ArticleBMJ open2019
Socioeconomic inequalities in the delivery of brief interventions for smoking and excessive drinking: findings from a cross-sectional household survey in England.
Article in BMJ open, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
13 citing papers in PubMed.
- Exploring the predictors and barriers to accepting smoking cessation support within a targeted lung health check setting.BMJ open respiratory research · 2025Trial
- The Moderating Effect of Educational Background on the Efficacy of a Computer-Based Brief Intervention Addressing the Full Spectrum of Alcohol Use: Randomized Controlled Trial.JMIR public health and surveillance · 2022Trial
- Computerized Clinical Decision Support System for Prompting Brief Alcohol Interventions with Treatment Seeking Smokers: A Sex-Based Secondary Analysis of a Cluster Randomized Trial.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2020Trial
- Mind the Gap: Exploring Social Inequalities in Alcohol Consumption using Nationally Representative Data from the 2019 and 2021 Health Survey for England.BMC public health · 2026Article
- Brief interventions for smoking and alcohol associated with the COVID-19 pandemic: a population survey in England.BMC public health · 2024Article
- Alcohol and smoking brief interventions by socioeconomic position: a population-based, cross-sectional study in Great Britain.BJGP open · 2023Article
- Who benefits from alcohol screening and brief intervention? A mini-review on socioeconomic inequalities with a focus on evidence from the United States.Addictive behaviors · 2023Review
- Article
- Relationship Between Educational Level and Attitudes Towards Alcohol Conversations in Healthcare: A Cross-Sectional Survey Conducted in Four European Countries.International journal of public health · 2023Article
- Social Equity in the Efficacy of Computer-Based and In-Person Brief Alcohol Interventions Among General Hospital Patients With At-Risk Alcohol Use: A Randomized Controlled Trial.JMIR mental health · 2022Article
- Application of a Knowledge, Attitude, Belief, and Practice Model in Pain Management of Patients with Acute Traumatic Fractures and Alcohol Dependence.Pain research & management · 2022Article
- Prevalence and correlates of receipt by smokers of general practitioner advice on smoking cessation in England: a cross-sectional survey of adults.Addiction (Abingdon, England) · 2021Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesBrief interventions (BI) for smoking and risky drinking are effective and cost-effective policy approaches to reducing alcohol harm currently used in primary care in England; however, little is known about their contribution to health inequalities. This paper aims to investigate whether self-reported receipt of BI is associated with socioeconomic position (SEP) and whether this differs for smoking or alcohol.
designPopulation survey of 8978 smokers or risky drinkers in England aged 16+ taking part in the Alcohol and Smoking Toolkit Studies. MEASURES: Survey participants answered questions regarding whether they had received advice and support to cut down their drinking or smoking from a primary healthcare professional in the past 12 months as well as their SEP, demographic details, whether they smoke and their motivation to cut down their smoking and/or drinking. Respondents also completed the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT). Smokers were defined as those reporting any smoking in the past year. Risky drinkers were defined as those scoring eight or more on the AUDIT.
resultsAfter adjusting for demographic factors and patterns in smoking and drinking, BI delivery was highest in lower socioeconomic groups. Smokers in the lowest social grade had 30% (95% CI 5% to 61%) greater odds of reporting receipt of a BI than those in the highest grade. The relationship for risky drinking appeared stronger, with those in the lowest social grade having 111% (95% CI 27% to 252%) greater odds of reporting BI receipt than the highest grade. Rates of BI delivery were eight times greater among smokers than risky drinkers (48.3% vs 6.1%).
conclusionsCurrent delivery of BI for smoking and drinking in primary care in England may be contributing to a reduction in socioeconomic inequalities in health. This effect could be increased if intervention rates, particularly for drinking, were raised.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.