Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28898239›Full record

Trial reportPLoS medicine2017

Sustained effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of Counselling for Alcohol Problems, a brief psychological treatment for harmful drinking in men, delivered by lay counsellors in primary care: 12-month follow-up of a randomised controlled trial.

Abhijit Nadkarni, Helen A Weiss, Benedict Weobong, David McDaid, Daisy R Singla, A-La Park, Bhargav Bhat, Basavaraj Katti, Jim McCambridge, Pratima Murthy and 6 more

Open access · goldAbstract readMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in PLoS medicine, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 45 papers, 10 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
45citing papers in PubMed, 10 pooled it
2.1field-weighted citation impact, top 13% 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

45 citing papers in PubMed, 10 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 78 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. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Trial
  15. Trial
  16. Trial
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  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

16 authors at 10 institutions in 4 countries.

Abhijit NadkarniSangath, Socorro, Goa, India.
Helen A WeissLondon School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3547-7936
Benedict WeobongSangath, Socorro, Goa, India.
David McDaidPersonal Social Services Research Unit, London School of Economics and Political Science, London, United Kingdom.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0744-2664
Daisy R SinglaDepartment of Psychiatry, Sinai Health Network, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
A-La ParkPersonal Social Services Research Unit, London School of Economics and Political Science, London, United Kingdom.
Bhargav BhatSangath, Socorro, Goa, India.
Basavaraj KattiSangath, Socorro, Goa, India.
Jim McCambridgeDepartment of Health Sciences, University of York, York, United Kingdom.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5461-7001
Pratima MurthyNational Institute of Mental Health and Neurosciences, Bengaluru, India.
Michael KingDivision of Psychiatry, University College London, London, United Kingdom.
G Terence WilsonDepartment of Psychology, School of Arts and Sciences, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, New Jersey, United States of America.
Betty KirkwoodLondon School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5274-6072
Christopher G FairburnDepartment of Psychiatry, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.
Richard VellemanSangath, Socorro, Goa, India.
Vikram PatelSangath, Socorro, Goa, India.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1066-8584
London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine · GBSangath · INLondon School of Economics and Political Science · GBHarvard University · USNational Institute of Mental Health and Neurosciences · INRutgers, The State University of New Jersey · USUniversity College London · GBUniversity of Oxford · GBUniversity of Toronto · CAUniversity of York · GB

Funding

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

Abstract

backgroundCounselling for Alcohol Problems (CAP), a brief intervention delivered by lay counsellors, enhanced remission and abstinence over 3 months among male primary care attendees with harmful drinking in a setting in India. We evaluated the sustainability of the effects after treatment termination, the cost-effectiveness of CAP over 12 months, and the effects of the hypothesized mediator 'readiness to change' on clinical outcomes. METHODS AND

findingsMale primary care attendees aged 18-65 years screening with harmful drinking on the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT) were randomised to either CAP plus enhanced usual care (EUC) (n = 188) or EUC alone (n = 189), of whom 89% completed assessments at 3 months, and 84% at 12 months. Primary outcomes were remission and mean standard ethanol consumed in the past 14 days, and the proposed mediating variable was readiness to change at 3 months. CAP participants maintained the gains they showed at the end of treatment through the 12-month follow-up, with the proportion with remission (AUDIT score < 8: 54.3% versus 31.9%; adjusted prevalence ratio [aPR] 1.71 [95% CI 1.32, 2.22]; p < 0.001) and abstinence in the past 14 days (45.1% versus 26.4%; adjusted odds ratio 1.92 [95% CI 1.19, 3.10]; p = 0.008) being significantly higher in the CAP plus EUC arm than in the EUC alone arm. CAP participants also fared better on secondary outcomes including recovery (AUDIT score < 8 at 3 and 12 months: 27.4% versus 15.1%; aPR 1.90 [95% CI 1.21, 3.00]; p = 0.006) and percent of days abstinent (mean percent [SD] 71.0% [38.2] versus 55.0% [39.8]; adjusted mean difference 16.1 [95% CI 7.1, 25.0]; p = 0.001). The intervention effect for remission was higher at 12 months than at 3 months (aPR 1.50 [95% CI 1.09, 2.07]). There was no evidence of an intervention effect on Patient Health Questionnaire 9 score, suicidal behaviour, percentage of days of heavy drinking, Short Inventory of Problems score, WHO Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0 score, days unable to work, or perpetration of intimate partner violence. Economic analyses indicated that CAP plus EUC was dominant over EUC alone, with lower costs and better outcomes; uncertainty analysis showed a 99% chance of CAP being cost-effective per remission achieved from a health system perspective, using a willingness to pay threshold equivalent to 1 month's wages for an unskilled manual worker in Goa. Readiness to change level at 3 months mediated the effect of CAP on mean standard ethanol consumption at 12 months (indirect effect -6.014 [95% CI -13.99, -0.046]). Serious adverse events were infrequent, and prevalence was similar by arm. The methodological limitations of this trial are the susceptibility of self-reported drinking to social desirability bias, the modest participation rates of eligible patients, and the examination of mediation effects of only 1 mediator and in only half of our sample.

conclusionsCAP's superiority over EUC at the end of treatment was largely stable over time and was mediated by readiness to change. CAP provides better outcomes at lower costs from a societal perspective.

trial registrationISRCTN registry ISRCTN76465238.

Indexed as

AdolescentAdultAgedAlcohol DrinkingAlcoholismCost-Benefit AnalysisCounselingDelivery of Health CareFollow-Up StudiesHealth PromotionHumansIndiaMaleMiddle AgedPrimary Health CarePsychotherapy

Identifiers

PMID28898239
PMCPMC5595289
OpenAlexW2750033985

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.