Reduced Alcohol Use Is Sustained in Patients Provided Alcohol-Related Counseling During Direct-Acting Antiviral Therapy for Hepatitis C

Perspectives of clinical stakeholders and patients from four VA liver clinics to tailor practice facilitation for implementing evidence-based alcohol-related care

BACKGROUND

Unhealthy alcohol use (UAU) is particularly dangerous for people with chronic liver disease. Liver clinics may be an important setting in which to provide effective alcohol-related care by integrating evidence-based strategies, such as brief intervention and medications for alcohol use disorder. We conducted qualitative interviews with clinical stakeholders and patients at liver clinics in four Veterans Health Administration (VA) medical centers to understand barriers and facilitators of integrating alcohol-related care and to support tailoring of a practice facilitation implementation intervention.

METHODS

Data collection and analysis were guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). Interviews were transcribed and qualitatively analyzed using a Rapid Assessment Process (RAP) guided by the CFIR.

RESULTS

We interviewed 46 clinical stakeholders and 41 patient participants and analyzed findings based on the CFIR. Clinical stakeholders described barriers and facilitators that ranged from operations/clinic resource-based (e.g., time and capacity, desire for additional provider types, referral processes) to individual perspective and preference-based (e.g., supportiveness of leadership, individual experiences/beliefs). Patient participants shared barriers and facilitators that ranged from relationship-based (e.g., trusting the provider and feeling judged) to resource and education-based (e.g., connection to a range of treatment options, education about impact of alcohol). Many barriers and facilitators to integrating alcohol-related care in liver clinics were similar to those identified in other clinical settings (e.g., time, resources, role clarity, stigmatizing beliefs). However, some barriers (e.g., fellow-led care and lack of integration of liver clinics with addictions specialists) and facilitators (e.g., presence of quality improvement staff in clinics and integrated pharmacists and behavioral health specialists) were more unique to liver clinics.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings support the possibility of integrating alcohol-related care into liver clinics but highlight the importance of tailoring efforts to account for variation in provider beliefs and experiences and clinic resources. The barriers and facilitators identified in these interviews were used to tailor a practice facilitation implementation intervention in each clinic setting.

Improving alcohol treatment engagement using integrated behavioral interventions in alcohol-associated liver disease: A randomized pilot trial

INTRODUCTION

Alcohol cessation improves mortality in alcohol-associated liver disease (ALD), but few ALD patients will engage in treatment. We aimed to demonstrate the feasibility and acceptability of a mobile health intervention to increase alcohol use disorder (AUD) treatment among ALD patients.

METHODS

We conducted a pilot randomized controlled trial (September 2020 to June 2022) at a single tertiary care center in adults with any stage of ALD, past 6-month drinking, and no past-month AUD treatment. Sixty participants were randomized 1:1 to a mobile health application designed to increase AUD treatment engagement through preference elicitation and matching to treatment and misconception correction. Controls received enhanced usual care. The primary outcomes were feasibility (recruitment and retention rates) and acceptability. Exploratory outcomes were AUD treatment engagement and alcohol use, measured by Timeline Followback. Outcomes were measured at 3 and 6 months.

RESULTS

Baseline characteristics were balanced. The recruitment rate was 46%. Retention was 65% at 6 months. The intervention was highly acceptable to participants (91% were mostly/very satisfied; 95% felt that the intervention matched them well to AUD treatment). Secondary outcomes showed increased AUD treatment at 6 months in the intervention group (intent-to-treat: 27.3% vs. 13.3%, OR 2.3, 95% CI, 0.61-8.76). There was a trend toward a 1-level or greater reduction in World Health Organization (WHO) drinking risk levels in the intervention group (OR 2.25, 95% CI, 0.51-9.97).

CONCLUSIONS

A mobile health intervention for AUD treatment engagement was highly feasible, acceptable, and produced promising early outcomes, with improved AUD treatment engagement and alcohol reduction in ALD patients.