Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25988589›Full record

Trial reportAddiction (Abingdon, England)2015

The effectiveness of brief alcohol interventions delivered by community pharmacists: randomized controlled trial.

Ranjita Dhital, Ian Norman, Cate Whittlesea, Trevor Murrells, Jim McCambridge

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Addiction (Abingdon, England), 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

26 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Motivational interviewing for substance use reduction.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2023
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Observational
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Ranjita DhitalKing's College London, Florence Nightingale Faculty of Nursing and Midwifery, London, UK.
Ian NormanKing's College London, Florence Nightingale Faculty of Nursing and Midwifery, London, UK.
Cate WhittleseaSchool of Medicine, Pharmacy and Health, Durham University, Stockton-on-Tees, UK.
Trevor MurrellsKing's College London, Florence Nightingale Faculty of Nursing and Midwifery, London, UK.
Jim McCambridgeMental Health and Addictions Research Group, Department of Health Sciences, Faculty of Science, University of York, York, UK.

Funding

Wellcome Trust 086516Wellcome Trust WT086516MA
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND

aimsTo undertake the first randomized controlled trial to evaluate the effectiveness of a brief intervention delivered by community pharmacists to reduce hazardous or harmful drinking.

designThis parallel group randomized trial allocated participants individually to brief alcohol intervention (n = 205) or a leaflet-only control condition (n = 202), with follow-up study after 3 months.

settingSixteen community pharmacies in one London Borough, UK.

participantsA total of 407 pharmacy customers (aged 18 years or over) with Alcohol Use Disorder Identification Test (AUDIT) scores 8-19, inclusive.

interventionA brief motivational discussion of approximately 10 minutes' duration, for which 17 pharmacists received a half-day of training. MEASUREMENTS: Hazardous or harmful drinking was assessed using the AUDIT administered by telephone by a researcher blind to allocation status. The two primary outcomes were: (1) change in AUDIT total scores and (2) the proportions no longer hazardous or harmful drinkers (scoring < 8) at 3 months. The four secondary outcomes were: the three subscale scores of the AUDIT (for consumption, problems and dependence) and health status according to the EQ-5D (a standardized instrument for use as a measure of health outcome).

findingsAt 3 months 326 (80% overall; 82% intervention, 78% control) participants were followed-up. The difference in reduction in total AUDIT score (intervention minus control) was -0.57, 95% confidence interval (CI) = -1.59 to 0.45, P = 0.28. The odds ratio for AUDIT ˂ 8 (control as reference) was 0.87, 95% CI = 0.50 to 1.51, P = 0.61). For two of the four secondary outcomes (dependence score: -0.46, 95% CI = -0.82 to -0.09, P = 0.014; health status score: -0.09, 95% CI = -0.16 to -0.02, P = 0.013) the control group did better, and in the other two there were no differences (consumption score: -0.05, 95% CI = -0.54 to 0.44, P = 0.85; non-dependence problems score: -0.13, 95% CI = -0.66 to 0.41). Sensitivity analyses did not change these findings.

conclusionsA brief intervention delivered by community pharmacists appears to have had no effect in reducing hazardous or harmful alcohol consumption.

Indexed as

Community Pharmacy ServicesPharmacistsAdolescentAdultAgedAged, 80 and overAlcoholismFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHumansMaleMass ScreeningMiddle AgedMotivational InterviewingPamphletsPatient Education as TopicAlcoholbrief interventioncommunity pharmacistcommunity pharmacyhazardous and harmful drinking

Identifiers

PMID25988589
PMCPMC4765086

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.