Evaluation of an alcohol screening and brief advice training programme for NHS general dental practitioners

Drug use, risk perceptions and attitudes towards drug use amongst medical and dentistry students

AIMS

To analyse the use of psychoactive substances and the risk perceptions amongst odontology and medical students. To study their perceptions, attitudes and knowledge, and to evaluate their motivation when helping their patients to stop using these substances.

METHODS

A cross-sectional study was conducted amongst 962 students in Spain, using validated questionnaires on an anonymous basis.

RESULTS

Amongst these students, drug use varies and increases with age as assessed by the DAST and CAST tests, with more problematic use being observed as the academic cycle progresses (p < .001). Participants in the 2nd cycle presented higher consumption than those in the 1st cycle, in the univariate model (OR = 1.77, IC 95% 1.27-2.48, p = .001) and in the adjusted model (OR = 1.86, IC 95% 1.32-2.62, p < .001). Regarding CAST, non-problematic use in the 1st cycle versus the 3rd cycle presented an OR = 8.69 (IC 95% 4.50-16.78, p < .001) and for low risk use it presented an OR = 15.18 (IC 95% 1.83-14.68). Only 46.7% considered using marijuana on a regular basis as a high risk, whilst 60.5% stated that smoking a pack of cigarettes represents a high risk. Alcohol was the substance for which the risk perception was lowest. 66.2% are in the maintenance stage "I provide my regular drug-using patients help to give up," with women being more likely to be in this stage (p = .012).

CONCLUSIONS

High risk of drug use increases after the 1st cycle in Dentistry and in Medicine. Training programmes should be implemented in both degrees, focusing on the 1st years in order to simultaneously prevent drug use amongst students.

Alcohol Screening and Brief Advice in NHS General Dental Practices: A Cluster Randomized Controlled Feasibility Trial

AIM

To assess the feasibility and acceptability of screening for alcohol misuse and delivering brief advice to eligible patients attending NHS dental practices in London.

METHODS

A two-arm cluster randomized controlled feasibility trial was conducted. Twelve dental practices were recruited and randomized to intervention and control arms. Participants attending for a dental check were recruited into the study and were eligible if they consumed alcohol above recommended levels assessed by the AUDIT-C screening tool. All eligible participants were asked to complete a baseline socio-demographic questionnaire. Six months after the completion of baseline measures, participants were contacted via telephone by a researcher masked to their allocation status. The full AUDIT tool was then administered. Alcohol consumption in the last 90 days was also assessed using the Form 90. A process evaluation assessed the acceptability of the intervention.

RESULTS

Over a 7-month period, 229 participants were recruited (95.4% recruitment rate) and at the 6 months follow-up, 176 participants were assessed (76.9% retention rate). At the follow-up, participants in the intervention arm were significantly more likely to report a longer abstinence period (3.2 vs. 2.3 weeks respectively, P = 0.04) and non-significant differences in AUDIT (44.9% vs. 59.8% AUDIT positive respectively, P = 0.053) and AUDIT C difference between baseline and follow-up (-0.67 units vs. -0.29 units respectively, P = 0.058). Results from the process evaluation indicated that the intervention and study procedures were acceptable to dentists and patients.

CONCLUSIONS

This study has demonstrated the feasibility and acceptability of dentists screening for alcohol misuse and providing brief advice.