Screening and brief intervention delivery in the workplace to reduce alcohol-related harm: A pilot randomized controlled trial. Issue 1 (January 2015)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Watson, Hazel; Godfrey, Christine; McFadyen, Angus; McArthur, Katherine; Stevenson, Marisa; Holloway, Aisha
• Is Part Of: International journal of nursing studies. Volume 52:Issue 1(2015:Jan.)
• Page Start: 39
• Page End: 48
• Publication Date: 2015-01
• Subjects: Nursing -- Periodicals; Nursing -- Periodicals; Soins infirmiers -- Périodiques; Nursing; Periodicals; 610.73
• DOI: 10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2014.06.013
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0020-7489

Abstract

<abstract abstract-type="author" id="abs0005"> <title id="sect0005">Abstract</title> <sec> <title id="sect0010">Aim</title> <p id="spar0005">To explore the feasibility and cost effectiveness of screening and delivery of a brief intervention for hazardous drinking employees.</p> </sec> <sec> <title id="sect0015">Methods</title> <p id="spar0010">A pilot randomised controlled trial of a brief intervention delivered by an Occupational Health nurse versus no delivery of brief intervention (control group) conducted in a Local Authority Council (LCA) in the United Kingdom. Changes in quality of life and economic indicators were measured by the EQ-5D.</p> </sec> <sec> <title id="sect0020">Results</title> <p id="spar0015">627 employees were screened of whom 163 (26.01%) fulfilled the inclusion criteria with a total of 57 (35%) agreeing to participate. No significant differences were found between the groups for baseline demographics or levels/patterns of alcohol consumption. A statistically significant effect was found in the mean AUDIT scores over time (<italic>F</italic> = 8.96, <italic>p</italic> = 0.004) but not for group (<italic>F</italic> = 0.017, <italic>p</italic> = 0.896), and no significant interaction was found (<italic>F</italic> = 0.148, <italic>p</italic> = 0.702). The cost of each intervention was calculated at £12.48, the difference in service costs was calculated at £344.50 per person; that is there was a net saving of health and other care costs in the intervention group compared to the control group. The QALYs fell in both intervention and control groups, the difference −0.002 − (−0.010) yields a net advantage of the intervention of 0.008 QALYs.</p> </sec> <sec> <title id="sect0025">Conclusion</title> <p id="spar0020">The main results from this pilot study suggest that alcohol brief interventions delivered in the workplace may offer the potential to reduce alcohol-related harm and save public sector resources. A fully powered multi-centre trial is warranted to contribute to the current evidence base and explore further the potential of alcohol brief interventions in the workplace. In a full trial the recruitment method may need to be re-considered.</p> </sec> </abstract>