scholarly journals A cross-national trial of brief interventions with heavy drinkers. WHO Brief Intervention Study Group.

1996 ◽  
Vol 86 (7) ◽  
pp. 948-955 ◽  
Pneumologie ◽  
2014 ◽  
Vol 68 (S 01) ◽  
Author(s):  
A Rupp ◽  
J Blank ◽  
M Ehmann ◽  
R Pousset ◽  
S Mühlig ◽  
...  

2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Rob Stephenson ◽  
Galina Lesco ◽  
Viorel Babii ◽  
Andrei Luchian ◽  
Nataliia Bakunina ◽  
...  

Abstract Background Brief behavioral interventions are seen as an efficient way to improve knowledge, change behavior, and reduce provider stigma regarding sexual health. When grounded in evidence-based behavioral change techniques and delivered using Brief Sexuality-related Communication (BSC) tools, brief behavioral interventions can address client-driven sexual health goals in a single session with their provider. Evidence for the efficacy of brief interventions for creating gains in sexual health comes largely from resource rich settings, and there is a lack of knowledge of how brief interventions can be implemented in the more resource constrained environments of low- and middle-income countries. As a first step in developing a brief intervention to address sexual health issues in Moldova, this paper reports on qualitative data collected from Moldovan providers to understand their attitudes, willingness and perceived barriers to the brief intervention and its implementation. Methods Thirty-nine in-depth interviews (IDI) were conducted between February and March 2020, with health providers recruited from three primary health care institutions, two Youth Friendly Health Centers and counselors from three NGOs who work with key populations in Moldova, including health centers selected from two cites - the capital city, Chisinau and from the Comrat Region. The IDI addressed four domains of provider attitudes: 1) attitudes towards the intervention; 2) willingness and motivation to implement the intervention; 3) logistics of providing the intervention and 4) ability to implement the intervention. A coding analysis approach was applied to all interview transcripts. Results Providers largely reported being willing to be trained in and implement the brief intervention. Willingness to implement the intervention stemmed from two perceptions: that it would improve the ability of providers to talk with their clients about sex, and that vulnerable groups would benefit from these conversations. However, while there were generally positive attitudes towards the intervention, providers consistently reported structural barriers to their perceived ability to implement the intervention. Conclusions While providers reported high levels of initial acceptance of a brief behavioral intervention, care is needed to ensure that brief interventions, and the training of providers on brief interventions, incorporate cultural attitudes and norms around sex, particularly in highly patriarchal settings, and provide opportunities for providers to practice the intervention in ways that address their assumptions and implicit biases.


2011 ◽  
Vol 50 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-11 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nick Heather

The case for extended brief interventions Brief interventions directed against hazardous and harmful drinking have become popular in recent years, both among researchers and, to some extent, among general practitioners and other health professionals. There is a strong evidence-base, at least in primary health care, to justify this popularity. But there is often confusion about what exactly alcohol brief intervention consists of. In fact, the term ‘brief intervention’ does not describe a single, well-defined activity but rather a family of interventions that differ in a range of ways. Although they all share the characteristics of being briefer than most formal treatment programmes for alcohol problems and of being aimed at drinkers with less severe problems and levels of dependence than those typically attending specialized treatment services, brief interventions differ among themselves in duration over time, number of scheduled sessions, procedures and accompanying materials, styles of interaction, delivery personnel and settings, and the underlying theoretical approach on which they are based.


2019 ◽  
Vol 54 (4) ◽  
pp. 417-427 ◽  
Author(s):  
F R Beyer ◽  
F Campbell ◽  
N Bertholet ◽  
J B Daeppen ◽  
J B Saunders ◽  
...  

Abstract Aims An updated Cochrane systematic review assessed effectiveness of screening and brief intervention to reduce hazardous or harmful alcohol consumption in general practice or emergency care settings. This paper summarises the implications of the review for clinicians. Methods Cochrane methods were followed. Reporting accords with PRISMA guidance. We searched multiple resources to September 2017, seeking randomised controlled trials of brief interventions to reduce hazardous or harmful alcohol consumption in people attending general practice, emergency care or other primary care settings for reasons other than alcohol treatment. Brief intervention was defined as a conversation comprising five or fewer sessions of brief advice or brief lifestyle counselling and a total duration of less than 60 min. Our primary outcome was alcohol consumption, measured as or convertible to grams per week. We conducted meta-analyses to assess change in consumption, and subgroup analyses to explore the impact of participant and intervention characteristics. Results We included 69 studies, of which 42 were added for this update. Most studies (88%) compared brief intervention to control. The primary meta-analysis included 34 studies and provided moderate-quality evidence that brief intervention reduced consumption compared to control after one year (mean difference −20 g/wk, 95% confidence interval −28 to −12). Subgroup analysis showed a similar effect for men and women. Conclusions Brief interventions can reduce harmful and hazardous alcohol consumption in men and women. Short, advice-based interventions may be as effective as extended, counselling-based interventions for patients with harmful levels of alcohol use who are presenting for the first time in a primary care setting.


2017 ◽  
Vol 19 (6) ◽  
pp. e217 ◽  
Author(s):  
Theda Radtke ◽  
Mathias Ostergaard ◽  
Richard Cooke ◽  
Urte Scholz

2021 ◽  
Vol 16 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Lindsay R. Meredith ◽  
Erica N. Grodin ◽  
Mitchell P. Karno ◽  
Amanda K. Montoya ◽  
James MacKillop ◽  
...  

Abstract Background Findings have been mixed as to whether brief intervention (BI) is appropriate and effective for individuals with more severe alcohol use problems. Motivation to change drinking has been supported as a mechanism of behavior change for BI. This exploratory study examined aspects of motivation as mechanisms of clinical response to BI and alcohol problem severity as a moderator of treatment effects. Methods Non-treatment-seeking heavy drinkers (average age = 35 years; 57% male) were randomized to receive BI (n = 27) or attention-matched control (n = 24). Three indices of motivation to change were assessed at baseline and post-intervention: importance, confidence, and readiness. Moderated mediation analyses were implemented with treatment condition as the focal predictor, changes in motivation as mediator, 1-month follow-up drinks per day as the outcome, and an alcohol severity factor as second-stage moderator. Results Analysis of importance displayed a significant effect of intervention condition on importance (p < 0.003) and yielded a significant index of moderated mediation (CI − 0.79, − 0.02), indicating that the conditional indirect effect of treatment condition on drinking through importance was stronger for those with higher alcohol severity. For all motivation indices, alcohol severity moderated the effect of post-intervention motivation levels on drinking (p’s < 0.05). The direct effect of treatment condition on drinking was not significant in any model. Conclusions Findings highlight the relevance of considering one’s degree of alcohol problem severity in BI and alcohol screening efforts among non-treatment seeking heavy drinkers. These nuanced effects elucidate both potential mechanisms and moderators of BI response. Trial registration Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT04710095. Registered January 14, 2021—retrospectively registered, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/study/NCT04710095.


2014 ◽  
Vol 50 (2) ◽  
pp. 157-163 ◽  
Author(s):  
Chieko Ito ◽  
Takefumi Yuzuriha ◽  
Tatsuya Noda ◽  
Toshiyuki Ojima ◽  
Hisanori Hiro ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document