Effectiveness of Screening and Brief Alcohol Intervention in Primary Care (SIPS Trial): Pragmatic Cluster Randomised Controlled Trial

Eileen Kaner, professor of public health research, Martin Bland, professor of health statistics, Paul Cassidy, general practitioner, Simon Coulton, professor of health services research, Veronica Dale, trial statistician, Paolo Deluca, trial manager, Eilish Gilvarry, consultant psychiatrist and honorary professor of addiction psychiatry, Christine Godfrey, emeritus professor of health economics, Nick Heather, emeritus professor of drug and alcohol studies, Judy Myles, consultant psychiatrist, Dorothy Newbury-Birch, lecturer in public health, Adenekan Oyefeso, honorary reader and consultant clinical psychologist, Steve Parrott, health economics, Katherine Perryman, PhD student, Tom Phillips, clinical doctoral research fellow, Jonathan Shepherd, professor of oral and maxillofacial surgery, Colin Drummond, professor of addiction psychiatry

Abstract

Objective To evaluate the effectiveness of different brief intervention strategies at reducing hazardous or harmful drinking in primary care. The hypothesis was that more intensive intervention would result in a greater reduction in hazardous or harmful drinking.

Design Pragmatic cluster randomised controlled trial.

Setting Primary care practices in the north east and south east of England and in London.

Participants 3562 patients aged 18 or more routinely presenting in primary care, of whom 2991 (84.0%) were eligible to enter the trial: 900 (30.1%) screened positive for hazardous or harmful drinking and 756 (84.0%) received a brief intervention. The sample was predominantly male (62%) and white (92%), and 34% were current smokers.

Interventions Practices were randomised to three interventions, each of which built on the previous one: a patient information leaflet control group, five minutes of structured brief advice, and 20 minutes of brief lifestyle counselling. Delivery of the patient leaflet and brief advice occurred directly after screening and brief lifestyle counselling in a subsequent consultation.

Main outcome measures The primary outcome was patients' self reported hazardous or harmful drinking status as measured by the alcohol use disorders identification test (AUDIT) at six months. A negative AUDIT result (score <8) indicated non-hazardous or non-harmful drinking. Secondary outcomes were a negative AUDIT result at 12 months, experience of alcohol related problems (alcohol problems questionnaire), health utility (EQ-5D), service utilisation, and patients' motivation to change drinking behaviour (readiness to change) as measured by a modified readiness ruler.

Results Patient follow-up rates were 83% at six months (n=644) and 79% at 12 months (n=617). At both time points an intention to treat analysis found no significant differences in AUDIT negative status between the three interventions. Compared with the patient information leaflet group, the odds ratio of having a negative AUDIT result for brief advice was 0.85 (95% confidence interval 0.52 to 1.39) and for brief lifestyle counselling was 0.78 (0.48 to 1.25). A per protocol analysis confirmed these findings.

Conclusions All patients received simple feedback on their screening outcome. Beyond this input, however, evidence that brief advice or brief lifestyle counselling provided important additional benefit in reducing hazardous or harmful drinking compared with the patient information leaflet was lacking.

Trial registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN06145674.