Mid and long-term effects of a SBIRT program for at-risk drinkers attending to an emergency department. Follow-up results from a randomized controlled trial.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND AND IMPORTANCE: SBIRT programs (Screening Brief Intervention and Referral to Treatment) for at-risk drinkers in emergency departments (ED) have shown to be effective, particularly at short term. In this article, we report mid and long-term follow-up results of a specialized SBIRT program. A short-term follow-up after 1.5 months showed encouraging results, with more than a 20% greater reduction of at-risk drinking in the intervention group and more than double of successful referrals to specialized treatment. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to evaluate the mid and long-term efficacy of an SBIRT program conducted by psychiatrist specialists in addictive disorders and motivational interviewing in the ED of a tertiary hospital. DESIGN, SETTINGS AND PARTICIPANTS: We conducted a secondary analysis of a previously published randomized controlled trial of an SBIRT program conducted by alcohol specialists for at-risk drinkers presenting to the ED, measured with the AUDIT-C scale. INTERVENTION OR EXPOSURE: Patients were randomized into two groups, with the control group receiving two leaflets: one regarding alcohol use and the other giving information about the study protocol. The intervention group received the same leaflets as well as a brief motivational intervention on alcohol use and, where appropriate, a referral to specialized treatment. OUTCOMES MEASURE AND ANALYSIS: Long-term assessment primary outcome was the proportion of at-risk alcohol use measured by AUDIT-C scale. The main effectiveness analysis at 18 weeks and 12 months' follow-up was conducted with multilevel logistic regression analyses. Missing values were imputed with the last observation carried forward. MAIN RESULTS: Of 200 patients included in the study, 133 (66.5%) and 131 (65.5%) completed 18 weeks and 1-year follow-up respectively. Although the proportion of risky drinkers was substantially lower in the intervention group (38.5 vs. 57.4% at 4.5 months and 58.5 vs 68.2% at 1 year), these results did not reach statistical significance (OR = 2.15; CI, 0.87-5.33). CONCLUSIONS: In this secondary analysis for mid- and long-term effects of a specialized SBIRT program, there was no significant difference in the reduction of risky drinkers at 18 weeks and 1 year. The small size of the studied sample and the low retention rate precluded any significant conclusion, although point estimates suggest a positive effect. Overall, SBIRT programs are an effective tool to reduce alcohol use at short time and to refer patients to specialized treatment; however, its effects seem to decay over time.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,003 | 0,008 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,003 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».