A Randomized Controlled Trial of a Telephone Intervention for Alcohol Misuse with Injured Emergency Department Patients

Michael J. Mello, Janette Baird, Christina Lee, Valerie Strezsak, Michael French, Richard Longabaugh

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

12 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Study objective We conduct a randomized controlled trial to test efficacy of a telephone intervention for injured emergency department (ED) patients with alcohol misuse to decrease alcohol use, impaired driving, alcohol-related injuries, and alcohol-related negative consequences. Methods ED patients screening positive for alcohol misuse were randomized to a 3-session telephone brief motivational intervention on alcohol, delivered by a counselor trained in motivational interviewing during 6 weeks, or a control intervention of a scripted home fire and burn safety education delivered in 3 calls. Patients were followed for 12 months and assessed for changes in alcohol use, impaired driving, alcohol-related injuries, and alcohol-related negative consequences. Results Seven hundred thirty ED patients were randomized; 78% received their assigned intervention by telephone, and of those, 72% completed 12-month assessments. There were no differential benefits of telephone brief motivational intervention versus assessment and a control intervention in all 3 variables of alcohol use (frequency of binge alcohol use during the previous 30 days, maximum number of drinks at one time in the past 30 days, and typical alcohol use in the past 30 days), alcohol-impaired driving, alcohol-related injuries, and alcohol-related negative consequences. Conclusion Despite the potential advantage of delivering a telephone brief motivational intervention in not disrupting ED clinical care, our study found no efficacy for it over an assessment and control intervention. Potential causes for our finding include that injury itself, alcohol assessments, or the control intervention had active ingredients for alcohol change.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)263-275
Number of pages13
JournalAnnals of Emergency Medicine
Volume67
Issue number2
DOIs
StatePublished - Feb 1 2016

Fingerprint

Telephone
Hospital Emergency Service
Randomized Controlled Trials
Alcohols
Wounds and Injuries
Motivational Interviewing

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Emergency Medicine

Cite this

A Randomized Controlled Trial of a Telephone Intervention for Alcohol Misuse with Injured Emergency Department Patients. / Mello, Michael J.; Baird, Janette; Lee, Christina; Strezsak, Valerie; French, Michael; Longabaugh, Richard.

In: Annals of Emergency Medicine, Vol. 67, No. 2, 01.02.2016, p. 263-275.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Mello, Michael J. ; Baird, Janette ; Lee, Christina ; Strezsak, Valerie ; French, Michael ; Longabaugh, Richard. / A Randomized Controlled Trial of a Telephone Intervention for Alcohol Misuse with Injured Emergency Department Patients. In: Annals of Emergency Medicine. 2016 ; Vol. 67, No. 2. pp. 263-275.
@article{2aff92df75e742448c00f2d68a600e75,
title = "A Randomized Controlled Trial of a Telephone Intervention for Alcohol Misuse with Injured Emergency Department Patients",
abstract = "Study objective We conduct a randomized controlled trial to test efficacy of a telephone intervention for injured emergency department (ED) patients with alcohol misuse to decrease alcohol use, impaired driving, alcohol-related injuries, and alcohol-related negative consequences. Methods ED patients screening positive for alcohol misuse were randomized to a 3-session telephone brief motivational intervention on alcohol, delivered by a counselor trained in motivational interviewing during 6 weeks, or a control intervention of a scripted home fire and burn safety education delivered in 3 calls. Patients were followed for 12 months and assessed for changes in alcohol use, impaired driving, alcohol-related injuries, and alcohol-related negative consequences. Results Seven hundred thirty ED patients were randomized; 78{\%} received their assigned intervention by telephone, and of those, 72{\%} completed 12-month assessments. There were no differential benefits of telephone brief motivational intervention versus assessment and a control intervention in all 3 variables of alcohol use (frequency of binge alcohol use during the previous 30 days, maximum number of drinks at one time in the past 30 days, and typical alcohol use in the past 30 days), alcohol-impaired driving, alcohol-related injuries, and alcohol-related negative consequences. Conclusion Despite the potential advantage of delivering a telephone brief motivational intervention in not disrupting ED clinical care, our study found no efficacy for it over an assessment and control intervention. Potential causes for our finding include that injury itself, alcohol assessments, or the control intervention had active ingredients for alcohol change.",
author = "Mello, {Michael J.} and Janette Baird and Christina Lee and Valerie Strezsak and Michael French and Richard Longabaugh",
year = "2016",
month = "2",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.annemergmed.2015.09.021",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "67",
pages = "263--275",
journal = "Annals of Emergency Medicine",
issn = "0196-0644",
publisher = "Mosby Inc.",
number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - A Randomized Controlled Trial of a Telephone Intervention for Alcohol Misuse with Injured Emergency Department Patients

AU - Mello, Michael J.

AU - Baird, Janette

AU - Lee, Christina

AU - Strezsak, Valerie

AU - French, Michael

AU - Longabaugh, Richard

PY - 2016/2/1

Y1 - 2016/2/1

N2 - Study objective We conduct a randomized controlled trial to test efficacy of a telephone intervention for injured emergency department (ED) patients with alcohol misuse to decrease alcohol use, impaired driving, alcohol-related injuries, and alcohol-related negative consequences. Methods ED patients screening positive for alcohol misuse were randomized to a 3-session telephone brief motivational intervention on alcohol, delivered by a counselor trained in motivational interviewing during 6 weeks, or a control intervention of a scripted home fire and burn safety education delivered in 3 calls. Patients were followed for 12 months and assessed for changes in alcohol use, impaired driving, alcohol-related injuries, and alcohol-related negative consequences. Results Seven hundred thirty ED patients were randomized; 78% received their assigned intervention by telephone, and of those, 72% completed 12-month assessments. There were no differential benefits of telephone brief motivational intervention versus assessment and a control intervention in all 3 variables of alcohol use (frequency of binge alcohol use during the previous 30 days, maximum number of drinks at one time in the past 30 days, and typical alcohol use in the past 30 days), alcohol-impaired driving, alcohol-related injuries, and alcohol-related negative consequences. Conclusion Despite the potential advantage of delivering a telephone brief motivational intervention in not disrupting ED clinical care, our study found no efficacy for it over an assessment and control intervention. Potential causes for our finding include that injury itself, alcohol assessments, or the control intervention had active ingredients for alcohol change.

AB - Study objective We conduct a randomized controlled trial to test efficacy of a telephone intervention for injured emergency department (ED) patients with alcohol misuse to decrease alcohol use, impaired driving, alcohol-related injuries, and alcohol-related negative consequences. Methods ED patients screening positive for alcohol misuse were randomized to a 3-session telephone brief motivational intervention on alcohol, delivered by a counselor trained in motivational interviewing during 6 weeks, or a control intervention of a scripted home fire and burn safety education delivered in 3 calls. Patients were followed for 12 months and assessed for changes in alcohol use, impaired driving, alcohol-related injuries, and alcohol-related negative consequences. Results Seven hundred thirty ED patients were randomized; 78% received their assigned intervention by telephone, and of those, 72% completed 12-month assessments. There were no differential benefits of telephone brief motivational intervention versus assessment and a control intervention in all 3 variables of alcohol use (frequency of binge alcohol use during the previous 30 days, maximum number of drinks at one time in the past 30 days, and typical alcohol use in the past 30 days), alcohol-impaired driving, alcohol-related injuries, and alcohol-related negative consequences. Conclusion Despite the potential advantage of delivering a telephone brief motivational intervention in not disrupting ED clinical care, our study found no efficacy for it over an assessment and control intervention. Potential causes for our finding include that injury itself, alcohol assessments, or the control intervention had active ingredients for alcohol change.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84955593453&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84955593453&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.annemergmed.2015.09.021

DO - 10.1016/j.annemergmed.2015.09.021

M3 - Article

C2 - 26585044

AN - SCOPUS:84955593453

VL - 67

SP - 263

EP - 275

JO - Annals of Emergency Medicine

JF - Annals of Emergency Medicine

SN - 0196-0644

IS - 2

ER -