Refine
Document Type
- Article (5)
- Doctoral Thesis (1)
Language
- English (6)
Has Fulltext
- yes (6)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (6)
Keywords
- - (2)
- AUDIT‐C (1)
- Alkohol (1)
- At‐risk Drinking (1)
- Drinking Patterns (1)
- Drinking patterns (1)
- Dropout (1)
- Growth curve model (1)
- MAR (1)
- MNAR (1)
Institute
Publisher
Background
In combination with systematic routine screening, brief alcohol interventions have the potential to promote population health. Little is known on the optimal screening interval. Therefore, this study pursued 2 research questions: (i) How stable are screening results for at‐risk drinking over 12 months? (ii) Can the transition from low‐risk to at‐risk drinking be predicted by gender, age, school education, employment, or past week alcohol use?
Methods
A sample of 831 adults (55% female; mean age = 30.8 years) from the general population was assessed 4 times over 12 months. The Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test—Consumption was used to screen for at‐risk drinking each time. Participants were categorized either as low‐risk or at‐risk drinkers at baseline, 3, 6, and 12 months later. Stable and instable risk status trajectories were analyzed descriptively and graphically. Transitioning from low‐risk drinking at baseline to at‐risk drinking at any follow‐up was predicted using a logistic regression model.
Results
Consistent screening results over time were observed in 509 participants (61%). Of all baseline low‐risk drinkers, 113 (21%) received a positive screening result in 1 or more follow‐up assessments. Females (vs. males; OR = 1.66; 95% confidence intervals [95% CI] = 1.04; 2.64), 18‐ to 29‐year‐olds (vs. 30‐ to 45‐year‐olds; OR = 2.30; 95% CI = 1.26; 4.20), and those reporting 2 or more drinking days (vs. less than 2; OR = 3.11; 95% CI = 1.93; 5.01) and heavy episodic drinking (vs. none; OR = 2.35; 95% CI = 1.06; 5.20) in the week prior to the baseline assessment had increased odds for a transition to at‐risk drinking.
Conclusions
Our findings suggest that the widely used time frame of 1 year may be ambiguous regarding the screening for at‐risk alcohol use although generalizability may be limited due to higher‐educated people being overrepresented in our sample.
Background
Missing data are ubiquitous in randomised controlled trials. Although sensitivity analyses for different missing data mechanisms (missing at random vs. missing not at random) are widely recommended, they are rarely conducted in practice. The aim of the present study was to demonstrate sensitivity analyses for different assumptions regarding the missing data mechanism for randomised controlled trials using latent growth modelling (LGM).
Methods
Data from a randomised controlled brief alcohol intervention trial was used. The sample included 1646 adults (56% female; mean age = 31.0 years) from the general population who had received up to three individualized alcohol feedback letters or assessment-only. Follow-up interviews were conducted after 12 and 36 months via telephone. The main outcome for the analysis was change in alcohol use over time. A three-step LGM approach was used. First, evidence about the process that generated the missing data was accumulated by analysing the extent of missing values in both study conditions, missing data patterns, and baseline variables that predicted participation in the two follow-up assessments using logistic regression. Second, growth models were calculated to analyse intervention effects over time. These models assumed that data were missing at random and applied full-information maximum likelihood estimation. Third, the findings were safeguarded by incorporating model components to account for the possibility that data were missing not at random. For that purpose, Diggle-Kenward selection, Wu-Carroll shared parameter and pattern mixture models were implemented.
Results
Although the true data generating process remained unknown, the evidence was unequivocal: both the intervention and control group reduced their alcohol use over time, but no significant group differences emerged. There was no clear evidence for intervention efficacy, neither in the growth models that assumed the missing data to be at random nor those that assumed the missing data to be not at random.
Conclusion
The illustrated approach allows the assessment of how sensitive conclusions about the efficacy of an intervention are to different assumptions regarding the missing data mechanism. For researchers familiar with LGM, it is a valuable statistical supplement to safeguard their findings against the possibility of nonignorable missingness.
Background: To reduce the burden of disease attributable to alcohol, screening for at-risk alcohol use in the general population is recommended. Screening is usually carried out at only one point in time although individual alcohol use may change over time and self-reported consumption may be biased by underreporting. However, there are gaps in research on temporal variability of alcohol use. Therefore, this cumulative dissertation investigated (1) changes in drinking patterns within 4 weeks; (2) changes in screening results within 12 months and factors predicting a transition from low-risk to at-risk alcohol use; (3) whether underreporting can be reduced by prompting respondents to recall their alcohol use in the past week prior to screening.
Methods: Participants were adults from the general population recruited in a municipal registry office. For the first paper, 288 alcohol users were assessed four times using Timeline Follow-Back, each one week apart. Changes in drinking patterns were analyzed using latent transition modeling. For the second paper, 831 control group participants of a randomized controlled trial were screened for at-risk alcohol use at baseline, 3, 6, and 12 months later using the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test - Consumption (AUDIT-C). The transition from low-risk to at-risk alcohol use was predicted using logistic regression. For the third paper, 2,379 alcohol users were screened for at-risk alcohol use using the AUDIT-C, either before or after receiving the prompt to recall their past week alcohol use. Data were analyzed using logistic regression.
Results: Within 4 weeks, 35 percent of alcohol users changed their drinking pattern. Changes were more likely for individuals with moderate or heavy compared to light drinking. Within 12 months, 30 percent of alcohol users changed their screening result. Changes were more likely for at-risk compared to low-risk alcohol users. Transitioning from low-risk to at-risk alcohol use was more likely for women (vs. men; Odds Ratio, OR = 1.66), 18- to 29-year-old adults (vs. 30- to 45-year-old adults; OR = 2.30), and individuals reporting two or more drinking days in the past week (vs. less than two; OR = 3.11). When respondents were prompted to recall their alcohol use in the past week prior to screening, they were less likely to report at-risk alcohol use compared to when the screening was conducted without prior prompt (OR = 0.83).
Conclusions: One in three alcohol users changed their consumption, some of them even within a period as short as 4 weeks. These changes might compromise the validity of screening that is commonly based on a single assessment of typical alcohol use. Furthermore, underreporting cannot be reduced by prompting individuals to recall their alcohol use in the past week prior to the screening for at-risk alcohol use. Rather, consecutive questionnaires addressing different aspects of alcohol use within a single survey might be a potential source of bias.
Background:
Social equity in the efficacy of behavior change intervention is much needed. While the efficacy of brief alcohol interventions (BAIs), including digital interventions, is well established, particularly in health care, the social equity of interventions has been sparsely investigated.
Objective:
We aim to investigate whether the efficacy of computer-based versus in-person delivered BAIs is moderated by the participants’ socioeconomic status (ie, to identify whether general hospital patients with low-level education and unemployed patients may benefit more or less from one or the other way of delivery compared to patients with higher levels of education and those that are employed).
Methods:
Patients with nondependent at-risk alcohol use were identified through systematic offline screening conducted on 13 general hospital wards. Patients were approached face-to-face and asked to respond to an app for self-assessment provided by a mobile device. In total, 961 (81% of eligible participants) were randomized and received their allocated intervention: computer-generated and individually tailored feedback letters (CO), in-person counseling by research staff trained in motivational interviewing (PE), or assessment only (AO). CO and PE were delivered on the ward and 1 and 3 months later, were based on the transtheoretical model of intentional behavior change and required the assessment of intervention data prior to each intervention. In CO, the generation of computer-based feedback was created automatically. The assessment of data and sending out feedback letters were assisted by the research staff. Of the CO and PE participants, 89% (345/387) and 83% (292/354) received at least two doses of intervention, and 72% (280/387) and 54% (191/354) received all three doses of intervention, respectively. The outcome was change in grams of pure alcohol per day after 6, 12, 18, and 24 months, with the latter being the primary time-point of interest. Follow-up interviewers were blinded. Study group interactions with education and employment status were tested as predictors of change in alcohol use using latent growth modeling.
Results:
The efficacy of CO and PE did not differ by level of education (P=.98). Employment status did not moderate CO efficacy (Ps≥.66). Up to month 12 and compared to employed participants, unemployed participants reported significantly greater drinking reductions following PE versus AO (incidence rate ratio 0.44, 95% CI 0.21-0.94; P=.03) and following PE versus CO (incidence rate ratio 0.48, 95% CI 0.24–0.96; P=.04). After 24 months, these differences were statistically nonsignificant (Ps≥.31).
Conclusions:
Computer-based and in-person BAI worked equally well independent of the patient’s level of education. Although findings indicate that in the short-term, unemployed persons may benefit more from BAI when delivered in-person rather than computer-based, the findings suggest that both BAIs have the potential to work well among participants with low socioeconomic status.
Background
Few studies have assessed trajectories of alcohol use in the general population, and even fewer studies have assessed the impact of brief intervention on the trajectories. Especially for low-risk drinkers, it is unclear what trajectories occur, whether they benefit from intervention, and if so, when and how long. The aims were first, to identify alcohol use trajectories among at-risk and among low-risk drinkers, second, to explore potential effects of brief alcohol intervention and, third, to identify predictors of trajectories.
Methods
Adults aged 18-64 years were screened for alcohol use at a municipal registration office. Those with alcohol use in the past 12 months (N = 1646; participation rate: 67%) were randomized to assessment plus computer-generated individualized feedback letters or assessment only. Outcome was drinks/week assessed at months 3, 6, 12, and 36. Alcohol risk group (at-risk/low-risk) was determined using the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test–Consumption. Latent class growth models were estimated to identify alcohol use trajectories among each alcohol risk group. Sex, age, school education, employment status, self-reported health, and smoking status were tested as predictors.
Results
For at-risk drinkers, a light-stable class (46%), a medium-stable class (46%), and a high-decreasing class (8%) emerged. The light-stable class tended to benefit from intervention after 3 years (Incidence Rate Ratio, IRR=1.96; 95% Confidence Interval, CI: 1.14–3.37). Male sex, higher age, more years of school, and current smoking decreased the probability of belonging to the light-stable class (p-values<0.05). For low-risk drinkers, a very light-slightly increasing class (72%) and a light-increasing class (28%) emerged. The very light-slightly increasing class tended to benefit from intervention after 6 months (IRR=1.60; 95% CI: 1.12–2.28). Male sex and more years of school increased the probability of belonging to the light-increasing class (p-value < 0.05).
Conclusion
Most at-risk drinkers did not change, whereas the majority of low-risk drinkers increased alcohol use. There may be effects of alcohol feedback, with greater long-term benefits among persons with low drinking amounts. Our findings may help to identify refinements in the development of individualized interventions to reduce alcohol use.