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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".