Who achieves low risk drinking during alcohol treatment? An analysis of patients in three alcohol clinical trials

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

There is evidence that low-risk drinking is possible during the course of alcohol treatment and can be maintained following treatment. Our aim was to identify characteristics associated with low-risk drinking during treatment in a large sample of individuals as they received treatment for alcohol dependence.

DESIGN

Integrated analysis of data from the Combined Pharmacotherapies and Behavioral Intervention (COMBINE) study, Project MATCH (Matching Alcoholism Treatments to Client Heterogeneity) and the United Kingdom Alcohol Treatment Trial (UKATT) using repeated-measures latent class analysis to identify patterns of drinking and predictors of low-risk drinking patterns during treatment.

SETTING

United States and United Kingdom.

PARTICIPANTS

Patients (n = 3589) with alcohol dependence receiving treatment in an alcohol clinical trial were primarily male (73.0%), white (82.0%) and non-married (41.7%), with an average age of 42.0 (standard deviation = 10.7).

MEASUREMENTS

Self-reported weekly alcohol consumption during treatment was assessed using the Form-90 and validated with biological verification or collateral informants.

FINDINGS

Seven patterns of drinking during treatment were identified: persistent heavy drinking (18.7% of the sample), increasing heavy drinking (9.6%), heavy and low-risk drinking (6.7%), heavy drinking alternating with abstinence (7.9%), low-risk drinking (6.8%), increasing low-risk drinking (10.5%) and abstinence (39.8%). Lower alcohol dependence severity and fewer drinks per day at baseline significantly predicted low-risk drinking patterns [e.g. each additional drink prior to baseline predicted a 27% increase in the odds of expected classification in heavy drinking versus low-risk drinking patterns; odds ratio = 1.27 (95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.10, 1.47, P = 0.002]. Greater negative mood and more heavy drinkers in the social network were significant predictors of expected membership in heavier drinking patterns.

CONCLUSIONS

Low-risk drinking is achievable for some individuals as they undergo treatment for alcohol dependence. Individuals with lower dependence severity, less baseline drinking, fewer negative mood symptoms and fewer heavy drinkers in their social networks have a higher probability of achieving low-risk drinking during treatment.

How Much Is Too Much? Patterns of Drinking During Alcohol Treatment and Associations With Post-Treatment Outcomes Across Three Alcohol Clinical Trials

OBJECTIVE

This secondary data analysis examined patterns of drinking during alcohol treatment and associated drinking outcomes during the first year following treatment. The goal was to provide clinicians with guidance on which patients may be most at risk for negative long-term outcomes based on drinking patterns during treatment.

METHOD

This study was an analysis of existing data (N = 3,851) from three randomized clinical trials for alcohol use disorder: the COMBINE Study (n = 1,383), Project MATCH (n = 1,726), and the United Kingdom Alcohol Treatment Trial (n = 742). Indicators of abstinence, non-heavy drinking, and heavy drinking (defined as 4/5 or more drinks per day for women/men) were examined during each week of treatment using repeated-measures latent class analysis. Associations between drinking patterns during treatment and drinking intensity, drinking consequences, and physical and mental health 12 months following intake were examined.

RESULTS

Seven drinking patterns were identified. Patients who engaged in persistent heavy drinking throughout treatment and those who returned to persistent heavy drinking during treatment had the worst long-term outcomes. Patients who engaged in some heavy drinking during treatment had better long-term outcomes than persistent heavy drinkers. Patients who reported low-risk drinking or abstinence had the best long-term outcomes. There were no differences in outcomes between low-risk drinkers and abstainers.

CONCLUSIONS

Abstinence, low-risk drinking, or even some heavy drinking during treatment are associated with the best long-term outcomes. Patients who are engaging in persistent heavy drinking are likely to have the worst outcomes and may require a higher level of care.

Predicting drinking outcomes: Evidence from the United Kingdom Alcohol Treatment Trial (UKATT)

AIMS

To explore client characteristics that predict drinking outcomes using data from the UK Alcohol Treatment Trial (UKATT).

METHODS

Multiple linear regression was used to determine if there were any characteristics, measured before the start of treatment, that could predict drinking outcomes at three and 12months, as measured by percent day abstinent (PDA) and drinks per drinking day (DDD) over the preceding 90days.

RESULTS

Lower baseline DDD score and greater confidence to resist drinking predicted lower DDD at both three and twelve months following entry to treatment. In addition to baseline PDA and having greater confidence to resist heavy drinking, female gender, aiming for abstinence, more satisfaction with family life and a social network that included less support for drinking were predictors of percent days abstinent.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall the strongest and most consistent predictors of outcome were confidence to avoid heavy drinking and social support for drinking. More predictors were identified for percent of days abstinent than for drinks per drinking day. For percent of days abstinent, a number of client characteristics at baseline consistently predicted outcome at both month three and month twelve.

Q: Is Addiction a Brain Disease or a Moral Failing? A: Neither

This article uses Marc Lewis' work as a springboard to discuss the socio-political context of the brain disease model of addiction (BDMA). The claim that promotion of the BDMA is the only way the general public can be persuaded to withhold blame and punishment from addicts is critically examined. After a discussion of public understandings of the disease concept of addiction, it is pointed out that it is possible to develop a scientific account of addiction which is neither a disease nor a moral model but which the public could understand. Evidence is reviewed to suggest that public acceptance of the disease concept is largely lip-service and that the claim the BDMA removes stigma among the public and professionals is unsupported by evidence. Further, there is good evidence that biogenetic explanations of mental/behavioural disorders in general have been counterproductive in the attempt to ally stigma. A model of addiction as a disorder of choice may attract special problems in public-facing communications and risks being misunderstood. However, ways of presenting this model to the public are suggested that may avoid such risks. Lastly, the claim that the BDMA is the only way of ensuring access to treatment and of maintaining research funding for addiction is disputed and a way in which these benefits can be retained under a disorder-of-choice model proposed. The article concludes by enthusiastically endorsing Lewis' call for a third stage in the governing image of addiction.

Rethinking alcohol interventions in health care: a thematic meeting of the International Network on Brief Interventions for Alcohol & Other Drugs (INEBRIA)

In 2016, the International Network on Brief Interventions for Alcohol & Other Drugs convened a meeting titled “Rethinking alcohol interventions in health care”. The aims of the meeting were to synthesize recent evidence about screening and brief intervention and to set directions for research, practice, and policy in light of this evidence. Screening and brief intervention is efficacious in reducing self-reported alcohol consumption for some with unhealthy alcohol use, but there are gaps in evidence for its effectiveness. Because screening and brief intervention is not known to be efficacious for individuals with more severe unhealthy alcohol use, recent data showing the lack of evidence for referral to treatment as part of screening and brief intervention are alarming. While screening and brief intervention was designed to be a population-based approach, its reach is limited. Implementation in real world care also remains a challenge. This report summarizes practice, research, and policy recommendations and key research developments from our meeting. In order to move the field forward, a research agenda was proposed to (1) address evidence gaps in screening, brief intervention, and referral to treatment, (2) develop innovations to address severe unhealthy alcohol use within primary care, (3) describe the stigma of unhealthy alcohol use, which obstructs progress in prevention and treatment, (4) reconsider existing conceptualizations of unhealthy alcohol use that may influence health care, and (5) identify efforts needed to improve the capacity for addressing unhealthy alcohol consumption in all world regions.

Weak evidence on nalmefene creates dilemmas for clinicians and poses questions for regulators and researchers

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Nalmefene has been approved in Europe for the treatment of alcohol dependence and subsequently recommended by the UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). This study examines critically the evidence base underpinning both decisions and the issues arising.

METHODS

Published studies of nalmefene were identified through a systematic search, with documents from the European Medicines Agency, the NICE appraisal and public clinical trial registries also examined to identify methodological issues.

RESULTS

Efficacy data used to support the licensing of nalmefene suffer from risk of bias due to lack of specification of a priori outcome measures and sensitivity analyses, use of post-hoc sample refinement and the use of inappropriate comparators. Despite this, evidence for the efficacy of nalmefene in reducing alcohol consumption in those with alcohol dependence is, at best, modest, and of uncertain significance to individual patients. The relevance of existing trial data to routine primary care practice is doubtful.

CONCLUSIONS

Problems with the registration, design, analysis and reporting of clinical trials of nalmefene did not prevent it being licensed and recommended for treating alcohol dependence. This creates dilemmas for primary care clinicians and commissioning organisations where nalmefene has been heavily promoted, and poses wider questions about the effectiveness of the medicines regulation system and how to develop the alcohol treatment evidence base.

Association between physical pain and alcohol treatment outcomes: The mediating role of negative affect

OBJECTIVE

Physical pain and negative affect have been described as risk factors for alcohol use following alcohol treatment. The current study was a secondary analysis of 2 clinical trials for alcohol use disorder (AUD) to examine the associations between pain, negative affect and AUD treatment outcomes.

METHOD

Participants included 1,383 individuals from the COMBINE Study (COMBINE Pharmacotherapies and Behavioral Interventions for Alcohol Dependence; COMBINE Study Research Group, 2003; 31% female, 23% ethnic minorities, average age = 44.4 [SD = 10.2]), a multisite combination pharmacotherapy and behavioral intervention study for AUD in the United States, and 742 individuals from the United Kingdom Alcohol Treatment Trial (UKATT Research Team, 2001; 25.9% female, 4.4% ethnic minorities, average age = 41.6 [SD = 10.1]) a multisite behavioral intervention study for AUD in the United Kingdom. The Form-90 was used to collect alcohol use data, the Short Form Health Survey and Quality of Life measures were used to assess pain, and negative affect was assessed using the Brief Symptom Inventory (COMBINE) and the General Health Questionnaire (UKATT).

RESULTS

Pain scores were significantly associated with drinking outcomes in both datasets. Greater pain scores were associated with greater negative affect and increases in pain were associated with increases in negative affect. Negative affect significantly mediated the association between pain and drinking outcomes and this effect was moderated by social behavior network therapy (SBNT) in the UKATT study, with SBNT attenuating the association between pain and drinking.

CONCLUSION

Findings suggest pain and negative affect are associated among individuals in AUD treatment and that negative affect mediated pain may be a risk factor for alcohol relapse.

The role of the working alliance in treatment for alcohol problems

Little research has been done on the role of the therapeutic working alliance in treatment for alcohol problems. This longitudinal study’s objectives were (a) to identify predictors of working alliance and (b) to investigate whether client and/or therapist reports of the working alliance predicted posttreatment motivation and then later treatment outcome. Client and therapist perceptions of the working alliance were assessed after the first treatment session using a short form of the Working Alliance Inventory (WAI) among 173 clients taking part in the United Kingdom Alcohol Treatment Trial (UKATT) and randomized to motivational enhancement therapy (MET) or social behavior and network therapy (SBNT) with complete data on all measures of interest. Structural equation models were fitted to identify predictors of WAI scores and investigate the relationships between WAI and measures of drinking during treatment, posttreatment motivation, and successful treatment outcome (abstinent or nonproblem drinker), and measures of drinks per drinking day and nondrinking days, assessed 9 months after the conclusion of treatment. Motivation to change drinking when treatment began was a strong predictor of client—adjusted coefficient = 2.21 (95% confidence interval [CI] [0.36, 4.06]—but not therapist WAI. Client WAI predicted successful treatment outcome—adjusted odds ratios (OR) = 1.09 (95% CI [1.02, 1.17])—and had effects on drinking during treatment, and on posttreatment motivation to change. There was evidence for effect modification by treatment, with strong associations between WAI and posttreatment motivation, and evidence of WAI prediction of treatment outcomes in the MET group, but no evidence of associations for SBNT. Therapist WAI was not strongly associated with treatment outcome (adjusted OR = 1.05; 95% CI [0.99, 1.10]). The working alliance is important to treatment outcomes for alcohol problems, with client evaluation of the alliance strongly related to motivation to change drinking throughout treatment for MET. It was also much more important than therapist-rated alliance in this study.

Posttreatment motivation and alcohol treatment outcome 9 months later: findings from structural equation modeling

Objective: To investigate the association between posttreatment motivation to change as measured by the Readiness to Change Questionnaire Treatment Version and drinking outcomes 9 months after the conclusion of treatment for alcohol problems. Method: Data from 392 participants in the United Kingdom Alcohol Treatment Trial were used to fit structural equation models investigating relationships between motivation to change pre- and posttreatment and 5 outcomes 9 months later. The models included pathways through changes in drinking behavior during treatment and adjustment for sociodemographic information. Results: Greater posttreatment motivation (being in action vs. preaction) was associated with 3 times higher odds of the most stringent definition of positive outcome (being abstinent or entirely a nonproblem drinker) 9 months later (odds ratio = 3.10, 95% confidence interval [1.83, 5.25]). A smaller indirect effect of pretreatment motivation on this outcome was seen from pathways through drinking behavior during treatment and posttreatment motivation (probit coefficient = 0.08, 95% confidence interval [0.03, 0.14]). A similar pattern of results was seen for other outcomes evaluated. Conclusion: Posttreatment motivation to change has hitherto been little studied and is identified here as a clearly important predictor of longer term treatment outcome.

This study found that those individuals who reported that they were ready to change their drinking at the end of a treatment program were much more likely to show positive outcomes 9 months subsequently than were persons not indicating such a readiness to change. This suggests that attempting to enhance motivation throughout the process may be an important component of successful alcohol treatment.

The efficacy-effectiveness distinction in trials of alcohol brief intervention

Three recent sets of null findings from trials of alcohol brief intervention (BI) have been disappointing to those who wish to see a reduction in alcohol-related harm through the widespread dissemination of BI. Saitz (7) has suggested that these null findings result from a failure to translate the effects of BI seen in efficacy trials, which are thought to contribute mainly to the beneficial effects of BI shown in meta-analyses, to effectiveness trials conducted in real-world clinical practice. The present article aims to: (i) clarify the meaning of the terms “efficacy” and “effectiveness” and other related concepts; (ii) review the method and findings on efficacy-effectiveness measurement in the 2007 Cochrane Review by Kaner and colleagues; and (iii) make suggestions for further research in this area. Conclusions are: 1) to avoid further confusion, terms such as “efficacy trial”, “effectiveness trial”, “clinical representativeness”, etc. should be clearly defined and carefully used; 2) applications of BI to novel settings should begin with foundational research and developmental studies, followed by efficacy trials, and political pressures for quick results from premature effectiveness trials should be resisted; 3) clear criteria are available in the literature to guide progress from efficacy research, through effectiveness research, to dissemination in practice; 4) to properly interpret null findings from effectiveness studies, it is necessary to ensure that interventions are delivered as intended; 5) in future meta-analyses of alcohol BI trials, more attention should be paid to the development and application of a psychometrically robust scale to measure efficacy-effectiveness or clinical representativeness; 6) the null findings under consideration cannot be firmly attributed to a failure to translate effects from efficacy trials to real-world practice, because it is possible that the majority of trials included in meta-analyses on which the evidence for the beneficial effects of alcohol BI was based tended to be effectiveness rather than efficacy trials; and 7) a hypothesis to explain the null findings in question is that they are due to lack of fidelity in the implementation of BI in large, organizationally complex, cluster randomized trials.

Alcohol screening and brief interventions for offenders in the probation setting (SIPS Trial): a pragmatic multicentre cluster randomized controlled trial

AIM

To evaluate the effectiveness of different brief intervention strategies at reducing hazardous or harmful drinking in the probation setting. Offender managers were randomized to three interventions, each of which built on the previous one: feedback on screening outcome and a client information leaflet control group, 5 min of structured brief advice and 20 min of brief lifestyle counselling.

METHODS

A pragmatic multicentre factorial cluster randomized controlled trial. The primary outcome was self-reported hazardous or harmful drinking status measured by Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT) at 6 months (negative status was a score of <8). Secondary outcomes were AUDIT status at 12 months, experience of alcohol-related problems, health utility, service utilization, readiness to change and reduction in conviction rates.

RESULTS

Follow-up rates were 68% at 6 months and 60% at 12 months. At both time points, there was no significant advantage of more intensive interventions compared with the control group in terms of AUDIT status. Those in the brief advice and brief lifestyle counselling intervention groups were statistically significantly less likely to reoffend (36 and 38%, respectively) than those in the client information leaflet group (50%) in the year following intervention.

CONCLUSION

Brief advice or brief lifestyle counselling provided no additional benefit in reducing hazardous or harmful drinking compared with feedback on screening outcome and a client information leaflet. The impact of more intensive brief intervention on reoffending warrants further research.

The effectiveness of alcohol screening and brief intervention in emergency departments: a multicentre pragmatic cluster randomized controlled trial

Background

Alcohol misuse is common in people attending emergency departments (EDs) and there is some evidence of efficacy of alcohol screening and brief interventions (SBI). This study investigated the effectiveness of SBI approaches of different intensities delivered by ED staff in nine typical EDs in England: the SIPS ED trial.

Methods and Findings

Pragmatic multicentre cluster randomized controlled trial of SBI for hazardous and harmful drinkers presenting to ED. Nine EDs were randomized to three conditions: a patient information leaflet (PIL), 5 minutes of brief advice (BA), and referral to an alcohol health worker who provided 20 minutes of brief lifestyle counseling (BLC). The primary outcome measure was the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT) status at 6 months. Of 5899 patients aged 18 or more presenting to EDs, 3737 (63·3%) were eligible to participate and 1497 (40·1%) screened positive for hazardous or harmful drinking, of whom 1204 (80·4%) gave consent to participate in the trial. Follow up rates were 72% (n = 863) at six, and 67% (n = 810) at 12 months. There was no evidence of any differences between intervention conditions for AUDIT status or any other outcome measures at months 6 or 12 in an intention to treat analysis. At month 6, compared to the PIL group, the odds ratio of being AUDIT negative for brief advice was 1·103 (95% CI 0·328 to 3·715). The odds ratio comparing BLC to PIL was 1·247 (95% CI 0·315 to 4·939). A per protocol analysis confirmed these findings.

Conclusions

SBI is difficult to implement in typical EDs. The results do not support widespread implementation of alcohol SBI in ED beyond screening followed by simple clinical feedback and alcohol information, which is likely to be easier and less expensive to implement than more complex interventions.

Trial Registration

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN 93681536

Toward an understanding of the effective mechanisms of alcohol brief interventions

Research on effective mechanisms of alcohol brief interventions has been neglected, but Bertholet and colleagues provide an example of such research in a re-analysis of combined data from 3 trials of brief motivational interviewing (BMI). However, it is disappointing that, in a well-designed and well-conducted analysis, little support was found for highly plausible hypotheses relating treatment processes to outcome of intervention. It is argued here that, because BMI must be assumed to work by increasing client motivation to cut down drinking, some measure of overall motivation before and after intervention is necessary to elucidate the pathway by which treatment processes are translated into positive outcomes. In pioneering research on physician advice on smoking cessation by Russell and colleagues, it was possible to distinguish between whether intervention worked by motivating more people to try to stop smoking, by increasing the success rate among those who did try, or by reducing the relapse rate among those who quit. It is recommended that similar measures be employed in research on how alcohol brief interventions work. A further consideration bearing on the relationship between treatment processes and outcome is whether or not individuals are dependent on alcohol and this is reminiscent of a dispute in the literature concerning the relative priority that should be given to motivational or dependence variables in the prediction of smoking cessation. In order to improve the effectiveness of alcohol brief interventions, future research should focus more on effective mechanisms of behavior change.

Interpreting null findings from trials of alcohol brief interventions

The effectiveness of alcohol brief intervention (ABI) has been established by a succession of meta-analyses but, because the effects of ABI are small, null findings from randomized controlled trials are often reported and can sometimes lead to skepticism regarding the benefits of ABI in routine practice. This article first explains why null findings are likely to occur under null hypothesis significance testing (NHST) due to the phenomenon known as "the dance of the p-values." A number of misconceptions about null findings are then described, using as an example the way in which the results of the primary care arm of a recent cluster-randomized trial of ABI in England (the SIPS project) have been misunderstood. These misinterpretations include the fallacy of "proving the null hypothesis" that lack of a significant difference between the means of sample groups can be taken as evidence of no difference between their population means, and the possible effects of this and related misunderstandings of the SIPS findings are examined. The mistaken inference that reductions in alcohol consumption seen in control groups from baseline to follow-up are evidence of real effects of control group procedures is then discussed and other possible reasons for such reductions, including regression to the mean, research participation effects, historical trends, and assessment reactivity, are described. From the standpoint of scientific progress, the chief problem about null findings under the conventional NHST approach is that it is not possible to distinguish "evidence of absence" from "absence of evidence." By contrast, under a Bayesian approach, such a distinction is possible and it is explained how this approach could classify ABIs in particular settings or among particular populations as either truly ineffective or as of unknown effectiveness, thus accelerating progress in the field of ABI research.

Post-treatment stage of change predicts 12-month outcome of treatment for alcohol problems

Aims: To evaluate relationships between clients' self-reported ‘stage of change’ and outcomes after treatment for alcohol problems. Methods: Using data from the ‘United Kingdom Alcohol Treatment Trial’, clients who had received at least one session of treatment and who had complete data (n = 392) entered the analysis. Two continuous measures of drinking behaviour (% days abstinent (PDA) and drinks per drinking day (DDD)) and categorical outcomes at the 12-month follow-up were compared between clients in Pre-action and Action stages of change at either pre- or post-treatment assessment. Multiple and logistic regression analyses examined the relationships between stage of change and treatment outcomes, evaluating the strength of these relationships by controlling for likely confounders. Results: Pre-treatment stage of change did not predict outcome but post-treatment stage of change predicted PDA and DDD at the 12-month follow-up. In unadjusted and adjusted analyses, clients in Action at post-treatment were two to three times more likely to show a favourable categorical outcome, variously defined, than those in Pre-action. There were no differences between clients who had received Motivational Enhancement Therapy and those who had received Social Behaviour and Network Therapy in proportions maintaining or moving towards Action from before to after treatment. Conclusions: These findings confirm previous reports that motivational variables predict outcome of treatment but add that such a relationship is seen for post-treatment stage of change. For therapists, it would seem important to monitor the client's stage of change—which in good clinical practice often occurs in informal ways—and have strategies to deal with low motivation to change whenever it occurs throughout treatment. The findings are also consistent with a ‘common factors’ perspective on effective treatment for alcohol problems.

Effectiveness of screening and brief alcohol intervention in primary care (SIPS trial): pragmatic cluster randomised controlled trial

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.

The development of guidelines for drug and alcohol dependence treatment: affecting policy and practice

The rationale and methodology behind the Australian Quality Assurance Project is described. The Project aimed to develop guidelines for treatment content based on three sources of information: research findings, current practice and expert opinion. The issue of the gap between research and practice is discussed, as well as the role of dissemination in altering clinician behaviour.

Can screening and brief intervention lead to population-level reductions in alcohol-related harm?

A distinction is made between the clinical and public health justifications for screening and brief intervention (SBI) against hazardous and harmful alcohol consumption. Early claims for a public health benefit of SBI derived from research on general medical practitioners’ (GPs’) advice on smoking cessation, but these claims have not been realized, mainly because GPs have not incorporated SBI into their routine practice. A recent modeling exercise estimated that, if all GPs in England screened every patient at their next consultation, 96% of the general population would be screened over 10 years, with 70-79% of excessive drinkers receiving brief interventions (BI); assuming a 10% success rate, this would probably amount to a population-level effect of SBI. Thus, a public health benefit for SBI presupposes widespread screening; but recent government policy in England favors targeted versus universal screening, and in Scotland screening is based on new registrations and clinical presentation. A recent proposal for a national screening program was rejected by the UK National Health Service’s National Screening Committee because 1) there was no good evidence that SBI led to reductions in mortality or morbidity, and 2) a safe, simple, precise, and validated screening test was not available. Even in countries like Sweden and Finland, where expensive national programs to disseminate SBI have been implemented, only a minority of the population has been asked about drinking during health-care visits, and a minority of excessive drinkers has been advised to cut down. Although there has been research on the relationship between treatment for alcohol problems and population-level effects, there has been no such research for SBI, nor have there been experimental investigations of its relationship with population-level measures of alcohol-related harm. These are strongly recommended. In this article, conditions that would allow a population-level effect of SBI to occur are reviewed, including their political acceptability. It is tentatively concluded that widespread dissemination of SBI, without the implementation of alcohol control measures, might have indirect influences on levels of consumption and harm but would be unlikely on its own to result in public health benefits. However, if and when alcohol control measures were introduced, SBI would still have an important role in the battle against alcohol-related harm.

Efficacy of Leptospermum petersonii oil, on Plutella xylostella, and its parasitoid, Trichogramma pretiosum

The efficacy of lemon-scented tea tree oil (LSO), Leptospermum petersonii (FM. Bailey), was evaluated against the diamondback moth, Plutella xylostella (L.) under laboratory conditions. Feeding activity and development of larval stages were significantly reduced on broccoli leaves that had been dipped in LSO. Oviposition deterrence was also found when an adult stage was exposed to treated leaves. Fecundity dropped by >50% at concentrations >0.5%. The LC50 value for third instar larvae was estimated to be 2.93% 7 d after treatment. Experiments were also conducted under greenhouse conditions to assess the efficacy of LSO against the diamond-back moth. Our results suggest that LSO has modest potential for development as a botanical insecticide. The oil was also tested at concentrations from 0.5 to 6% for oviposition deterrence of an egg parasitoid of the diamondback moth, Trichogramma pretiosum (Riley). LSO deterred parasitization in choice tests but not in no-choice tests. LSO did not cause mortality of T. pretiosum during 24 h in a contact toxicity test. We conclude that LSO had no significant effects on the parasitoid, and therefore LSO is compatible with this biocontrol agent for integrated management of the diamondback moth.

Commentary on Seppänen and colleagues (2012): Institutionalization of brief alcohol intervention in primary health care-the Finnish case

Despite good evidence for the effectiveness of brief intervention (BI) for hazardous and harmful drinking delivered in primary health care, the uptake of such interventions among physicians and other healthcare staff still leaves much to be desired. Seppänen and colleagues (2012) report an evaluation of efforts funded by the Finnish government to "institutionalize" BI among primary care physicians in Finland. The evaluation was based on 2 surveys of Finnish primary healthcare physicians, one conducted in 2002 before the government-funded implementation project had begun and the other in 2007 after it had ended. Major findings were that the proportion of physicians offering BI had increased between the 2 surveys from 59.2 to 78.5% and that, of those who said they offered BI in 2007, 52.4% reported increased activity compared with 5 years earlier. However, in the 2007 survey, regular BI activity was reported by 17.2% of the sample but 61.3% reported only occasional activity. Also, a separate survey of the Finnish general population indicated that the extent to which people are asked by health professionals about their alcohol consumption, and the extent to which heavy drinkers receive advice about it, still appears to be low. Thus, the claim that the institutionalization of BI in the Finnish primary care system has been successful is tentative. The clinical benefits of increased BI activity are unquestionable but it can be argued that, for a public health benefit to occur, a greater proportion of hazardous and harmful drinkers need to receive BI than is suggested in the data reported by Seppänen and colleagues.