Support can increase use of the AUDIT-C in Australian Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Services: a cluster randomized trial

No improvement in AUDIT-C screening and brief intervention rates among wait-list controls following support of Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Services: evidence from a cluster randomised trial

BACKGROUND

While Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians are less likely to drink any alcohol than other Australians, those who drink are more likely to experience adverse alcohol-related health consequences. In a previous study, providing Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Services (ACCHSs) with training and support increased the odds of clients receiving AUDIT-C alcohol screening. A follow-up study found that these results were maintained for at least two years, but there was large variability in the effectiveness of the intervention between services. In this study, we use services that previously received support as a comparison group to test whether training and support can improve alcohol screening and brief intervention rates among wait-list control ACCHSs.

METHODS

Design: Cluster randomised trial using routinely collected health data.

SETTING

Australia.

CASES

Twenty-two ACCHSs that see at least 1000 clients a year and use Communicare as their practice management software. Intervention and comparator: After initiating support, we compare changes in screening and brief intervention between wait-list control services and services that had previously received support.

MEASUREMENT

Records of AUDIT-C screening and brief intervention activity in routinely collected data.

RESULTS

During the reference period we observed 357,257 instances where one of 74,568 clients attended services at least once during a two-monthly data extraction period. Following the start of support, the odds of screening (OR = 0.94 [95% CI 0.67, 1.32], p = 0.74, [Formula: see text]≈ 0.002) and brief intervention (OR = 1.43 [95% CI 0.69, 2.95], p = 0.34, [Formula: see text]≈ 0.002) did not improve for the wait-list control group, relative to comparison services.

CONCLUSIONS

We did not replicate the finding that support and training improves AUDIT-C screening rates with wait-list control data. The benefits of support are likely context dependent. Coincidental policy changes may have sensitised services to the effects of support in the earlier phase of the study. Then the COVID-19 pandemic may have made services less open to change in this latest phase. Future efforts could include practice software prompts to alcohol screening and brief intervention, which are less reliant on individual staff time or resources.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Retrospectively registered on 2018-11-21: ACTRN12618001892202.

Alcohol screening in 22 Australian Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Organisations: Clinical context and who is screened

INTRODUCTION

Alcohol screening among Indigenous Australians is important to identify individuals needing support to reduce their drinking. Understanding clinical contexts in which clients are screened, and which clients are more or less likely to be screened, could help identify areas of services and communities that might benefit from increased screening.

METHODS

We analysed routinely collected data from 22 Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Organisations Australia-wide. Data collected between February 2016 and February 2021 were analysed using R, and aggregated to describe screening activity per client, within 2-monthly extraction periods. Descriptive analyses were performed to identify contexts in which clients received an Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test consumption (AUDIT-C) screen. Multi-level logistic regression determined demographic factors associated with receiving an AUDIT-C screen. Three models are presented to examine if screening was predicted by: (i) age; (ii) age and gender; (iii) age, gender and service remoteness.

RESULTS

We observed 83,931 occasions where AUDIT-C was performed at least once during a 2-monthly extraction period. Most common contexts were adult health check (55.0%), followed by pre-consult examination (18.4%) and standalone item (9.9%). For every 10 years' increase in client age, odds of being screened with AUDIT-C slightly decreased (odds ratio 0.98; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.98, 0.99). Women were less likely to be screened with AUDIT-C (odds ratio 0.95; 95% CI 0.93, 0.96) than men.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

This study identified areas where alcohol screening can be increased (e.g., among women). Increasing AUDIT-C screening across entire communities could help reduce or prevent alcohol-related harms. Future Indigenous-led research could help identify strategies to increase screening rates.

Unintended consequences: Alcohol screening at urban Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Services was suppressed during COVID-19 lockdowns

INTRODUCTION

Regular screening for risky drinking is important to improve the health of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians. We explored whether the rate of screening for risky drinking using the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test-Consumption (AUDIT-C) questions was disrupted at Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Services (ACCHS) during state-wide and territory-wide COVID-19 lockdowns in 2020.

METHODS

Retrospective analysis of screening data from 22 ACCHSs located in New South Wales, the Northern Territory, Queensland, South Australia, Victoria and Western Australia. These services provide holistic and culturally appropriate primary care. A multi-level Poisson regression, including AR(1) autocorrelation, was used to predict counts of AUDIT-C screening at ACCHSs.

RESULTS

AUDIT-C screening was suppressed during state-wide and territory-wide lockdowns in 2020 (incident rate ratio [IRR] 0.42 [0.29, 0.61]). The effect of lockdowns differed by service remoteness. While there was a substantial reduction in AUDIT-C screening for urban and inner regional services (IRR 0.25 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.15, 0.42]), there was not a statistically significant change in screening at outer regional and remote (IRR 0.60 [95% CI 0.33, 1.09]) or very remote services (IRR 0.67 [95% CI 0.40, 1.11]).

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

The COVID-19 lockdowns in Australia likely suppressed rates of screening for risky drinking in urban and inner regional regions. As harm from alcohol consumption may have increased during lockdowns, policymakers should consider implementing measures to enable screening for risky drinking to continue during future lockdowns.

Low rates of prescribing alcohol relapse prevention medicines in Australian Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Services

INTRODUCTION

Alcohol dependence is a chronic condition impacting millions of individuals worldwide. Safe and effective medicines to reduce relapse can be prescribed by general practitioners but are underutilised in the general Australian population. Prescription rates of these medicines to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander (First Nations) Australians in primary care are unknown. We assess these medicines in Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Services and identify factors associated with prescription.

METHODS

Baseline data (spanning 12 months) were used from a cluster randomised trial involving 22 Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Services. We describe the proportion of First Nations patients aged 15+ who were prescribed a relapse prevention medicine: naltrexone, acamprosate or disulfiram. We explore associations between receiving a prescription, a patient AUDIT-C score and demographics (gender, age, service remoteness) using logistic regression.

RESULTS

During the 12-month period, 52,678 patients attended the 22 services. Prescriptions were issued for 118 (0.2%) patients (acamprosate n = 62; naltrexone n = 58; disulfiram n = 2; combinations n = 4). Of the total patients, 1.6% were 'likely dependent' (AUDIT-C ≥ 9), of whom only 3.4% received prescriptions for these medicines. In contrast, 60.2% of those who received a prescription had no AUDIT-C score. In multivariate analysis, receiving a script (OR = 3.29, 95% CI 2.25-4.77) was predicted by AUDIT-C screening, male gender (OR = 2.24, 95% CI 1.55-3.29), middle age (35-54 years; OR = 14.41, 95% CI 5.99-47.31) and urban service (OR = 2.87, 95% CI 1.61-5.60).

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

Work is needed to increase the prescription of relapse prevention medicines when dependence is detected. Potential barriers to prescription and appropriate ways to overcome these need to be identified.

More than three times as many Indigenous Australian clients at risk from drinking could be supported if clinicians used AUDIT-C instead of unstructured assessments

BACKGROUND

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander ('Indigenous') Australians experience a greater burden of disease from alcohol consumption than non-Indigenous peoples. Brief interventions can help people reduce their consumption, but people drinking at risky levels must first be detected. Valid screening tools (e.g., AUDIT-C) can help clinicians identify at-risk individuals, but clinicians also make unstructured assessments. We aimed to determine how frequently clinicians make unstructured risk assessments and use AUDIT-C with Indigenous Australian clients. We also aimed to determine the accuracy of unstructured drinking risk assessments relative to AUDIT-C screening. Finally, we aimed to explore whether client demographics influence unstructured drinking risk assessments.

METHODS

We performed cross-sectional analysis of a large clinical dataset provided by 22 Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Services in Australia. We examined instances where clients were screened with unstructured assessments and with AUDIT-C within the same two-monthly period. This aggregated data included 9884 observations. We compared the accuracy of unstructured risk assessments against AUDIT-C using multi-level sensitivity and specificity analysis. We used multi-level logistic regression to identify demographic factors that predict risk status in unstructured assessments while controlling for AUDIT-C score.

RESULTS

The primary variables were AUDIT-C score and unstructured drinking risk assessment; demographic covariates were client age and gender, and service remoteness. Clinicians made unstructured drinking risk assessments more frequently than they used AUDIT-C (17.11% and 10.85% of clinical sessions respectively). Where both measures were recorded within the same two-month period, AUDIT-C classified more clients as at risk from alcohol consumption than unstructured assessments. When using unstructured assessments, clinicians only identified approximately one third of clients drinking at risky levels based on their AUDIT-C score (sensitivity = 33.59% [95% CI 22.03, 47.52], specificity = 99.35% [95% CI 98.74, 99.67]). Controlling for AUDIT-C results and demographics (gender and service remoteness), clinicians using unstructured drinking risk assessments were more likely to classify older clients as being at risk from alcohol consumption than younger clients.

CONCLUSIONS

Evidence-based screening tools like AUDIT-C can help clinicians ensure that Indigenous Australian clients (and their families and communities) who are at risk from alcohol consumption are better detected and supported.

Support for Aboriginal health services in reducing harms from alcohol: 2-year service provision outcomes in a cluster randomized trial

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

There is a higher prevalence of unhealthy alcohol use among Indigenous populations, but there have been few studies of the effectiveness of screening and treatment in primary health care. Over 24 months, we tested whether a model of service-wide support could increase screening and any alcohol treatment.

DESIGN

Cluster-randomized trial with 24-month implementation (12 months active, 12 months maintenance).

SETTING

Australian Aboriginal Community Controlled primary care services.

PARTICIPANTS

Twenty-two services (83 032 clients) that use Communicare practice software and see at least 1000 clients annually, randomized to the treatment arm or control arm.

INTERVENTION AND COMPARATOR

Multi-faceted early support model versus a comparator of waiting-list control (11 services).

MEASUREMENTS

A record (presence = 1, absence = 0) of: (i) Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test-Consumption (AUDIT-C) screening (primary outcome), (ii) any-treatment and (iii) brief intervention. We received routinely collected practice data bimonthly over 3 years (1-year baseline, 1-year implementation, 1-year maintenance). Multi-level logistic modelling was used to compare the odds of each outcome before and after implementation.

FINDINGS

The odds of being screened within any 2-month reference period increased in both arms post-implementation, but the increase was nearly eight times greater in early-support services [odds ratio (OR) = 7.95, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 4.04-15.63, P < 0.001]. The change in odds of any treatment in early support was nearly double that of waiting-list controls (OR = 1.89, 95% CI = 1.19-2.98, P = 0.01) but was largely driven by decrease in controls. There was no clear evidence of difference between groups in the change in the odds of provision of brief intervention (OR = 1.95, 95% CI = 0.53-7.17, P = 0.32).

CONCLUSIONS

An early support model designed to aid routine implementation of alcohol screening and treatment in Aboriginal health services resulted in improvement of Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test-Consumption screening rates over 24 months of implementation, but the effect on treatment was less clear.

Effects of service-wide support on regularity of alcohol screening of clients in Australian Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Community Controlled Health Services: a cluster randomised trial

Background

We have previously shown that service-wide support can increase the odds of alcohol screening in any 2-month period in a cluster randomized trial of service-wide support to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Community Controlled Health Services (ACCHS). Here we report an exploratory analysis on whether the resulting pattern of screening was appropriate. Aim: we assess whether that increase in screening was associated with: (i) increased first-time screening, (ii) increased annual screening, (iii) whether frequently screened clients fell into one of four risk categories as defined by national guidelines.

Methods

Setting and participants: 22 ACCHS; randomized to receive the support model in the treatment (‘early-support’) arm over 24-months or to the waitlist control arm. Intervention: eight-component support, including training, sharing of experience, audit-and-feedback and resource support. Analysis: records of clients with visits before and after start of implementation were included. Multilevel logistic modelling was used to compare (i) the odds of previously unscreened clients receiving an AUDIT-C screen, (ii) odds of clients being screened with AUDIT-C at least once annually. We describe the characteristics of a sub-cohort of clients who received four or more screens annually, including if they were in a high-risk category.

Results

Of the original trial sample, 43,054 met inclusion criteria, accounting for 81.7% of the screening events in the overall trial. The support did not significantly increase the odds of first-time screening (OR  = 1.33, 95% CI 0.81–2.18, p  = 0.25) or of annual screening (OR  = 0.99, 95% CI 0.42–2.37, p = 0.98). Screening more than once annually occurred in 6240 clients. Of the 841 clients with four or more screens annually, over 50% did not fall into a high-risk category. Females were overrepresented. More males than females fell into high-risk categories.

Conclusion

The significant increase in odds of screening observed in the main trial did not translate to significant improvement in first-time or annual screening following implementation of support. This appeared to be due to some clients being screened more frequently than annually, while more than half remained unscreened. Further strategies to improve alcohol screening should focus on appropriate screening regularity as well as overall rates, to ensure clinically useful information about alcohol consumption.

Trial Registration ACTRN12618001892202, retrospectively registered 16 November 2018 https://anzctr.org.au/Trial/Registration/TrialReview.aspx?ACTRN=12618001892202.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13722-022-00294-6.

Alcohol dependence in a community sample of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians: harms, getting help and awareness of local treatments

Background

Few studies have examined links between current alcohol dependence and specific harms among Indigenous Australians. We investigated these associations as well as help seeking for drinking, awareness of local treatments and recommendations to help family or friends cut down or stop drinking in two Indigenous communities.

Methods

A representative sample of Indigenous Australians was surveyed in one urban and one remote community in South Australia. Data were collected via the Grog Survey App. Participants were dependent if they reported two or more symptoms of alcohol dependence (ICD-11). Pearson chi-square tests were used to describe relationships between employment by gender, and dependence by awareness of medicines and local treatment options. Multivariate logistic regressions were used to predict the odds of dependent drinkers experiencing harms and getting help for drinking, controlling for age, gender, schooling and income.

Results

A total of 775 Indigenous Australians took part in the study. After controlling for confounders, dependent drinkers were nearly eight times more likely to report a harm and nearly three times more likely to get help for their drinking—compared with non-dependent drinkers. Participants recommended accessing local support from an Aboriginal alcohol and other drugs worker, or a detoxification/ rehabilitation service.

Discussion and conclusions

More support and funding is needed for Indigenous Australians to ensure local treatment options for dependent drinkers are readily available, appropriate and accessible. Involvement of local Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander health professionals in delivery of care can help ensure that it is appropriate to an individual’s culture and context.

Predictors of length of treatment, discharge reason, and re-admission to Aboriginal alcohol and other drug residential rehabilitation services in New South Wales, Australia

INTRODUCTION

Aboriginal clients accessing Aboriginal community-controlled residential alcohol and other drug rehabilitation services in New South Wales, Australia believe they have better outcomes due to culturally appropriate care. However, there is a paucity of published treatment outcome data. This study aims to identify predictors of treatment outcomes based on client characteristics at intake.

METHODS

A cross-sectional, retrospective, observational study of 2326 admissions to six services between January 2011 and December 2016. The outcomes were: (i) leaving treatment early; (ii) self-discharge or house discharge (by staff); and (iii) re-admission within two years. The predictors examined were Aboriginal status, age, justice system referral and primary substance of concern. Competing risk and Poisson regression analyses were used to identify trends in the data.

RESULTS

The mean age of clients was 33 years, and the majority (56%) stayed at least 6 weeks. Aboriginal clients whose primary substance of concern was stimulants were almost eight times more likely to re-admitted within 2 years than other clients (risk ratio 7.91; P < 0.001). Aboriginal clients who were also referred from justice were more likely to self-discharge (risk ratio 1.87; P < 0.001). Furthermore, Aboriginal clients who were aged older than 30 were less likely to have a re-admission (risk ratio 0.32; P ≤ 0.001).

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

This study showed client characteristics that are predictive of harmful outcomes include age under 30, justice client, primary substance of use and their interactions. Future research could build on these results to aid ongoing development of residential rehabilitation programs for Aboriginal peoples.

Patient self-report versus medical records for smoking status and alcohol consumption at Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Services

OBJECTIVE

This study assessed the level of agreement, and predictors of agreement, between patient self-report and medical records for smoking status and alcohol consumption among patients attending one of four Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Service (ACCHSs).

METHODS

A convenience sample of 110 ACCHS patients self-reported whether they were current smokers or currently consumed alcohol. ACCHS staff completed a medical record audit for corresponding items for each patient. The level of agreement was evaluated using the kappa statistic. Factors associated with levels of agreement were explored using logistic regression.

RESULTS

The level of agreement between self-report and medical records was strong for smoking status (kappa=0.85; 95%CI: 0.75-0.96) and moderate for alcohol consumption (kappa=0.74; 95%CI: 0.60-0.88). None of the variables explored were significantly associated with levels of agreement for smoking status or alcohol consumption.

CONCLUSIONS

Medical records showed good agreement with patient self-report for smoking and alcohol status and are a reliable means of identifying potentially at-risk ACCHS patients. Implications for public health: ACCHS medical records are accurate for identifying smoking and alcohol risk factors for their patients. However, strategies to increase documentation and reduce missing data in the medical records are needed.