ArticlePublic health in practice (Oxford, England)2026
Feasibility and acceptability of an adapted WHO alcohol brief intervention: Pilot of a three-armed randomized trial in Sri Lanka.
Article in Public health in practice (Oxford, England), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Risky drinking (RD) is a major health hazard in Sri Lanka. Alcohol brief intervention (BI) has been proven effective in minimizing RD but has not been utilised in Sri Lanka. We therefore aimed to adapt the WHO alcohol BI and targeted educational material to Sri Lanka, assess their feasibility and acceptability and evaluate appropriateness of methodology and measures for a future RCT. Study design: A three-arm parallel-group pilot RCT. Methods: The BI was adapted based on expert feedback. The study included male inpatients (with AUDIT-C screening score ≥5) of a tertiary hospital. The three study arms were: adapted brief intervention (ABI), education about unit of alcohol (UOA), and feedback on screening results (FOA). Trained research assistants (RAs) screened and implemented the interventions. We report on follow-up rates (feasibility), participant and RA feedback (acceptability), recruitment efficiency and data quality (methodological appropriateness), and appropriateness of outcome measures. Results: The ABI included a structured training manual for implementers, an alcohol information leaflet, and a personal information sheet. Patient follow-up rates were 69 %, 40 % and 71 % for FOA, UOA and ABI arms respectively. Family member recruitment was 31 %. Patient and RA feedback for ABI was overwhelmingly positive. Many patients were abstinent at baseline (37.5 %) and follow-up (75.9 %), mainly due to health concerns. FMQ revealed high 'total family burden'. Patients struggled with TLFB recall. High childhood adversity prevalence (95.7 %) and low alcohol knowledge were observed. Conclusions: The ABI demonstrated high acceptability among patients and RAs. All three interventions could be trialled in a future RCT. All measures except TLFB proved appropriate. Our innovative approach of evaluating outcomes from family members' perspectives proved feasible and valuable. The inpatient setting was not appropriate, rather a setting where patients continue their day-to-day activities, including usual drinking, should be considered in a future RCT.
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.