Interventions for Increasing Alcohol Treatment Utilization Among Patients with Alcohol Use Disorders from Emergency Departments: A Systematic Review

Effectiveness and implementation of interventions for health promotion in urgent and emergency care settings: an umbrella review

BACKGROUND

Urgent and emergency care (UEC) settings provide an opportunity to prevent ill-health and promote healthy lifestyles with potential to screen and deliver interventions to under-served, at-risk populations. The aim of this study was to synthesise and summarise the evidence on the effectiveness and implementation of interventions for health promotion in UEC settings.

METHODS

PubMed and Embase (OVID) databases were used to search for studies published in English between January 2010 and January 2023. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that examined the effectiveness or implementation of face-to-face health promotion interventions for lifestyle behaviours delivered in UEC settings were eligible. Extracted data were synthesised and qualitatively summarised by lifestyle behaviour. Reviews were quality assessed using AMSTAR 2.

RESULTS

Eighteen reviews met the inclusion criteria; all included studies were conducted in emergency departments or trauma units. We identified 15 reviews on alcohol interventions (13 on effectiveness; 2 on implementation) and 3 on smoking interventions (effectiveness). There were no reviews of intervention studies targeting physical activity or diet and nutrition. There was heterogeneity across studies for study design, target populations, intervention design and content, comparator/control groups and outcomes assessed. The effectiveness of alcohol and smoking interventions in UEC settings varied but some reviews provided evidence of a significant decrease in alcohol consumption, alcohol-related outcomes and smoking in intervention groups, particularly in the short-term and in specific population groups. Research has focused on 'brief' interventions as part of screening, brief intervention and referral to treatment (SBIRT) approaches. Interventions are delivered by a wide range of staff with substantial variation in design. Alcohol brief interventions appear to be acceptable to UEC patients but clinicians face barriers in delivering them.

CONCLUSIONS

UEC settings have been under-researched and appear to be under-utilised for delivering health promotion activities, except for alcohol prevention. Review level evidence suggests alcohol and smoking interventions are warranted in some population groups. However, further research is needed to determine the optimal intervention design, content and delivery mode for lifestyle behaviours which are suitable for implementation in UEC settings and promote long-term intervention effectiveness. Changes in clinical practice may be needed, including increased training, integration into service delivery and supportive policy, to facilitate the implementation of SBIRT for lifestyle behaviours. Interventions may need to be delivered in the wider UEC system such as urgent care centres, minor injury units and walk-in centres, in addition to emergency departments and trauma units, to support and increase health promotion activities in UEC settings.

Acute injury mortality and all-cause mortality following emergency department presentation for alcohol use disorder

BACKGROUND

Alcohol-related morbidity and mortality have increased substantially in the U.S. Understanding the population health implications of these concerning trends, including by identifying clinical subgroups of alcohol users at increased risk for potentially preventable acute causes of mortality, is of critical importance.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study used statewide, all-payer, longitudinally-linked ED patient record and mortality data from California. Participants comprised all residents presenting to a licensed ED at least once in 2009-2011 with a diagnosis of alcohol use disorder (AUD). Participants were followed for one year after index ED visit to assess acute injury (unintentional poisoning, suicide, homicide, motor vehicle crash, and fall- or fire-related injury) and all-cause mortality rates per 100,000 person-years. Age-, sex-, race/ethnicity-adjusted standardized mortality rates (SMRs) for acute injury causes of death were determined using statewide mortality data.

RESULTS

Among 437,855 patients with index non-fatal ED visits for AUD, the 12-month acute injury mortality rate was 608.6 per 100,000 (SMR=8.0; 95% CI=7.7, 8.3), and all-cause mortality was 5700.7 per 100,000 (SMR=6.5; 95% CI=6.4, 6.6). Unintentional poisoning accounted for 46.5%, and suicide for 19.7%, of acute-injury deaths. Acute injury deaths comprised 71.7% of all-cause mortality among patients aged 10-24 years, but much lower proportions among older patients. Female AUD patients had lower rates for all mortality outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Emergency department patients with a recognized AUD comprise a population at persistently elevated risk for mortality. Age-related AUD patient differences in common causes of death, including drug overdose and suicide, can inform the structure of future clinical interventions.

Documented brief intervention associated with reduced linkage to specialty addictions treatment in a national sample of VA patients with unhealthy alcohol use with and without alcohol use disorders

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Alcohol screening, brief intervention (BI) and referral to treatment is often considered stepped care, such that BI with referral links patients to treatment. A meta-analysis of randomized trials found no evidence that BI increases treatment for alcohol use disorder (AUD). This study aimed to determine whether BI is associated with receipt of treatment for AUD among patients receiving BI as part of routine care.

DESIGN

Regression analysis.

SETTING

US Veterans Health Administration (VA), in which BI is supported by performance measurement and electronic clinical reminders.

PARTICIPANTS

VA outpatients with positive Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test Consumption screens (≥ 5) (n = 830,825) documented nationally from 1 October 2009 to 30 May 2013.

MEASUREMENTS

Regression models estimated the prevalence of receiving VA specialty addictions treatment within 0-365 days for patients with documented BI (advice to reduce/abstain within 0-14 days) compared to those without. Models clustered on patient and adjusted for demographics and mental health and substance use conditions were fit among all patients and stratified across documented past-year AUD diagnosis. Multiple secondary analyses assessed robustness of findings, including assessing repeated BI as a predictor.

FINDINGS

Among 830,825 VA outpatients with unhealthy alcohol use (1,172,606 positive screens), documented BI was associated with lower likelihood of receiving VA specialty addictions treatment [adjusted incidence rate ratio (aIRR) = 0.84, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.83-0.84]. Associations were similar for those with and without AUD (aIRR = 0.83, 95% CI = 0.82-0.84 and aIRR = 0.86, 95% CI = 0.83-0.88, respectively) and in most secondary analyses. However, among patients without AUD, documentation of more than one BI was associated with greater likelihood of treatment relative to no BI (aIRR = 1.75, 95% CI = 1.68-1.83).

CONCLUSIONS

In a national sample of US Veterans Health Administration patients with unhealthy alcohol use, documented brief intervention for alcohol use was associated with lower likelihood of receiving specialty addictions treatment regardless of alcohol use disorder diagnosis.

Alcohol use severity and age moderate the effects of brief interventions in an emergency department randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

The primary aim of this study was to examine the efficacy of two motivational interviewing-based alcohol brief interventions (BIs) among adults presenting to an emergency department (ED). The secondary aim was to evaluate moderators of intervention effects.

METHODS

Participants were 750 ED patients reporting recent alcohol misuse. Participants were randomly assigned to: 1) computer-delivered BI (Computer BI), 2) therapist-delivered BI with computer guidance (Therapist BI-CG), or 3) control. The BIs focused on reduction of alcohol use and risk behaviors. The outcome measure was trajectories of alcohol consumption (measured by the AUDIT-C) across baseline, 3-, 6- and 12-month follow-up assessments, analyzed using latent growth curve modeling. Moderation of intervention effect by gender, age, and baseline alcohol use disorder severity was examined.

RESULTS

Across the full sample (40% males, mean age = 35.8, SD = 12.3), there was an overall reduction in alcohol consumption across 12 months. The main effects of the Therapist and Computer BI were not significant relative to control. Moderation analysis revealed that the impact of Therapist BI-CG, relative to control, was greater on reductions in alcohol consumption in participants with moderate to severe symptoms of alcohol use disorder compared to those with mild symptoms. The effect of the Computer BI on alcohol use, relative to control, was greater among younger participants compared to older participants.

CONCLUSIONS

While no overall effect was shown, ED-based Therapist BI-CG with computer guidance may be effective among patients with moderate-severe drinking patterns, whereas Computer BIs may be more effective for younger participants.

Emergency department screening and interventions for substance use disorders

The emergency department (ED) has long been recognized as providing critical access to the health care system for many, yet only in the past few decades has the ED visit been recognized as an opportunity to identify and link patients to care for substance use disorders (SUDs). This review explores the evidence for ED-based screening, psychosocial and pharmacological interventions, and linkage to treatment for the spectrum of SUDs including high risk alcohol use and alcohol, opioid, tobacco and other SUDs. Despite knowledge gaps, methodological challenges and some inconsistency across interventions studied, opportunities for EDs to improve the care of patients across the spectrum of SUDs are robust.

Effectiveness of a Specialized Brief Intervention for At-risk Drinkers in an Emergency Department: Short-term Results of a Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

Screening, Brief Intervention, and Referral to Treatment (SBIRT) programs have been developed, evaluated, and shown to be effective, particularly in primary care and general practice. Nevertheless, effectiveness of SBIRT in emergency departments (EDs) has not been clearly established.

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to evaluate the feasibility and efficacy of an SBIRT program conducted by highly specialized professionals in the ED of a tertiary hospital.

METHODS

We conducted a randomized controlled trial to study the feasibility and efficacy of an SBIRT program conducted by alcohol specialists for at-risk drinkers presenting to the ED, measured with the three-item version of the Alcohol Use Disorder Identification Test (AUDIT-C). Patients were randomized to two groups, with the control group receiving two leaflets-one regarding alcohol use and the other giving information about the study protocol. The intervention group received the same leaflets as well as a brief motivational intervention on alcohol use and, where appropriate, a referral to specialized treatment. The primary outcomes were the proportion of at-risk alcohol use measured by AUDIT-C scale and the proportion of patients attending specialized treatment at 1.5 months.

RESULTS

Of 3,027 patients presenting to the ED, 2,044 (67%) were potentially eligible to participate, 247 (12%) screened positive for at-risk drinking, and 200 agreed to participate. Seventy-two percent of the participating sample were men, and the mean (±SD) age was 43 (±16.7) years. Follow-up rates were 76.5%. At 1.5 months, the intervention group showed greater reductions in alcohol consumption and fewer patients continuing with at-risk alcohol use (27.8% vs. 48.1%; p = 0.01). The SBIRT program also increased the probability of attending specialized treatment, compared to the control condition (23% vs. 9.8%, p = 0.0119) CONCLUSION: The SBIRT program in the ED was found to be feasible and effective in identifying at-risk drinkers, reducing at-risk alcohol use, and increasing treatment for alcohol problems.

Effect of electronic brief intervention on uptake of specialty treatment in hospital outpatients with likely alcohol dependence: Pilot randomized trial and qualitative interviews

BACKGROUND

A large proportion of hospital outpatients are alcohol dependent (AD) but few are engaged in treatment for their drinking. Brief intervention, designed to raise patients' awareness of their drinking, might encourage uptake of referral to specialty treatment. We assessed the feasibility of conducting a randomized trial evaluating the effectiveness of electronic brief intervention on the uptake of specialty treatment in hospital outpatients with likely AD.

METHODS

This study was conducted in the outpatient department of a large public hospital in Newcastle, Australia. We randomly assigned adults who scored ≥10 on the AUDIT-C and were not currently receiving treatment for their drinking to electronic brief intervention (comprising an assessment of their drinking and personalized feedback) and referral (n = 59), or to referral alone (n = 64). We pre-specified two co-primary outcomes as the proportions of patients who (1) accepted and (2) attended a Drug and Alcohol outpatient clinic appointment. We interviewed 15 study participants to investigate why they had declined the appointment and what sort of help they might prefer to receive.

RESULTS

Ten patients (five in each group) accepted an appointment, and one patient (control) attended. Most interviewees' did not see their drinking as a problem or were confident they could manage it by themselves. Those who identified a preferred source of help expressed a preference for treatment by a GP.

CONCLUSION

Uptake of specialty treatment in hospital outpatients with likely AD was low regardless of whether they received brief intervention. Accordingly, a large randomized trial does not appear to be feasible.

Screening for eating disorders in outpatient smoking cessation: Feasibility, pertinence, and acceptance of referral to specific treatment

OBJECTIVE

To estimate (1) the feasibility and pertinence of implementing systematic screening for eating disorders (EDs) in outpatient smoking cessation (SC), and (2) the acceptance of a referral to ED-specific treatment.

METHODS

Tobacco smokers (N = 203) who consecutively underwent the initial assessment of a SC program were screened for an ED. Screen-positive patients were administered the Mini International Neuropsychiatric Interview and received a referral to ED-specific treatment using brief advice when identified with a current ED.

RESULTS

Among the total sample, the prevalence of a current ED at baseline was 8.9% (men: 1/109, 0.9%; women: 17/94, 18.1%). The acceptance rate of referral to ED-specific treatment was 17%, whereas having a current ED at baseline was significantly associated with a higher probability of dropping out of the SC program at 4 weeks (OR = 21.8, 95%CI: 3.0-161.2, P = 0.003).

DISCUSSION

Screening for EDs in outpatient SC seems worthwhile and easily implementable, but patients who are identified with a current ED might not be prone to accept referral to specific treatment and tend to drop out early. This study underlines the need to explore this topic in larger clinical samples. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. (Int J Eat Disord 2016; 49:1018-1022).

Emergency department based intervention with adolescent substance users: 10year economic and health outcomes

BACKGROUND

Alcohol and other drug (AOD) use are significant cause of disease burden and costs among adolescents.

METHODS

We conducted a randomized trial in hospital emergency departments (ED) following an AOD-related presentation, comparing usual care with brief advice and referral to link adolescents aged 12-19 years with external AOD services. Subsequently, we used health data linkage to assemble data on mortality, hospital admissions, ED attendances, out-patient mental health and use of opiate pharmacotherapies in the next 10 years. From these, treatment costs and rates of events were estimated and compared using generalized linear models.

RESULTS

Those who received the intervention had lower costs ($22 versus $227: z=3.16, p=0.002) and rates (0.03 versus 0.25: z=2.57, p=0.010) of ED mental health AOD presentations. However, the intervention did not significantly reduce overall mean health costs per patient (intervention $58746 versus control $64833, p=0.800). Similarly, there was no significant difference in the costs associated with hospitalizations ($48920 versus $50911 p=0.924), overall ED presentations ($4266 versus $4150, p=0.916), out-patient mental health services ($4494 versus $7717, p=0.282), or opiate pharmacotherapies ($1013 versus $2054, p=0.209). Injecting drug use was a significant baseline predictor of subsequent costs in the cohort (z=2.64, p=0.008).

CONCLUSIONS

An ED delivered intervention may reduce direct ED costs and subsequent ED AOD attendances. There was also some indication that overall costs may be impacted, with economically large but non-significant differences between the groups. The high costs and morbidity incurred by some of this cohort illustrate the importance of targeting high-risk adolescents.