Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27988144›Full record

Trial reportLancet (London, England)2017

Counselling for Alcohol Problems (CAP), a lay counsellor-delivered brief psychological treatment for harmful drinking in men, in primary care in India: a randomised controlled trial.

Abhijit Nadkarni, Benedict Weobong, Helen A Weiss, Jim McCambridge, Bhargav Bhat, Basavaraj Katti, Pratima Murthy, Michael King, David McDaid, A-La Park and 5 more

Open access · hybridAbstract readMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Lancet (London, England), 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 100 papers, 11 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
100citing papers in PubMed, 11 pooled it
14.5field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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

100 citing papers in PubMed, 11 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 188 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Effectiveness of brief alcohol interventions in primary care populations.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2018
    Pooled it
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Trial
  15. Trial
  16. Trial
  17. Trial
  18. Trial
  19. Trial
  20. Trial

40 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

15 authors at 9 institutions in 3 countries.

Abhijit NadkarniSangath Centre, Socorro Village, Bardez-Goa, Goa, India; London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK.
Benedict WeobongLondon School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK.
Helen A WeissLondon School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK.
Jim McCambridgeDepartment of Health Sciences, University of York, York, UK.
Bhargav BhatSangath Centre, Socorro Village, Bardez-Goa, Goa, India.
Basavaraj KattiSangath Centre, Socorro Village, Bardez-Goa, Goa, India.
Pratima MurthyNational Institute of Mental Health and Neurosciences, Bengaluru, India.
Michael KingDivision of Psychiatry, University College London, London, UK.
David McDaidPersonal Social Services Research Unit, London School of Economics and Political Science, London, UK.
A-La ParkPersonal Social Services Research Unit, London School of Economics and Political Science, London, UK.
G Terence WilsonDepartment of Psychology, Rutgers School of Arts and Sciences, NJ, USA.
Betty KirkwoodLondon School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK.
Christopher G FairburnDepartment of Psychiatry, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Richard VellemanSangath Centre, Socorro Village, Bardez-Goa, Goa, India; Department of Psychology, University of Bath, Bath, UK.
Vikram PatelSangath Centre, Socorro Village, Bardez-Goa, Goa, India; London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK. Electronic address: vikram.patel@lshtm.ac.uk.
London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine · GBSangath · INLondon School of Economics and Political Science · GBNational Institute of Mental Health and Neurosciences · INRutgers, The State University of New Jersey · USUniversity College London · GBUniversity of Bath · GBUniversity of Oxford · GBUniversity of York · GB

Funding

Medical Research Council MR/K012126/1Wellcome TrustWellcome Trust 091834
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAlthough structured psychological treatments are recommended as first-line interventions for harmful drinking, only a small fraction of people globally receive these treatments because of poor access in routine primary care. We assessed the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of Counselling for Alcohol Problems (CAP), a brief psychological treatment delivered by lay counsellors to patients with harmful drinking attending routine primary health-care settings.

methodsIn this randomised controlled trial, we recruited male harmful drinkers defined by an Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT) score of 12-19 who were aged 18-65 years from ten primary health centres in Goa, India. We excluded patients who needed emergency medical treatment or inpatient admission, who were unable to communicate clearly, and who were intoxicated at the time of screening. Participants were randomly allocated (1:1) by trained health assistants based at the primary health centres to enhanced usual care (EUC) alone or EUC combined with CAP, in randomly sized blocks of four to six, stratified by primary health centre, and allocation was concealed with use of sequential numbered opaque envelopes. Physicians providing EUC and those assessing outcomes were masked. Primary outcomes were remission (AUDIT score of <8) and mean daily alcohol consumed in the past 14 days, at 3 months. Secondary outcomes were the effect of drinking, disability score, days unable to work, suicide attempts, intimate partner violence, and resource use and costs of illness. Analyses were on an intention-to-treat basis. We used logistic regression analysis for remission and zero-inflated negative binomial regression analysis for alcohol consumption. We assessed serious adverse events in the per-protocol population. This trial is registered with the ISCRTN registry, number ISRCTN76465238.

findingsBetween Oct 28, 2013, and July 29, 2015, we enrolled and randomly allocated 377 participants (188 [50%] to the EUC plus CAP group and 190 [50%] to the EUC alone group [one of whom was subsequently excluded because of a protocol violation]), of whom 336 (89%) completed the 3 month primary outcome assessment (164 [87%] in the EUC plus CAP group and 172 [91%] in the EUC alone group). The proportion with remission (59 [36%] of 164 in the EUC plus CAP group vs 44 [26%] of 172 in the EUC alone group; adjusted prevalence ratio 1·50 [95% CI 1·09-2·07]; p=0·01) and the proportion abstinent in the past 14 days (68 [42%] vs 31 [18%]; adjusted odds ratio 3·00 [1·76-5·13]; p<0·0001) were significantly higher in the EUC plus CAP group than in the EUC alone group, but we noted no effect on mean daily alcohol consumed in the past 14 days among those who reported drinking in this period (37·0 g [SD 44·2] vs 31·0 g [27·8]; count ratio 1·08 [0·79-1·49]; p=0·62). We noted an effect on the percentage of days abstinent in the past 14 days (adjusted mean difference [AMD] 16·0% [8·1-24·1]; p<0·0001), but no effect on the percentage of days of heavy drinking (AMD -0·4% [-5·7 to 4·9]; p=0·88), the effect of drinking (Short Inventory of Problems score AMD-0·03 [-1·93 to 1·86]; p=0.97), disability score (WHO Disability Assessment Schedule score AMD 0·62 [-0·62 to 1·87]; p=0·32), days unable to work (no days unable to work adjusted odds ratio 1·02 [0·61-1·69]; p=0.95), suicide attempts (adjusted prevalence ratio 1·8 [-2·4 to 6·0]; p=0·25), and intimate partner violence (adjusted prevalence ratio 3·0 [-10·4 to 4·4]; p=0·57). The incremental cost per additional remission was $217 (95% CI 50-1073), with an 85% chance of being cost-effective in the study setting. We noted no significant difference in the number of serious adverse events between the two groups (six [4%] in the EUC plus CAP group vs 13 [8%] in the EUC alone group; p=0·11).

interpretationCAP delivered by lay counsellors plus EUC was better than EUC alone was for harmful drinkers in routine primary health-care settings, and might be cost-effective. CAP could be a key strategy to reduce the treatment gap for alcohol use disorders, one of the leading causes of the global burden among men worldwide.

fundingWellcome Trust.

Indexed as

CounselorsAdolescentAdultAgedAlcohol DrinkingAlcoholismClinical ProtocolsCost-Benefit AnalysisCounselingHumansIndiaMaleMiddle AgedPrimary Health CarePsychotherapyTreatment Outcome

Identifiers

PMID27988144
PMCPMC5236065
OpenAlexW2566737694

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.