiomyopathy, anemia, osteoporosis, cognitive impairment, depression, insomnia, anxiety, suicide, injury, and violence7-9. The definitions of the spectrum of alcohol misuse (that is, unhealthy alcohol use1 continue to evolve. For this review, we use the definitions in Table 110-12.

About 30% of the U.S. population misuse alcohol, with most engaging in what is considered risky drinking1. Recent U.S.-based data13 revealed that 21.3% of primary care patients reported risky drinking.

Cross-sectional and cohort studies have consistently related high average alcohol consumption and heavy per-occasion use to short- or long-term health consequences14, 15. A meta-analysis examining the association between all-cause mortality and average alcohol consumption16 found that men who drank an average of at least 4 drinks per day and women who drank an average of at least 2 drinks per day had increased mortality relative to nondrinkers. The National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism has proposed guidelines17 to limit the risks for drinking-related consequences. The maximum recommended consumption is 3 or fewer standard drinks per day (≤7/wk) for adult women and anyone older than 65 years, and 4 or fewer standard drinks per day (≤14/week) for men15, 17, 18. These guidelines do not apply to persons for whom alcohol intake is contraindicated, such as pregnant women, persons with alcohol dependence or medical conditions that can be worsened by drinking, or those receiving medications that interact with alcohol.

Behavioral counseling interventions include the range of personal counseling and related behavior-change interventions that are used to help patients change health-related behaviors19. “Counseling” here denotes a cooperative method of work that demands active participation from both patient and clinician and aims to facilitate the patient's independent initiative19. The goal of behavioral interventions for alcohol misuse is to eliminate risky drinking practices (for example, by encouraging fewer drinks per occasion or not drinking before driving) rather than to achieve abstinence.

For the Effective Health Care Program of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) and to assist the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) in updating its 2004 recommendation statemen20, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of the effectiveness of screening followed by behavioral counseling, with or without referral, for alcohol misuse in primary care settings21. The full report21 addressed 7 questions Appendix Figure 1.

Methods

We developed and followed a standard protocol. A technical report that details methods and includes search strategies and additional evidence tables is available at www.effectivehealthcare.ahrq.gov/reports/final.cfm.

Key Questions and Analytic Framework

The USPSTF and AHRQ determined the focus of this review. Investigators developed key questions and created an analytic framework that incorporated the key questions and outlined patient populations, interventions, comparators, outcomes (including adverse effects), and settings Appendix Figure 1. This report focuses on the key questions related to benefits and harms of behavioral interventions.

Data Sources and Searches

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and the International Pharmaceutical Abstracts from 1 January 1985 to 31 January 2012, limited to English-language articles. The start date was selected on the basis of the earliest publication date found in previous reviews and expert opinion. We used Medical Subject Headings as search terms when available and key words when appropriate, focusing on terms to describe relevant populations, screening, and behavioral interventions.

Study Selection

We developed inclusion and exclusion criteria with respect to populations, interventions, comparators, outcomes, timing, settings, and study designs22, 23. For the question related to behavioral interventions, we included randomized, controlled trials at least 6 months in duration, that enrolled adults or adolescents with alcohol misuse identified by screening in primary care settings, and that evaluated whether a counseling intervention improved behavioral or health outcomes.

Two investigators independently reviewed titles and abstracts, and then another 2 investigators independently reviewed the full text of all articles marked for possible inclusion during the initial review to determine final inclusion or exclusion. Disagreements were resolved with an experienced team member.

Data Extraction and Quality Assessment

We designed and used structured forms to extract pertinent information from each article, including information about the methods and populations, interventions, comparators, outcomes, timing, settings, and study designs. All data extractions were reviewed for completeness and accuracy by a second team member.

We assessed the quality (internal validity) of studies using predefined criteria based on those developed by the USPSTF (ratings of good, fair, or poor)24 and the University of York Centre for Reviews and Dissemination25. These included assessment of the adequacy of randomization, allocation concealment, similarity of groups at baseline, masking, attrition, and whether intention-to-treat analysis was used. Two independent reviewers assigned quality ratings for each study. Disagreements were resolved by an experienced member of the team.

Data Synthesis and Analysis

We stratified evidence by population (adults, older adults, young adults or college students, and pregnant women). Quantitative analyses were conducted of outcomes reported by a sufficient number of studies that were homogeneous enough to justify combining their results. We used random-effects models. For the outcome of alcohol consumption, the effect measure was mean difference between the intervention and control groups for change from baseline in drinks per week. The percentages of patients who had episodes of heavy drinking and those who achieved recommended drinking limits were compared (between intervention and control groups) with a risk difference. Because follow-up periods varied, the analysis for all-cause mortality was based on deaths per person-year and the comparison between intervention and control groups was calculated as a risk ratio. Analyses were conducted by using Comprehensive Meta Analysis, version 2.2.055 (BioStat, Englewood, New Jersey).

We used subgroup analyses to explore whether results differed by intensity, sex, country, deliverer of the intervention, or setting. The chi-square and I2 statistics were calculated to assess heterogeneity in effects between studies26, 27. When quantitative analyses were not appropriate (for example, because of heterogeneity, insufficient number of similar studies, or insufficient or varied outcome reporting), we synthesized the data qualitatively.

To assess the differential effects of using more or less time and single or multiple contacts, we grouped interventions by intensity of counseling, as measured by the duration and number of contacts: very brief (≤5 minutes, single-contact), brief (6 to 15 minutes, single-contact), extended (>15 minutes, single-contact), brief multicontact (each contact ≤15 minutes), or extended multicontact (some contacts >15 minutes).

We then graded the strength of evidence (SOE) as high, moderate, low, or insufficient on the basis of the guidance established for the Evidence-based Practice Center Program Appendix Table 228. Two reviewers assessed each domain for each key outcome, and differences were resolved by consensus.

Role of the Funding Source

This review was funded by AHRQ. Staff of AHRQ and members of the USPSTF participated in developing the scope of the work and reviewed draft manuscripts. Approval from AHRQ for copyright assertion was required before the manuscript could be submitted for publication, but the authors are solely responsible for the content and the decision to submit it for publication.

 

Results

We included 38 articles reporting on 23 randomized, controlled trials Appendix Figure 2. Sample sizes ranged from 72 to 1559, and study durations ranged from 6 to 48 months Appendix Table 3. Eleven studies were done solely in the United States, 2 focused on older adults, 5 focused on young adults or college students, and 1 enrolled pregnant women. We identified no studies of adolescents.

Fourteen of the interventions29-50 were delivered by a primary care physician alone or with a health educator or nurse. Three51-54 were delivered by a nurse or physician assistant, 1 by a psychologist55-57, 2 by a researcher58-62, and 1 by unspecified interventionists63. Two interventions in college students64-66 were conducted via a computer. Most trials tested brief multicontact interventions31-34, 42, 46, 50, 51, 53, 64, 65 or brief interventions29, 49, 52, 58, 60, 62-66; fewer tested very brief45, 63, extended30, or extended multicontact interventions38, 45, 48, 55, 60. Interventions were heterogeneous and included various counseling approaches, such as brief advice, feedback, or motivational interviews, and cognitive behavioral strategies, such as self-completed action plans, written health education or self-help materials, drinking diaries, or problem-solving exercises to complete at home Appendix Table 4. Most comparator groups received screening or assessment followed by usual care or by provision of a general health pamphlet. A few studies included additional components in comparator groups that could have biased results toward the null, such as recording screening or assessment results on the chart 45 or forwarding them to physicians 60, advice from nurses on reducing drinking and a leaflet with benchmark alcohol guides52, a pamphlet on the health effects of alcohol consumption64-66, or a booklet about preventing alcohol problems48. We summarize the main findings by population and outcome and report the SOE for each.
 

Screening

We found no studies meeting inclusion criteria that randomly assigned participants, practices, or providers to screening and a comparator (no studies addressing questions 1 or 3) Appendix Table 1. We found adequate evidence that several screening instruments can detect alcohol misuse in adults with acceptable sensitivity and specificity21. The full technical report includes additional details about the accuracy of screening tests.

Effectiveness for Improving Intermediate Outcomes

Table 2 summarizes the results of meta-analyses for consumption, heavy drinking, and recommended drinking limits, by population. The Figure shows the forest plots for 12-month outcomes from our meta-analyses for adults. Overall, evidence supports the effectiveness of behavioral interventions for improving several intermediate outcomes for adults, older adults, and young adults or college students. For pregnant women, the included study (250 participants)30 did not provide evidence of effectiveness for improving intermediate outcomes over 6 months or longer (low or insufficient SOE, depending on the outcome). Subgroup analyses identified no significant differences between men and women. Brief multicontact interventions had the best evidence of effectiveness across populations and outcomes and had follow-up data spanning several years. Meta-analyses of studies in adults found very brief and brief single-contact interventions to be ineffective for some outcomes and less effective than brief multicontact interventions for others.

Effectiveness for Reducing Morbidity, Reducing Mortality, or Changing Other Outcomes

Table 3 summarizes results, by population. Our meta-analyses found no statistically significant reduction in all-cause mortality for adults (rate ratio, 0.64 [95% CI, 0.24 to 1.7]; 4 trials) or for all age groups combined (rate ratio, 0.52 [CI, 0.22 to 1.2]; 6 trials). Point estimates tended toward favoring interventions, but few studies reported mortality and few long-term data were available. No studies that enrolled pregnant women and reported these outcomes were found (insufficient SOE).

Potential Adverse Effects

We found no evidence of direct harms, aside from opportunity costs associated with interventions, which ranged from 5 minutes to 2 hours dispersed over several in-person or telephone visits (moderate SOE). We searched for evidence of potential adverse effects, such as illegal substance use, increased smoking, anxiety, stigma, labeling, discrimination, or interference with the physician–patient relationship. We found no evidence for most of these potential harms and very limited evidence reporting no difference between groups for smoking rates and anxiety (low SOE). Other than the results for opportunity costs, our results are limited by the few trials that reported any information; 5 of 23 reported smoking29, 33, 34, 39, 41, 49, 50, and 2 reported anxiety29, 49.

Health Care System Influences

Where the study was conducted (United States vs. non–United States) had no impact on the effectiveness of interventions for consumption outcomes. Data showed a tendency toward greater reduction in consumption for interventions delivered in academic- or research-oriented settings than for those delivered in community-based settings (weighted mean difference, −5.0 drinks/wk [CI, −7.6 to −2.5 drinks/wk] vs. −3.2 drinks/wk [CI, −4.3 to −2.2 drinks/wk]; 3 vs. 7 trials). Interventions delivered mostly by primary care providers showed a tendency toward greater reduction in consumption than did those delivered primarily by research personnel (weighted mean difference, −4.0 drinks/wk [CI, −5.4 to −2.6 drinks/wk] vs. −3.0 drinks/wk [CI, −5.0 to −1.0 drinks/wk]; 7 vs. 2 trials). Our consumption meta-analysis included only 1 intervention delivered by a nurse52, and the reduction was not statistically significant in that study (weighted mean difference, −0.2 drinks/wk [CI, −8.9 to 8.6 drinks/wk]). Two other studies, each of which provided insufficient data for our consumption meta-analysis, reported benefits of interventions delivered primarily by nurses51 or by nurses and physician assistants53 for some consumption outcomes. In addition, 2 interventions conducted by computer reported some evidence of effectiveness for reduced consumption in college students64-66.

Discussion

We found no studies that directly addressed our overarching question (Key Question 1)—no studies randomly assigned patients, practices, or providers to screening and comparator groups and subsequently provided interventions for those with positive screening results. All of the included studies randomly assigned patients after they had received positive screening results.

We found that behavioral counseling interventions improved drinking behavior outcomes (moderate SOE) and reduced hospital days (low SOE) for adults with risky drinking. For most health outcomes, available evidence either found no difference between intervention and control groups, such as for mortality (low SOE), or was insufficient to draw conclusions, such as for alcohol-related liver problems (insufficient SOE). Long-term outcomes from 2 studies33, 35-37, 39, 42, 43 revealed that participants in the intervention groups maintained reductions in consumption or continued to reduce consumption, but differences between intervention and control groups were no longer statistically significant by 48 months. Studies identified delayed reduction in consumption in control groups that could reflect the natural history of alcohol consumption, the cumulative effect of follow-up with the health care system, differential attrition (if more participants lost to follow-up in the control group were risky drinkers), or (late) regression to the mean.

The evidence for effectiveness in adults is strongest for brief multicontact interventions. The effect sizes for these interventions were greater than those for other intensities (although CIs often overlapped). In addition, the best studies show that the effect of brief multicontact interventions remains for several years35, 36, 43 and also show improvement for some utilization outcomes, such as fewer hospital days35, 36 and costs (benefit–cost ratio of 39:1 over 48 months [CI, 5.4 to 72.5])36.

The brief multicontact interventions generally lasted 10 to 15 minutes per contact. All of the brief multicontact interventions in our meta-analyses of behavioral outcomes at 12 months were delivered by primary care providers, sometimes with additional intervention from a nurse or health educator. For example, the intervention in Project TrEAT (Trial for Early Alcohol Treatment)33 included two 15-minute visits with a primary care provider 1 month apart and two 5-minute follow-up phone calls from a nurse 2 weeks after each visit. The intervention also included feedback about health behaviors, a review of problem drinking prevalence, a list of the adverse effects of alcohol, a worksheet on drinking cues, a drinking agreement or prescription, and drinking diary cards. Of note, 2 studies of brief multicontact interventions in adults, both of which provided insufficient data for our meta-analyses, reported benefits of interventions delivered primarily by nurses51 or by nurses and physician assistants53 for some consumption outcomes.

Evidence suggests that very brief interventions (up to 5 minutes, single-contact) and brief interventions (up to 15 minutes, single-contact) are less effective or ineffective, depending on the outcome. Although extended multicontact interventions seem to be effective for improving intermediate outcomes, we found no evidence that they are more effective than brief multicontact interventions.

The only included study that enrolled pregnant women (250 participants)30 found no difference in reduced consumption between groups but did find higher rates of continued abstinence among women who were abstinent before the assessment in the intervention group than among those in the control group. Our searches identified other studies focusing on pregnant women that did not meet our inclusion criteria67-84. Several took place in such settings as jails or specialized drug and alcohol treatment centers75, and others lacked a control group or followed participants for fewer than 6 months73, 84. Several of these studies reported benefits of interventions, including reduced consumption73, 84, reduced risk for an alcohol-exposed pregnancy75, higher rates of abstinence79, and better fetal and newborn outcomes (higher birth weights and lengths and reduced fetal mortality rates79).

We have described several categories of alcohol misuse (such as risky or hazardous use and alcohol dependence). These categories are not all discrete (an individual may meet the definition of more than one). Included trials generally enrolled participants with risky or hazardous drinking, but the trials used varying terminology to describe the populations and often enrolled heterogeneous samples. Nevertheless, most investigators excluded participants with alcohol dependence or constructed their inclusion and exclusion criteria to substantially limit the number of such participants. Our best assessment is that our overall findings apply to risky or hazardous drinkers but not to persons with alcohol dependence. It is uncertain whether our findings apply to harmful drinkers or persons with alcohol abuse.

All interventions required support systems to provide screening; screening-related assessment; and in some cases, provider prompting. Screening assessments were often multistep processes that included interviews with research personnel that lasted up to 30 minutes. Less time would be required for screening and screening-related assessments in primary care practice. We estimate that 5 to 10 minutes would be required for persons who had positive screening results, with most of the time used to assess whether such persons have alcohol abuse or dependence (and should probably be referred for specialized treatment) as opposed to risky or hazardous drinking (for which behavioral counseling interventions in primary care may be effective). Nevertheless, support systems are probably required for effective screening and intervention. In addition, most interventions required training providers or staff.

It is unclear whether our findings apply to persons with certain comorbid conditions, and some researchers have suggested that brief behavioral interventions may be ineffective or less effective in people with comorbid psychiatric conditions. A subgroup analysis from a German study56 found that brief interventions did not reduce drinking among 88 participants with comorbid anxiety or depression. Although most trials in our review did not exclude persons with depression, anxiety, or chronic pain, it is unclear how many participants with these conditions were included in most trials.

A previous systematic review85 found no evidence of efficacy for brief behavioral interventions in patients with alcohol dependence in primary care settings. Our review also found no such evidence. Included studies that enrolled more than 10% of participants with alcohol dependence reported interventions to be less effective or ineffective than studies that did not enroll alcohol-dependent participants.

Screening for alcohol misuse will inevitably identify some alcohol-dependent individuals; thus, providers and those making recommendations need information about whether effective interventions are available for alcohol dependence. If complete abstinence is used as an outcome, 15% to 35% of patients have been reported to achieve 1 year of sobriety after such treatment approaches86 as pharmacotherapy, motivational enhancement therapy, cognitive behavioral therapy, 12-step facilitation, and therapy at alcoholism-treatment centers. Similar sobriety outcomes at 3 to 5 years or longer have been reported9.

Our review has limitations. First, the scope of our review was limited to primary care settings. Second, most evidence involved self-report of alcohol use. Investigators in some trials verified self-reported use with other persons (such as family members). Self-report of alcohol use has been found to be accurate if collected carefully87, 88. Third, the assessments conducted in the included trials could have concealed benefits of interventions (and biased results toward the null) by causing behavior changes. Control participants generally reduced alcohol consumption. Possible explanations include increased awareness of drinking, discussions with their provider about drinking that were prompted by the screening questions, receipt of some minimal intervention (control groups in the included studies often received some printed educational materials), or regression to the mean. A recent systematic review89 concluded that answering questions on drinking in brief intervention trials seems to alter subsequent self-reported behavior, potentially generating bias by exposing nonintervention control groups to an integral component of the intervention. Finally, publication bias and selective reporting may be present.

In conclusion, behavioral counseling interventions improve intermediate outcomes, such as alcohol consumption, heavy drinking episodes, and drinking above recommended amounts (moderate SOE) and may reduce hospital days (low SOE) for adults with risky or hazardous drinking. For most health outcomes, available evidence found no difference between intervention and control groups, such as for mortality (low SOE), or was insufficient to draw conclusions about the effectiveness of behavioral interventions, such as for alcohol-related accidents or quality of life (insufficient SOE). Brief multicontact interventions (about 10 to 15 minutes per contact) have the best evidence of effectiveness for adults.

 

Copyright and Source Information

Source: This article was first published in Annals of Internal Medicine (Ann Intern Med 2012). 

Grant Support: By AHRQ, contract 290-2007-10056-I.

Potential Conflicts of Interest: Disclosures can be viewed at www.acponline.org/authors/icmje/ConflictOfInterestForms.do?msNum=M11-1085.

Requests for Single Reprints: Daniel E. Jonas, MD, MPH, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Department of Medicine, 5034 Old
Clinic Building, CB 7110, Chapel Hill, NC 27599; e-mail, daniel_jonas@med.unc.edu.

Current author addresses and author contributions are available at http://www.annals.org.

AHRQ Publication No. 12-05171-EF-3

References:
  1. Saitz R. Clinical practice. Unhealthy alcohol use. N Engl J Med. 2005;352:596-607.
  2. U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. AUDIT-C Frequently Asked Questions. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs; 2010. Accessed at www.queri.research.va.gov/tools/alcohol-misuse/alcohol-faqs.cfm on 8 June 2012.
  3. Whitlock EP, Green CA, Polen MR. Behavioral Counseling Interventions in Primary Care to Reduce Risky/Harmful Alcohol Use. Systematic Evidence Review No. 30. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2004.
  4. Mokdad AH, Marks JS, Stroup DF, Gerberding JL. Actual causes of death in the United States, 2000. JAMA. 2004;291:1238-45.
  5. Whitlock EP, Polen MR, Green CA, Orleans T, Klein J; U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Behavioral counseling interventions in primary care to reduce risky/harmful alcohol use by adults: a summary of the evidence for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Ann Intern Med. 2004;140:557-68.
  6. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. FastStats: Alcohol Use. Atlanta: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; 2012. Accessed at www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/alcohol.htm on 8 June 2012.
  7. Cherpitel CJ, Ye Y. Alcohol-attributable fraction for injury in the U.S. general population: data from the 2005 National Alcohol Survey. J Stud Alcohol Drugs. 2008;69:535-8.
  8. Corrao G, Bagnardi V, Zambon A, La Vecchia C. A meta-analysis of alcohol consumption and the risk of 15 diseases. Prev Med. 2004;38:613-9.
  9. Schuckit MA. Alcohol-use disorders. Lancet. 2009;373:492-501.
  10. Isaac M, Janca A, Sartorius N. ICD-10 Symptom Glossary for Mental Disorders. Geneva: World Health Organization; 1994.
  11. Janca A, Ustun TB, van Drimmelen J, Dittmann V, Isaac M. ICD-10 Symptom Checklist for Mental Disorders, version 1.1. Geneva: World Health Organization; 1994.
  12. American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association; 1994.
  13. Vinson DC, Manning BK, Galliher JM, Dickinson LM, Pace WD, Turner BJ. Alcohol and sleep problems in primary care patients: a report from the AAFP National Research Network. Ann Fam Med. 2010;8:484-92.
  14. Bondy SJ, Rehm J, Ashley MJ, Walsh G, Single E, Room R. Low-risk drinking guidelines: the scientific evidence. Can J Public Health. 1999;90:264-70.
  15. Shalala DE. 10th Special Report to the U.S. Congress on Alcohol and Health: Highlights From Current Research: From the Secretary of Health and Human Services. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services; 2000. Accessed at http://pubs.niaaa.nih.gov/publications/10report/intro.pdf on 8 June 2012.
  16. Holman CD, English DR, Milne E, Winter MG. Meta-analysis of alcohol and all-cause mortality: a validation of NHMRC recommendations. Med J Aust. 1996;164:141-5.
  17. National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism. Helping Patients Who Drink Too Much: A Clinician's Guide. Updated 2005 ed. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services; 2005. Accessed at http://pubs.niaaa.nih.gov/publications/practitioner/cliniciansguide2005/guide.pdf on 8 June 2012.
  18. Dawson DA, Grant BF, Li TK. Quantifying the risks associated with exceeding recommended drinking limits. Alcohol Clin Exp Res. 2005;29:902-8.
  19. Whitlock EP, Orleans CT, Pender N, Allan J. Evaluating primary care behavioral counseling interventions: an evidence-based approach. Am J Prev Med. 2002;22:267-84.
  20. U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Screening and behavioral counseling interventions in primary care to reduce alcohol misuse: recommendation statement. Ann Intern Med. 2004;140:554-6.
  21. Jonas DE, Garbutt JC, Brown JM, Amick HR, Brownley KA, Council CL, et al. Screening, Behavioral Counseling, and Referral in Primary Care to Reduce Alcohol Misuse. Comparative Effectiveness Review No. 64. AHRQ Publication No. 12-EHC055-EF. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2012.
  22. Counsell C. Formulating questions and locating primary studies for inclusion in systematic reviews. Ann Intern Med. 1997;127:380-7.
  23. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. AHRQ EHCP Methods Guide for Comparative Effectiveness Reviews of Medical Interventions. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2010.
  24. Harris RP, Helfand M, Woolf SH, Lohr KN, Mulrow CD, Teutsch SM, et al; Methods Work Group, Third U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Current methods of the US Preventive Services Task Force: a review of the process. Am J Prev Med. 2001;20:21-35.
  25. Centre for Reviews and Dissemination. Systematic Reviews: CRD's Guidance for Undertaking Reviews in Healthcare. York, England: University of York; 2009.
  26. Higgins JP, Thompson SG. Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis. Stat Med. 2002;21:1539-58.
  27. Higgins JP, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, Altman DG. Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ. 2003;327:557-60.
  28. Owens DK, Lohr KN, Atkins D, Treadwell JR, Reston JT, Bass EB, et al. AHRQ series paper 5: grading the strength of a body of evidence when comparing medical interventions—Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality and the Effective Health-care Program. J Clin Epidemiol. 2010;63:513-23.
  29. Anderson P, Scott E. The effect of general practitioners' advice to heavy drinking men. Br J Addict. 1992;87:891-900.
  30. Chang G, Wilkins-Haug L, Berman S, Goetz MA. Brief intervention for alcohol use in pregnancy: a randomized trial. Addiction. 1999;94:1499-508.
  31. Curry SJ, Ludman EJ, Grothaus LC, Donovan D, Kim E. A randomized trial of a brief primary-care–based intervention for reducing at-risk drinking practices. Health Psychol. 2003;22:156-65.
  32. Fleming MF, Balousek SL, Grossberg PM, Mundt MP, Brown D, Wiegel JR, et al. Brief physician advice for heavy drinking college students: a randomized controlled trial in college health clinics. J Stud Alcohol Drugs. 2010;71:23-31.
  33. Fleming MF, Barry KL, Manwell LB, Johnson K, London R. Brief physician advice for problem alcohol drinkers. A randomized controlled trial in community-based primary care practices. JAMA. 1997;277:1039-45.
  34. Fleming MF, Manwell LB, Barry KL, Adams W, Stauffacher EA. Brief physician advice for alcohol problems in older adults: a randomized community-based trial. J Fam Pract. 1999;48:378-84.
  35. Fleming MF, Mundt MP, French MT, Manwell LB, Stauffacher EA, Barry KL. Benefit-cost analysis of brief physician advice with problem drinkers in primary care settings. Med Care. 2000;38:7-18.
  36. Fleming MF, Mundt MP, French MT, Manwell LB, Stauffacher EA, Barry KL. Brief physician advice for problem drinkers: long-term efficacy and benefit-cost analysis. Alcohol Clin Exp Res. 2002;26:36-43.
  37. Grossberg PM, Brown DD, Fleming MF. Brief physician advice for high-risk drinking among young adults. Ann Fam Med. 2004;2:474-80.
  38. Lin JC, Karno MP, Tang L, Barry KL, Blow FC, Davis JW, et al. Do health educator telephone calls reduce at-risk drinking among older adults in primary care? J Gen Intern Med. 2010;25:334-9.
  39. Manwell LB, Fleming MF, Mundt MP, Stauffacher EA, Barry KL. Treatment of problem alcohol use in women of childbearing age: results of a brief intervention trial. Alcohol Clin Exp Res. 2000;24:1517-24.
  40. Moore AA, Blow FC, Hoffing M, Welgreen S, Davis JW, Lin JC, et al. Primary care-based intervention to reduce at-risk drinking in older adults: a randomized controlled trial. Addiction. 2011;106:111-20.
  41. Mundt MP, French MT, Roebuck MC, Manwell LB, Barry KL. Brief physician advice for problem drinking among older adults: an economic analysis of costs and benefits. J Stud Alcohol. 2005;66:389-94.
  42. Ockene JK, Adams A, Hurley TG, Wheeler EV, Hebert JR. Brief physician- and nurse practitioner-delivered counseling for high-risk drinkers: does it work? Arch Intern Med. 1999;159:2198-205.
  43. Ockene JK, Reed GW, Reiff-Hekking S. Brief patient-centered clinician-delivered counseling for high-risk drinking: 4-year results. Ann Behav Med. 2009;37:335-42.
  44. Reiff-Hekking S, Ockene JK, Hurley TG, Reed GW. Brief physician and nurse practitioner-delivered counseling for high-risk drinking. Results at 12-month follow-up. J Gen Intern Med. 2005;20:7-13.
  45. 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.
  46. Rubio G, Jiménez-Arriero MA, Martínez I, Ponce G, Palomo T. Efficacy of physician-delivered brief counseling intervention for binge drinkers. Am J Med. 2010;123:72-8.
  47. Saitz R, Horton NJ, Sullivan LM, Moskowitz MA, Samet JH. Addressing alcohol problems in primary care: a cluster randomized, controlled trial of a systems intervention. The screening and intervention in primary care (SIP) study. Ann Intern Med. 2003;138:372-82.
  48. Schaus JF, Sole ML, McCoy TP, Mullett N, O'Brien MC. Alcohol screening and brief intervention in a college student health center: a randomized controlled trial. J Stud Alcohol Drugs Suppl. 2009:131-41.
  49. Scott E, Anderson P. Randomized controlled trial of general practitioner intervention in women with excessive alcohol consumption. Drug Alcohol Rev. 1991;10:313-21.
  50. Wallace P, Cutler S, Haines A. Randomised controlled trial of general practitioner intervention in patients with excessive alcohol consumption. BMJ. 1988;297:663-8.
  51. Fleming MF, Lund MR, Wilton G, Landry M, Scheets D. The Healthy Moms Study: the efficacy of brief alcohol intervention in postpartum women. Alcohol Clin Exp Res. 2008;32:1600-6.
  52. Lock CA, Kaner E, Heather N, Doughty J, Crawshaw A, McNamee P, et al. Effectiveness of nurse-led brief alcohol intervention: a cluster randomized controlled trial. J Adv Nurs. 2006;54:426-39.
  53. Noknoy S, Rangsin R, Saengcharnchai P, Tantibhaedhyangkul U, McCambridge J. RCT of effectiveness of motivational enhancement therapy delivered by nurses for hazardous drinkers in primary care units in Thailand. Alcohol Alcohol. 2010;45:263-70.
  54. Wilton G, Moberg DP, Fleming MF. The effect of brief alcohol intervention on postpartum depression. MCN Am J Matern Child Nurs. 2009;34:297-302.
  55. Bischof G, Grothues JM, Reinhardt S, Meyer C, John U, Rumpf HJ. Evaluation of a telephone-based stepped care intervention for alcohol-related disorders: a randomized controlled trial. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2008;93:244-51.
  56. Grothues JM, Bischof G, Reinhardt S, Meyer C, John U, Rumpf HJ. Effectiveness of brief alcohol interventions for general practice patients with problematic drinking behavior and comorbid anxiety or depressive disorders. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2008;94:214-20.
  57. Reinhardt S, Bischof G, Grothues J, John U, Meyer C, Rumpf HJ. Gender differences in the efficacy of brief interventions with a stepped care approach in general practice patients with alcohol-related disorders. Alcohol Alcohol. 2008;43:334-40.
  58. Freeborn DK, Polen MR, Hollis JF, Senft RA. Screening and brief intervention for hazardous drinking in an HMO: effects on medical care utilization. J Behav Health Serv Res. 2000;27:446-53.
  59. Gordon AJ, Conigliaro J, Maisto SA, McNeil M, Kraemer KL, Kelley ME. Comparison of consumption effects of brief interventions for hazardous drinking elderly. Subst Use Misuse. 2003;38:1017-35.
  60. Maisto SA, Conigliaro J, McNeil M, Kraemer K, Conigliaro RL, Kelley ME. Effects of two types of brief intervention and readiness to change on alcohol use in hazardous drinkers. J Stud Alcohol. 2001;62:605-14.
  61. Maisto SA, Conigliaro J, McNeil M, Kraemer K, Kelley ME. The relationship between eligibility criteria for participation in alcohol brief intervention trials and other alcohol and health-related variables. Am J Addict. 2001;10:218-31.
  62. Senft RA, Polen MR, Freeborn DK, Hollis JF. Brief intervention in a primary care setting for hazardous drinkers. Am J Prev Med. 1997;13:464-70.
  63. WHO Brief Intervention Study Group. A cross-national trial of brief interventions with heavy drinkers. Am J Public Health. 1996;86:948-55.
  64. Kypri K, Langley JD, Saunders JB, Cashell-Smith ML. Assessment may conceal therapeutic benefit: findings from a randomized controlled trial for hazardous drinking. Addiction. 2007;102:62-70.
  65. Kypri K, Langley JD, Saunders JB, Cashell-Smith ML, Herbison P. Randomized controlled trial of web-based alcohol screening and brief intervention in primary care. Arch Intern Med. 2008;168:530-6.
  66. Kypri K, Saunders JB, Williams SM, McGee RO, Langley JD, Cashell-Smith ML, et al. Web-based screening and brief intervention for hazardous drinking: a double-blind randomized controlled trial. Addiction. 2004;99:1410-7
  67. Armstrong MA, Kaskutas LA, Witbrodt J, Taillac CJ, Hung YY, Osejo VM, et al. Using drink size to talk about drinking during pregnancy: a randomized clinical trial of Early Start Plus. Soc Work Health Care. 2009;48:90-103.
  68. Budd KW, Ross-Alaolmolki K, Zeller RA. Two prenatal alcohol use screening instruments compared with a physiologic measure. J Obstet Gynecol Neonatal Nurs. 2000;29:129-36.
  69. Bull LB, Kvigne VL, Leonardson GR, Lacina L, Welty TK. Validation of a self-administered questionnaire to screen for prenatal alcohol use in Northern Plains Indian women. Am J Prev Med. 1999;16:240-3.
  70. Chang G, Goetz MA, Wilkins-Haug L, Berman S. A brief intervention for prenatal alcohol use: an in-depth look. J Subst Abuse Treat. 2000;18:365-9.
  71. Chang G, Goetz MA, Wilkins-Haug L, Berman S. Identifying prenatal alcohol use: screening instruments versus clinical predictors. Am J Addict. 1999;8:87-93.
  72. Chang G, Wilkins-Haug L, Berman S, Goetz MA, Behr H, Hiley A. Alcohol use and pregnancy: improving identification. Obstet Gynecol. 1998;91:892-8.
  73. Chang G, McNamara TK, Orav EJ, Koby D, Lavigne A, Ludman B, et al. Brief intervention for prenatal alcohol use: a randomized trial. Obstet Gynecol. 2005;105:991-8.
  74. Chang G, McNamara TK, Orav EJ, Wilkins-Haug L. Brief intervention for prenatal alcohol use: the role of drinking goal selection. J Subst Abuse Treat. 2006;31:419-24.
  75. Floyd RL, Sobell M, Velasquez MM, Ingersoll K, Nettleman M, Sobell L, et al; Project CHOICES Efficacy Study Group. Preventing alcohol-exposed pregnancies: a randomized controlled trial. Am J Prev Med. 2007;32:1-10.
  76. Flynn HA, Marcus SM, Barry KL, Blow FC. Rates and correlates of alcohol use among pregnant women in obstetrics clinics. Alcohol Clin Exp Res. 2003;27:81-7.
  77. Grant TM, Ernst CC, Streissguth A, Stark K. Preventing alcohol and drug exposed births in Washington state: intervention findings from three parent-child assistance program sites. Am J Drug Alcohol Abuse. 2005;31:471-90.
  78. Meberg A, Halvorsen B, Holter B, Ek IJ, Askeland A, Gaaserud W, et al. Moderate alcohol consumption—need for intervention programs in pregnancy? Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 1986;65:861-4.
  79. O'Connor MJ, Whaley SE. Brief intervention for alcohol use by pregnant women. Am J Public Health. 2007;97:252-8.
  80. Reynolds KD, Coombs DW, Lowe JB, Peterson PL, Gayoso E. Evaluation of a self-help program to reduce alcohol consumption among pregnant women. Int J Addict. 1995;30:427-43.
  81. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Motivational intervention to reduce alcohol-exposed pregnancies—Florida, Texas, and Virginia, 1997-2001. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2003;52:441-4.
  82. Halmesmäki E. Alcohol counselling of 85 pregnant problem drinkers: effect on drinking and fetal outcome. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1988;95:243-7.
  83. Waterson EJ, Murray-Lyon IM. Preventing alcohol related birth damage: a review. Soc Sci Med. 1990;30:349-64.
  84. Handmaker NS, Miller WR, Manicke M. Findings of a pilot study of motivational interviewing with pregnant drinkers. J Stud Alcohol. 1999;60:285-7.
  85. 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;29:631-40.
  86. Miller WR, Walters ST, Bennett ME. How effective is alcoholism treatment in the United States? J Stud Alcohol. 2001;62:211-20.
  87. Babor TF, Steinberg K, Anton R, Del Boca F. Talk is cheap: measuring drinking outcomes in clinical trials. J Stud Alcohol. 2000;61:55-63.
  88. Del Boca FK, Noll JA. Truth or consequences: the validity of self-report data in health services research on addictions. Addiction. 2000;95 (Suppl 3):S347-60.
  89. McCambridge J, Kypri K. Can simply answering research questions change behaviour? Systematic review and meta analyses of brief alcohol trials. PLoS One. 2011;6:e23748.

Figure. Forest Plots for Alcohol Consumption, Heavy Drinking, and Achieving Recommended Drinking Limits for Groups Receiving Behavioral Counseling Interventions Compared With Control Groups

Select Text Description below for details

Text Description

The figure displays three forest plots of studies reporting the following 12-month outcomes in adults: change in alcohol consumption from baseline, number of heavy drinking episodes, and achieving recommended drinking limits. Next to each forest plot is its corresponding data, with a row for the results of each study and a pooled result from meta-analysis of all relevant trials. In addition, the analysis is stratified by the intensity of the intervention (very brief, brief, brief multicontact, and extended multicontact). The data displayed are the difference in means of: 1) drinks per week consumed, 2) number of adults who achieved recommended drinking limits, and 3) number of adults with no heavy drinking episodes in behavioral counseling intervention groups versus control groups. Adults who received counseling interventions drank less, complied more with recommended drinking limits, and had less heavy drinking episodes at 12-month followup compared with those who were in the control groups.

Table 1. Definitions of the Spectrum of Alcohol Misuse

Term Definition
Risky or hazardous use5 Consumption of alcohol above recommended daily, weekly, or per occasion amounts.
Consumption levels that increase the risk for health consequences.
Harmful use10, 11 A pattern of drinking that is already causing damage to health. The damage may be either physical (e.g., liver damage from chronic drinking) or mental (e.g., depressive episodes secondary to drinking).
Alcohol abuse12 A maladaptive pattern of alcohol use leading to clinically significant impairment or distress, as manifested by ≥1 of the following within a 12-mo period:

Recurrent alcohol use resulting in a failure to fulfill major obligations at work, school, or home (e.g., repeated absences or poor work performance related to alcohol use; alcohol-related absences, suspensions, or expulsions from school; or neglect of children or household)
Recurrent alcohol use in situations in which it is physically hazardous (e.g., driving an automobile or operating a machine)
Recurrent alcohol-related legal problems (e.g., arrests for alcohol-related disorderly conduct)
Continued use despite persistent or recurrent social or interpersonal problems caused or exacerbated by the effects of alcohol (e.g., arguments with spouse about consequences of intoxication or physical fights)
The symptoms have never met the criteria for alcohol dependence.

Alcohol dependence (alcoholism, alcohol addiction)12 A maladaptive pattern of alcohol use leading to clinically significant impairment or distress, as manifested by ≥3 of the following at any time in the same 12-mo period:

Tolerance, as defined by either of the following:
   A need for markedly increased amounts of alcohol to achieve intoxication or desired effect
   Markedly diminished effect with continued use of the same amount of alcohol
Withdrawal, as manifested by either of the following:
   The characteristic withdrawal syndrome for alcohol
   Alcohol (or a closely related drug) is taken to relieve or avoid withdrawal symptoms
Alcohol is often taken in larger amounts or over a longer period than was intended
A persistent desire or unsuccessful efforts to cut down or control alcohol use
A great deal of time is spent in activities necessary to obtain alcohol, use alcohol, or recover from its effects
Important social, occupational, or recreational activities are given up or reduced because of alcohol use
Use continues despite knowledge of a persistent or recurrent physical or psychological problem that is likely to have been caused or exacerbated by alcohol (e.g., continued drinking despite recognition that an ulcer was made worse by alcohol consumption)

 

Table 2. Effectiveness and Strength of Evidence of Behavioral Interventions Compared With Control Interventions for Improving Intermediate Outcomes, by Population *

Population Mean Consumption Heavy Drinking Episodes Recommended Drinking Limits
Results Strength of Evidence Results Strength of Evidence Results Strength of Evidence
Adults 3.6 fewer drinks/wk (95% CI, 2.4–4.8 drinks/wk); 10 trials; 4332 participants Moderate 12% fewer participants reported heavy drinking episodes (CI, 7%–16%); 7 trials; 2737 participants Moderate Achieved by 11% more participants (CI, 8%–13%); 9 trials; 5973 participants Moderate
Older adults 1.7 fewer drinks/wk (CI, 0.6–2.8 drinks/wk); 2 trials; 776 participants Moderate - Insufficient Achieved by 9% more participants (CI, 2%–16%); 2 trials, 776 participants Low
Young adults/college students 1.7 fewer drinks/wk (CI, 0.7–2.6 drinks/wk); 3 trials; 1421 participants§ Moderate 0.9 fewer heavy drinking days per month (CI, 0.3–1.5 fewer); 3 trials; 1448 participants§a Moderate - Insufficient
Pregnant women Data from 1 study found no difference Low - Insufficient - Insufficient
Adolescents - Insufficient - Insufficient - Insufficien

* All outcomes are 12-mo unless indicated. All percentages are absolute risk differences from our meta-analyses.
Baseline consumption, adults: mean, about 23 drinks/wk; median, about 19 drinks/wk; range, 8–62 drinks/wk (data from 16 trials). Baseline consumption, older adults: 15.2–16.6 drinks/wk (data from 2 trials). Baseline consumption, young adults/college students: mean, about 15 drinks/wk; median, about 17 drinks/wk; range, 8–18 drinks/wk (2 of the 5 trials did not report).
Generally defined as consumption of ≥5 standard drinks for men and ≥4 for women.
§ These data are 6-mo outcomes. For consumption for young adults, we could not calculate pooled point estimates for 12-mo data but the range of reduction was 1.2– 4.1 drinks/wk at 12 mo (moderate strength); for heavy drinking days for young adults, differences were not statistically significant at 12 mo (low strength).
a Baseline heavy drinking days for young adults/college students, about 6–7 heavy drinking days over the past month.

Table 3. Effectiveness & Strength of Evidence of Behavioral Interventions Compared With Control Interventions for Improving Health, Utilization,& Other Outcomes, by Population*

Outcomes Adults Older Adults Young Adults/College Students
Results Strength of Evidence Strength of Evidence Results Strength of Evidence
Health outcomes
Mortality Rate ratio, 0.64 (95% CI, 0.24 to 1.7); 4 trials; 2006 participants Low Insufficient 1 death reported in a control group Insufficient
Alcohol-related accidents   Insufficient Insufficient Fewer motor vehicle crashes with nonfatal injuries (9 vs. 20 crashes; P < 0.05) and fewer total motor vehicle events (114 vs. 149 events; P < 0.05) after 48 mo§ Low
Alcohol-related liver problems   Insufficient Insufficient   Insufficient
Utilization outcomes
Hospitalization Fewer hospital days in the past 6 mo at 6, 12, and 48 mo: 35 vs. 180 d, 91 vs. 146 d, and 420 vs. 664 d, respectively; all P < 0.05§ Low Insufficient Fewer hospital days but no statistically significant difference (131 vs. 150 d; P = NS)§ Low
Emergency visits No statistically significant differencea Low Insufficient Fewer emergency department visits (103 vs. 177 visits; P < 0.01)§ Low
Primary care visits No significant difference (weighted mean difference, −0.14 visits [CI, −0.5 to 0.2 visits]; 4 trials; 946 participants) Low Insufficient   Insufficient
Other outcomes
Academic problems - - - Fewer consequences related to academic role expectations: rate ratio between 0.70 and 0.80 Moderate
Legal problems** No significant difference over 48 mo for most legal problems but fewer controlled substance/liquor violations (2 vs. 11 violations; P < 0.05)§ Low Insufficient No significant difference for most legal problems but fewer controlled substance/liquor violations (0 vs. 8 violations; P < 0.01)§ Low
Quality of life No difference found in 3 trials (353 participants) Low Insufficient   Insufficient

* Data are reported for 12-mo outcomes unless otherwise noted.
A meta-analysis that combined all age groups (adults, older adults, and young adults/college students) also found no statistically significant reduction in mortality (rate ratio, 0.52 [CI, 0.22 to 1.2]; 6 trials; 2255 participants), although point estimates trended toward favoring behavioral interventions. Few trials reported mortality, additional studies would be needed to increase precision, and few long-term data are available.
“Accidents” indicates motor vehicle events and injuries.
§These data are from Project TrEAT (Trial for Early Alcohol Treatment)35, 35, 36, the best available evidence. The data for young adults are from Project TrEAT subgroup analyses (226 participants).
a Results trended in favor of the intervention group at 6, 12, and 48 mo: 47 vs. 70 visits (P < 0.10), 60 vs. 62 visits (P > 0.10), and 302 vs. 376 visits (P < 0.10), respectively33, 35, 36.
Evidence from 2 trials (576 and 104 participants) conducted in New Zealand.
** Includes assault, battery, or child abuse; resisting or obstructing an officer or disorderly conduct; criminal or property damage; theft or robbery; and other arrests.

Appendix Table 1. Key Questions for This Systematic Review

1. What is the direct evidence that screening for alcohol misuse followed by a behavioral counseling intervention, with or without referral, leads to reduced morbidity (e.g., alcohol-related morbidity or alcohol-related accidents and injuries), reduced mortality, or changes in other long-term (≥6 mo) outcomes (e.g., health care utilization, sick days, costs, legal issues, or employment stability)?

2. How do specific screening modalities compare with one another for detecting alcohol misuse?

3. What adverse effects are associated with screening for alcohol misuse and screening-related assessment?

4a. How do behavioral counseling interventions, with or without referral, compare with usual care for improving intermediate outcomes (e.g., change in mean number of drinks per drinking day or heavy drinking episodes) for people with alcohol misuse as identified by screening?

4b. How do specific behavioral counseling approaches, with or without referral, compare with one another for improving intermediate outcomes for people with alcohol misuse as identified by screening?

5. What adverse effects are associated with behavioral counseling interventions, with or without referral, for people with alcohol misuse as identified by screening?

6. How do behavioral counseling interventions, with or without referral, compare with one another and with usual care for reducing morbidity (e.g., alcohol-related morbidity or alcohol-related accidents and injuries), reducing mortality, or changing other long-term (≥6 mo) outcomes (e.g., health care utilization, sick days, costs, legal issues, or employment stability) for people with alcohol misuse as identified by screening?

7. To what extent do health care system influences promote or hinder effective screening and interventions for alcohol misuse?

Appendix Table 2. Definitions of the Grades of Overall Strength of Evidence

Definitions of the Grades of Overall Strength of Evidence28

Grade Definition
High High confidence that the evidence reflects the true effect. Further research is very unlikely to change our confidence in the estimate of effect.
Moderate Moderate confidence that the evidence reflects the true effect. Further research may change our confidence in the estimate of the effect and may change the estimate.
Low Low confidence that the evidence reflects the true effect. Further research is likely to change our confidence in the estimate of the effect and is likely to change the estimate.
Insufficient  Evidence either is unavailable or does not permit estimation of an effect.

 

Appendix Table 3. Characteristics of Included Trials Comparing Behavioral Counseling Interventions With Control Groups

Study Participants (Alcohol-Dependent), n (%) Duration, mo Country or State Setting Mean Age, y* Women, %* Nonwhite, %* Baseline Alcohol Consumption, drinks/wk* Quality
Adults
Anderson and Scott, 199229 154 (NR) 12 United Kingdom 8 PC group practices 43-45.1 0 NR 37.9-38.8 Fair
WHO Brief Intervention Study Group, 199663 1559 (0) 9 8, including United States Outpatient medical settings 35.9-36.9 19.2 NR NR Fair
Bischof et al, 200855; Grothues et al, 200856; and Reinhardt et al, 200857 408 (30.4) 12 Germany 85 general practices 35.9-36.8 31.9 NR 21-25.2 Fair
Curry et al, 200331 307 (NR) 12 Washington 23 PCPs in an HMO and an urban clinic 47 35 20 14.2 Fair
Fleming et al, 199733; Fleming et al, 200035; Fleming et al, 200236; Grossberg et al, 200437; and Manwell et al, 200039 774 (NR) 48 Wisconsin 17 community PC practices NR 38 5.6-11.9 18.9-19.1 Good
Fleming et al, 200851, and Wilton et al, 200954 235 (NR) 6 Wisconsin 34 obstetric practices Median, 28 100 18.3 8-8.5 Good
Lock et al, 200652 127 (0) 12 United Kingdom General practices 44.1 50 NR 23-26.48 Fair
Maisto et al, 200160, 61 and Gordon et al, 200359 301 (NR) 12 Pennsylvania 12 PC clinics 45.6 30.2 23.3 15.5-18.6 Fair
Noknoy et al, 201053 117 (13.8-15.3)§ 6 Thailand Rural PC units 37 8.5 100 (Thai) 15.15 Fair
Ockene et al, 199942; Ockene et al, 200943; and Reiff-Hekking et al, 200544 530 (2) 48 Massachusetts 4 PC sites (93 clinicians) 43.5-44.2 32.1-38.7 4.3-6.6 16.6-18.9 Fair
Richmond et al, 199545 378 (35)|| 12 Australia 40 PC practices 37.7 43 NR 38.5 Fair
Rubio et al, 201046 752 (0) 12 Spain 20 PC centers in Madrid NR; >70% were 31-40 34.7 NR 26.90-27.40 Fair
Saitz et al, 200347 312 (NR) 6 Massachusetts Urban academic PC practice 42.2-43.7 29-43 80-82 Mean, 5.5-5.6 drinks/drinking day Fair
Scott and Anderson, 199149 72 (NR) 12 United Kingdom 8 PC group practices 44.4-47.2 100 NR 25.8-26.7 Fair
Freeborn et al, 200058, and Senft et al, 199762 516 (0) 24 Oregon 3 PC clinics in an HMO 41.9-43 28.1-31.1 17.4-18.7 16.5 Fair
Wallace et al, 198850 909 (NR) 12 United Kingdom 47 group practices 41.7-44.6 29.1-29.8 NR 35.1 (women) and 62.2 (men) Fair
Older adults
Fleming et al, 199934, and Mundt et al, 200541 158 (0) 24 Wisconsin 24 PC practices NR; >92% were 65-75 33.5 NR 15.5-16.6 Fair
Lin et al, 201038, and Moore et al, 201140 631 (NR) 12 California PC practices (145 PCPs) 68.4 29 13 15.2 Fair
Young adults/college students
Fleming et al, 201032 986 (0) 12 United States and Canada 5 college health clinics 21 50.5-51.3 8.1-10.5 17.3-17.8 Good
Grossberg et al, 200437 226 (NR) 48 Wisconsin 17 community PC practices NR** 51 14 16.2-18.3 Good
Kypri et al, 200764, and Kypri et al, 200865 576 (NR) 12 New Zealand University primary health care service 20.1-20.3 52 NR NR Good
Kypri et al, 200466 104 (NR) 6 New Zealand University student health service 19.99-20.4 50 NR NR Fair
Schaus et al, 200948 363 (0) 12 Florida College student health center 20.6 52 22 8.4-9.6 Fair
Pregnant women
Chang et al, 199930 250 (0 current)†† About 6 Massachusetts Obstetric practices 30.7 100 22 Mean, 0.6-0.9 drinks per drinking day‡‡ Fair

NR = not reported/unclear; PC = primary care; PCP = primary care physician; TrEAT = Trial for Early Alcohol Treatment; WHO = World Health Organization.
* When data were not reported for the total sample but were presented for each study group, the range of the means for the various study groups are reported.
† According to a medical record audit, 6 participants received formal alcohol treatment during the 1-y follow-up period; those 6 may ultimately have received a diagnosis of alcohol dependence.
‡ Group 1, men: age 18-30 y, 20.2%; 31-40 y, 27.2%; 41-50 y, 23.9%; 51-65 y, 28.8%. Group 1, women: age 18-30 y, 43.5%; 31-40 y, 25.9%; 41-50 y, 15.6%; 51-65 y, 15.0%. Group 2, men: age 18-30 y, 26.0%; 31-40 y, 25.1%; 41-50 y, 21.3%; 51-65 y, 27.7%. Group 2, women: age 18-30 y, 35.7%; 31-40 y, 35.7%; 41-50 y, 18.2%; 51-65 y, 10.5%.
§ Based on an Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test score >25.
|| Percentage with moderate physical dependence based on the physical dependence score from the Comprehensive Drinker Profile. The study excluded participants with evidence of severe alcohol dependence (physical dependence score >10) or those with severe levels of alcohol-related problems (Michigan Alcohol Screening Test score >20).
¶ In this subgroup analysis of TrEAT33, 226 of 774 enrolled participants were young adults (aged 18 to 30 y).
** Age 18-21 y, 21%; 22-25 y, 37%; and 26-30 y, 47%.
†† None of the 250 participants satisfied Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Third Edition, Revised, criteria for current alcohol abuse or dependence at enrollment; however, 40% satisfied criteria for lifetime alcohol abuse or dependence (not reported separately) and 3 participants had been treated for an alcohol problem.
‡‡ While pregnant, including abstainers. The reported mean excluding abstainers was 1.5-2.1 drinks/drinking day while pregnant.

Appendix Table 4. Description of Behavioral Counseling Interventions, by Intervention Intensity

Population and Type of Intervention Study, Year (Reference) Intervention Delivery By Delivery Method Contacts, n Length of Each Contact
Adults
Very brief Richmond et al, 199545 Group 2: Physician advice and a self-help manual (after assessment) PCP In person 1 5 min
WHO Brief Intervention Study Group, 199663 Group 1: Advice and an illustrated pamphlet Various clinic staff In person 1 5 min
Brief Anderson and Scott, 199229 Brief advice, feedback about own consumption and norms, and a self-help booklet PCP In person 1 10 min
Lock et al, 200652 Brief advice (drink-less protocol) on standard drink units, recommended consumption levels, benefits of cutting down, tips on reducing consumption, advice on goal-setting, action plan, and self-help booklet/diary Nurse or PA In person 1 5-10 min
Maisto et al, 200160, 61, and Gordon et al, 200359 Brief advice that emphasized feedback from baseline results and implications for drinking, coupled with advice about a goal to reduce or stop alcohol consumption Research staff In person 1 10-15 min
Scott and Anderson, 199149 Brief advice, feedback about own consumption and norms, and a self-help booklet PCP In person 1 10 min
Freeborn et al, 200058, and Senft et al, 199762 30-s message from PCP and 15-min session with health counselor immediately after PCP visit PCP and study health counselor In person 1 About 15 min
WHO Brief Intervention Study Group, 199663 Group 2: Brief intervention and 30-page, illustrated problem-solving manual Various clinic staff In person 1 15 min
Brief multicontact Curry et al, 200331 Brief motivational message from PCP during regularly scheduled visit, self-help manual, written personalized feedback, and ≤3 outreach phone counseling calls from health educator PCP and research health educator In person and phone Up to 4 1-5 min PCP; mean for phone calls, 14 min
Fleming et al, 199733; Fleming et al, 200035; Fleming et al, 200236; Grossberg et al, 200437; and Manwell et al, 200039 Two visits with PCP, 1 mo apart, and a follow-up phone call from the clinic nurse 2 wk after each visit; workbook containing feedback about current health behaviors, review of prevalence of problem drinking, list of adverse effects of alcohol, worksheet on drinking cues, drinking agreement or prescription, and drinking diary cards PCP and nurse In person and phone 4 15 min for PCP contacts; NR for phone calls
Fleming et al, 200851, and Wilton et al, 200954 Two visits, each with phone follow-up, and a workbook containing scripted messages with feedback about current health behaviors, prevalence of problem drinking, list of adverse effects of alcohol focused on women and pregnancy, worksheet on drinking cues, drinking agreement in the form of a prescription, and drinking diary cards Nurse (90%) or obstetrician In person and phone 4 15 min for in-person contacts; NR for phone calls
Noknoy et al, 201053 Motivational enhancement protocol: Brief counseling sessions that used a patient-centered interviewing style and considered stages of change Nurse or PA In person 3 15 min
Ockene et al, 199942; Ockene et al, 200943; and Reiff-Hekking et al, 200544 Tailored consultation with a clinician plus follow-up visit, counseling (entailed talking about number of drinks/wk, heavy drinking episodes, or both), patient alcohol consumption info and education materials attached to the patient's chart by research assistants at regular office visit, and receipt of a health booklet at enrollment PCP In person 2 5-10 min
Rubio et al, 201046 Brief advice given by using an intervention workbook containing a review of alcohol-related health effects, a pie chart displaying frequency of types of at-risk drinkers, list of methods for cutting down, a treatment contract, and cognitive behavioral exercises; phone reinforcement by a nurse; and a general health booklet PCP In person 2 10-15 min
Wallace et al, 198850 Brief advice, an information booklet ("That's the Limit"), sex-based recommendations for limiting drinking, a drinking diary, and follow-up sessions PCP In person 1 to 5* NR
Extended multicontact Bischof et al, 200855 Group 1 (full care) comprised immediate computerized postassessment feedback and multiple sessions of counseling by a psychologist

Group 2 (stepped care) comprised immediate computerized postassessment feedback and a maximum of 3 counseling sessions with a psychologist; sessions were discontinued if patients indicated consumption below study criteria and high self-efficacy to maintain desired behavior

Trained psychologists from research team


Trained psychologists from research team

Phone

 



Phone

4

 

 

Up to 4

Scheduled for 30 min each; mean received, 80.3 min


Scheduled for 30-40 min
each

Richmond et al, 199545 Group 1 (the Alcoholscreen program) comprised 5 short consultations (introduction, patient education, 3 follow-ups) designed to reduce drinking to recommended limits and included a self-help manual, daily alcohol diary, and personalized patient education and counseling PCP In person 5 15-20 min (initial); 5-25 min (follow-ups)
Maisto et al, 20016061, and Gordon et al, 200359 Motivational enhancement: longer, main initial session; 2 shorter booster sessions; use of empathy and other techniques to enhance motivation; focus on feedback of assessment data and setting alcohol-use goals Research staff In person 3 30-45 min (main); 15-20 min (boosters)
Not reported or unknown Saitz et al, 200347 Providing physicians with positive alcohol screening results and specific recommendations for their patients at a visit PCP In person NR/unknown NR/unknown
Older adults
Brief multicontact Fleming et al, 199934, and Mundt et al, 200541 General health booklet plus drinking behavior feedback (workbook), review of problem-drinking prevalence, reasons for drinking, adverse effects of alcohol, drinking cues, a "prescribed" drinking agreement, and drinking diary cards PCP and nurse In person and phone 4 10-15 min for PCP contacts; NR for phone calls
Extended
multicontact
Lin et al, 201038, and Moore et al, 201140 Personalized risk report and diary for tracking alcohol use; PCP gave oral and written advice in prescription style via an alcohol education booklet, followed by additional feedback and counseling with motivational interviewing from a health educator at weeks 2, 4, and 8 PCP and health educator In person and phone 4 15-20 min
Young adults/college students
Brief Kypri et al, 200764, and Kypri et al, 200865 Web-based assessment and personalized feedback on drinking Self Computer 1 10-15 min
Kypri et al, 200466 Web-based assessment and personalized feedback on drinking Self Computer 1 10-15 min
Brief multicontact Fleming et al, 201032 Two visits 1 month apart with PCP and a follow-up phone call or e-mail from the PCP after each visit, feedback about current behaviors, review of prevalence of high-risk drinking among college students, list of alcohol's adverse consequences relevant to college students, lists of personal likes and dislikes of drinking, worksheets on drinking cues, BAC level calculator, life goals and alcohol effects, prescription agreement, and drinking diary cards PCP In person 4 15 min
Grossberg et al, 200437 Subgroup analysis of young adults enrolled in Project TrEAT (Fleming et al, 199733 PCP and nurse In person 4 15 min
Kypri et al, 200764, and Kypri et al, 200466 Web-based assessment and personalized feedback on drinking Self Computer 3 10-15 min
Extended
multicontact
Schaus et al, 200948 Motivational intervention sessions that combined patient-centered motivational interviewing and cognitive-behavioral skills training plus a booklet on alcohol prevention PCP In person 2 20 min
Pregnant women
Extended Chang et al, 199930 Review of lifestyle changes made since pregnancy, articulation of drinking goals, identification of circumstances in which participant might be tempted to drink, alternatives to drinking in such situations, take-home manual with tailored notes, and U.S. Surgeon General recommendation PCP and researcher In person 1 2-h assessment, 45-min intervention

BAC = blood alcohol content; NR = not reported; PA = physician assistant; PCP = primary care physician; TrEAT = Trial for Early Alcohol Treatment; WHO = World Health Organization.
* All participants received an invitation to a 1-mo follow-up; other follow-up was offered at 4, 7, and 10 mo at the discretion of the practitioner.
† Not reported in the article. Physicians were trained to do "up to 15 minutes," and the author believes sessions were generally 10-15 min (Wallace P, personal communication).
‡ No particular behavioral intervention was required; the intervention was to provide physicians with positive screening results. On the basis of assessment immediately after the visit, some discussion about drinking was reported for 51% (residents) to 74% (faculty) of visits in the intervention group and 70% (residents) and 51% (faculty) in the control group.

 

Appendix Figure 1. Analytic Framework for Screening, Behavioral Counseling, and Referral in Primary Care to Reduce Alcohol Misuse.

Select Text Description below for details

Text Description

Appendix Figure 1 is titled “Analytic Framework for Screening, Behavioral Counseling, and Referral in Primary Care to Reduce Alcohol Misuse.” The framework begins on the left with the patient population of interest: adolescents and adults. The following subgroups of interest are specified: college students, older adults (age 65 or older), veterans, pregnant women, racial or ethnic minorities, those with co-occurring mental health or chronic medical conditions, and those with varying severity of alcohol problems. An arrow with the word “screening” goes from the population on the left to a box containing the words “alcohol misuse.” “KQ 2” is also above this arrow, to indicate that the second key question focuses on screening instruments for alcohol misuse. A curvy arrow labeled “KQ 3” descends from the “screening” arrow to an elliptical shape with the words “adverse effects of screening” to illustrate the focus of KQ 3. Another arrow goes from the “alcohol misuse” box to the right to an “intermediate outcomes” box, with the words “intervention” and “KQ 4.” A curvy arrow labeled “KQ 5” descends from this “intervention” arrow to an elliptical shape with the words “adverse effects of intervention” to illustrate the focus of KQ 5. A dashed line to the right connects the “intermediate outcomes” box to a “long-term outcomes” box. The intermediate outcomes include measures of lower-risk alcohol use. The long-term outcomes include all-cause and alcohol-related mortality, alcohol-related morbidity, alcohol-related accidents and injuries, quality of life, health care utilization, sick days, costs, legal issues, and employment stability. KQ 1 is depicted by an overarching arrow that goes all the way from the “screening” arrow on the left to the “long-term outcomes” box. The focus of KQ 6 is depicted by an overarching arrow that goes from the “intervention” arrow to the “long-term outcomes.” A diamond-shaped kite containing the words “health care system influences” is located near the top of the figure and is connected to the screening and intervention arrows with dashed lines to illustrate the focus of KQ 7.

Appendix Figure 2. Summary of Evidence Search and Selection.

 

Select Text Description below for details

Text Description

Appendix Figure 2 is titled “Summary of Evidence Search and Selection.” The figure is a flow chart that summarizes the search and selection of articles. There were 8,993 citations of randomized trials identified by searching MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Library, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and the International Pharmaceutical Abstracts databases. In addition, 227 references were identified by searching reference lists of selected articles, and 216 articles were identified by a search of the clinicaltrials.gov database. After removal of duplicate citations, titles and abstracts of 6,277 records were screened for potential inclusion. Of these, 718 were deemed appropriate for full-text review to determine eligibility. After full-text review, 680 were excluded: 9 were in a language other than English; 201 were the wrong type of publication; 454 failed to meet eligibility criteria; 10 were deemed poor quality; and 6 were systematic reviews older than 5 years. Thirty-eight articles representing 23 trials were included in this report’s qualitative synthesis and 19 trials were included in quantitative analyses.

Current as of: September 2012

Internet Citation: Evidence Summary: Alcohol Misuse: Screening and Behavioral Counseling Interventions in Primary Care. U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. August 2016.
https://www.uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org/Page/Document/evidence-summary9/alcohol-misuse-screening-and-behavioral-counseling-interventions-in-primary-care

USPSTF Program Office   5600 Fishers Lane, Mail Stop 06E53A, Rockville, MD 20857