Skip to main content
PMC home page
NIHPA Author Manuscripts logoLink to NIHPA Author Manuscripts
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2011 Sep 1.
Published in final edited form as: Drug Alcohol Depend. 2010 May 20;111(1-2):13–20. doi: 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2009.11.025

The Effectiveness of Brief Intervention among Injured Patients with Alcohol Dependence: Who Benefits from Brief Interventions?

Craig A Field 1,✉, Raul Caetano 2
PMCID: PMC2930034  NIHMSID: NIHMS156451  PMID: 20493644

Abstract

Background

Research investigating the differential effectiveness of Brief Motivational Interventions (BMI) among alcohol dependent and non-dependent patients in the medical setting is limited. Clinical guidelines suggest that BMI is most appropriate for patients with less severe alcohol problems. As a result, most studies evaluating the effectiveness of BMI have excluded patients with an indication of alcohol dependence.

Methods

A randomized controlled trial of brief intervention in the trauma care setting comparing BMI to treatment as usual plus assessment (TAU+) was conducted. Alcohol dependence status was determined for 1336 patients using DSM-IV diagnostic criteria. The differential effectiveness of BMI among alcohol dependent and non-dependent patients was determined with regard to volume per week, maximum amount consumed, percent days abstinent, alcohol problems at six and 12 month follow up. In addition, the effect of BMI on dependence status at six and 12 months was determined.

Results

There was a consistent interaction between BMI and alcohol dependence status, which indicated significantly higher reductions in volume per week at six and twelve month follow up (β=−.56, p=.03, β=−.63, p=.02, respectively), maximum amount at six months (β=−.31, p=.04), and significant decreases in percent days abstinent at twelve months (β=.11, p=.007) and alcohol problems at twelve months (β=−2.7, p12=.04) among patients with alcohol dependence receiving BMI. In addition, patients with alcohol dependence at baseline that received BMI were .59 (95% CI=.39–.91) times less likely to meet criteria for alcohol dependence at six months.

Conclusions

These findings suggest that BMI is more beneficial among patients with alcohol dependence who screen positive for an alcohol related injury.

Keywords: Brief Intervention, Injury, Dependence, Alcohol

1. Introduction

Substance abuse is a major public health burden worldwide contributing significantly to morbidity and mortality (World Health Organization (WHO), 2002, 2008). Worldwide, alcohol causes 1.8 million deaths and a loss of 58.3 million of Disability-Adjusted Life Years (WHO, 2002). Of the total number of alcohol attributable deaths, 32.0% are from unintentional injuries and 13.7% are from unintentional injuries globally (WHO, 2007). Furthermore, the WHO estimates that there are about 76.3 million people with diagnosable alcohol use disorders worldwide (WHO, 2002). In the United States, although 17.8 million adult were diagnosed with one or more current alcohol use disorders only about 1 in 7 reported ever having received any kind of alcohol treatment (Grant et al., 2004a; Cohen et al, 2006). Analysis of the National Epidemiological Survey of Alcohol and Related Conditions (NESARC) indicated that of those with alcohol dependence in the prior past year only 26% of those ever received treatment (Dawson, 2005). Among those who did seek help, Alcoholics Anonymous was the most common treatment option as opposed to formal or specialized treatment (Cohen et al, 2007).

While rates of self help group attendance and formal treatment are low, people with alcohol use disorders are very likely to be seen in medical settings such as the emergency department and trauma care centers (Cohen et al, 2007). As a result, one approach to increasing the availability of treatment is to promote the use of brief interventions in the health care setting (Babor et al., 2001). Efficacy studies of brief interventions have been summarized in several review articles and meta-analyses, which largely suggest positive and clinically meaningful improvements in drinking outcomes (Bien et al., 1993; Kahn et al., 1995; Wilk et al., 1997; Moyer et al., 2002; Whitlock et al., 2004; Hettema et al., 2005; Vasilaki et al., 2006; Kaener et al., 2007). In addition, these and other studies have found no difference in patient outcomes between brief intervention and more extensive forms of treatment. As a result, brief intervention has become a well-established and cost-effective method to help patients in the medical care setting decrease their alcohol consumption (Chisholm et al., 2004; Fleming et al., 2002).

The rationale for screening and brief intervention in the trauma care setting is compelling. Patients who are intoxicated at the time of their injury may be more accepting of interventions for problem drinking, and the injury event itself may help create a teachable moment. The injury event may also create a window of opportunity for changing drinking behavior for those who are presenting with injuries unrelated to alcohol consumption, but who have a history of hazardous, harmful or dependent drinking. Dawson et al (2006) looked at the influence of major life events on recovery from alcohol problems and concluded that transitional life events have a strong effect on recovery, whereas for others, failure to make the transition is associated with continued dependence. Among injured patients, there is significant evidence that brief interventions reduces drinking and risk of future injury (Gentilello, 1999). For example, Schermer et al (2006) found that rates of DUI arrests three years after admission to the trauma care setting were cut in half following brief intervention. Moreover, these interventions have been found to confer $3.81 in cost savings for every dollar spent (Gentilello, 2005). Based on the preponderance of the available evidence, the World Health Organization, The United States Preventative Task Force and the Committee on Trauma have endorsed the routine screening and brief intervention in various medical settings including emergency departments and trauma care settings (WHO, 2002; American College of Surgeons, Committee on Trauma, 2007; Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, 2007).

In 1990, the Institute of Medicine described a spectrum of unhealthy alcohol use in the general population (IOM, 1990). The IOM emphasized that most people with unhealthy alcohol use were not alcohol dependent and that they would be more likely benefit from brief intervention. As a result, many studies evaluating the effectiveness of brief interventions have excluded patients with current diagnosis of alcohol dependence or those who have previously sought treatment. In a meta-analysis of brief intervention provided by health care providers to non treatment seeking patients, Moyer et al (2002) reported that 79% of studies excluded patients with alcohol dependence. Many of the studies describes in a recent meta analysis (Moyer at al., 2002) that used alcohol dependence as a basis for ineligibility also excluded individuals who had been previously treated for substance use, potentially confounding any relationship that may exist between effectiveness and dependence status. In the meta-analysis by Moyer et al (2002), this omission left only 7 studies for comparison because the other 27 of 34 studies excluded dependent participants. Among randomized studies of brief interventions with injured patients, alcohol dependence or prior history of treatment are common exclusion criteria. For example, Longabuagh (2001) excluded patients with a previous diagnosis of alcohol abuse or dependence and Bazargan (2005) excluded patients with a history of alcohol counseling in the last year. More recently, Soderstrom (2007) excluded patients with alcohol dependence and Daeppen (2007) excluded patients with a history of alcohol treatment in the last year. Despite the lack of empirical evidence regarding the effectiveness of brief interventions for patients with alcohol dependence, the consistent exclusion of these patients suggests an implicit assumption that patients with alcohol dependence are unlikely to benefit from brief alcohol interventions.

While there have been no systematic evaluations of the effectiveness of brief interventions for injured patients with alcohol dependence, two prior studies in trauma populations have included patients with more severe alcohol problems, including alcohol dependence (Gentilello, 1999; Schermer 2006). In both cases, alcohol dependent patients were included to reflect the full spectrum of alcohol problems identified in the trauma care setting. In the study conducted by Gentilello and colleagues (1999), patients with the most severe alcohol problems, presumably dependence, did not appear to benefit from brief intervention. Similarly, patients with prior alcohol treatment also showed a lack of response. In contrast, Schermer (2006) found that reductions in arrest for driving while intoxicated were not dependent upon the severity of alcohol problems. In one other study of brief intervention in the general medical setting, there was no difference in the effectiveness between patients with and without alcohol dependence (Guth, 2008). The primary aim of the current study is to provide a focused evaluation of the effectiveness of brief intervention for injured patients with alcohol dependence.

2. Methods

2.1 Study Recruitment

Patients were recruited from an urban Level I trauma center during a two year period. Subjects were compensated $25 for the baseline assessment and $50 for the six and twelve month follow up assessments. The study procedures were approved by the Committee for the Protection of Human Subjects at the University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston and the Institutional Review Board of the hospital where data were collected. In addition, a certificate of confidentiality was obtained from the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism

2.2 Screening and Enrollment

Sampling was limited to injured patients who identified themselves as Black, White or Hispanic. Injury was defined as an intentional or unintentional event caused by an external factor, even if a medical condition was a causal factor. The final sample of patients randomized to TAU+ or BMI consisted of 668 Whites (45%), 537 Hispanics (36%) and 288 (19%) Blacks. The current study is limited to 1,336 participants for whom alcohol dependence status was determined.

Patients were excluded from participation for the following reasons: 1) they were less than 18 years of age 2) they spoke neither English nor Spanish 2) they had no identifiable residence 3) they were under arrest or in police custody at the time of admission or during their hospital stay 4) they were judged by the trauma care or research staff to be actively suicidal or psychotic 5) they were victims of sexual assault or 6) had a medical condition that precluded a face-to-face interview. Patients who were intoxicated at the time of their injury or presented with a Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) ≤ 14 were monitored by research staff for inclusion in the study. Patients with a GCS ≤ 14 that did not resolve prior to discharge were not eligible for screening or enrollment. Written informed consent was obtained from injured patients following medical stabilization and prior to discharge from the hospital regardless of the patient’s length of stay. All subjects had to demonstrate orientation to person, place and time and adequate recall of recent and remote events prior to obtaining written informed consent.

Twenty four hour, seven day per week coverage was not feasible and, therefore, patient recruitment was limited to Thursday through Monday from 9 am to 6 pm. Recruitment during prior studies conducted at this trauma center as well as the implementation phase of this study suggested that these hours were the most efficient times to screen and enroll patients (Field, et al, 2001, Field, et al., 2004). To minimize the impact of screening procedures on medical care, a sequential screening process was employed; subsequent screening procedures were only implemented if the patient screened negative on prior screening criteria. Screening consisted of four sequential criteria: 1) Clinical indication of acute intoxication or alcohol use or positive BAC; 2) self reported drinking 6 hours prior to injury; 3) at risk drinking per NIAAA guidelines (e.g., 7 drinks/week women, 14 drinks/week men; more than 4 drinks/day in men; more than 3 drinks/day in women; NIAAA, 2005) or 4) positive on one or more items of the CAGE (Ewing, 1984; Kitchens, 1994). An assessment of the screening procedures including strengths and limitations has been discussed elsewhere (Field, Caetano, Pezzia, 2008).

2.3 Assessment

Patients who qualified for the study and agreed to participate, were interviewed by study clinicians after written informed consent was obtained. The interview took approximately 30–40 minutes. The current study focuses on alcohol use, alcohol problems and dependence status among injured patients meeting criteria for alcohol dependence during baseline assessment.

Alcohol Use

Since intentional and unintentional injuries have been found to depend on patterns of drinking in addition to average volume of alcohol consumption (Rehm et al., 2003), several measures of alcohol use were assessed at intake and follow-up. Quantity and frequency of alcohol consumption was determined at baseline, six and twelve month follow up using a graduated frequency which assess frequency of intake of combined alcohol with seven quantity levels and eight frequency levels in descending order (Greenfield, 1998; Greenfield, 2000; Hilton, 1989; Midanik, 1994; Rehm et al., 1999). The midpoints of quantity and frequency categories are used to calculate average volume consumed per week. This is a preferred method that reduces underreporting of alcohol consumption and is used in standardized national alcohol surveys (Greenfield, 2000). Weekly alcohol volume in the last year at baseline and the follow up period at six and 12 month follow up was calculated using the basic quantity/frequency approach by multiplying usual quantity of drinks per occasion by frequency of drinking (Dawson, 2003). In addition, the maximum amount consumed in one day in the last year at baseline and the follow up period at six and 12 month follow up was collected. Average volume per week and maximum amount consumed on one day are report using standard drinks which were defined as 12 ounces of beer, 5 ounces of wine, or 1.5 ounces of hard liquor (Dawson, 2003). At six and twelve month follow up, percent days abstinent in the last year at baseline and the follow up period at six and 12 month follow up was estimated using frequency of drinking. Percent days heavy drinking in the last year at baseline and the follow up period at six and 12 month follow up was estimated using frequency of drinking five or more per occasion divided by the frequency of drinking.

Alcohol problems

Alcohol problems during the last year at baseline and during the follow up period at six and 12 month follow up were measured using the Short Inventory of Problems (SIP; Miller et. al., 1995) plus six additional questions relating to injury, resulting in the SIP + 6 (Soderstrom, DiClemente, Dischinger, Hebel, McDuff, & Auman et al., 2007). The SIP is a 15-item, short version drawn from a larger instrument called the Drinker Inventory of Consequences (DrInC; Miller et al., 1995), which contains 50 items. The six additional items relating to injury were also drawn from the DrInC (Miller et al., 1995) and include driving a motor vehicle after having three or more drinks, getting into physical fights while drinking, being arrested for driving under the influence, having an accident while drinking or being intoxicated, having been physically hurt, injured or burned while drinking or being intoxicated, or injuring someone else while drinking or being intoxicated. Patients report the frequency of each problem using a four point Likert-type scale. Thus, the continuous measure is a composite score based on the number and frequency of alcohol problems in the last year or during the follow up period. Alcohol problems were measured at baseline, six and twelve month follow up (Miller et al., 1995). Higher scores indicate more alcohol-related problems.

Alcohol Abuse and Dependence

The operational definition of alcohol abuse and alcohol dependence was assessed at baseline using the Composite International Diagnostic Interview (CIDI). The alcohol abuse and dependence component of the CIDI is a comprehensive, fully structured diagnostic interview for the assessment of mental disorders which provides current diagnosis according to the fourth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual or DSM-IV (American Psychiatric Association, 1994). The paper and pencil CIDI can be administered by trained lay interviewers and is widely used in epidemiological investigations. The CIDI maps the symptoms elicited during the interview onto DSM-IV diagnostic criteria and, using a computerized algorithm, determines whether the diagnostic criteria are satisfied. The inter-rater reliability of the CIDI has been demonstrated to be excellent, the test-retest reliability good, and the validity has been demonstrated to be good, given the methodological constraints (Andrews & Peters, 1998). In addition, the alcohol component of the CIDI has been used in the emergency room setting to evaluate the specificity and sensitivity of various screening instruments (Cherpitel, 1995). Diagnosis of alcohol abuse and dependence in the past twelve months was determined at baseline. Determination of dependence status at six and twelve months was restricted to the follow up time period (i.e., last six months).

Treatment Utilization

Utilization of services associated with alcohol problems was assessed at six month and twelve month follow-up. At each follow up, participants were asked if they had used the following services within the last six months: 1) alcoholics anonymous 2) alcohol detox program 3) alcohol recovery home or residential program 4) outpatient program 5) drinking and driving program or other mandated education or 5) other type of services for alcohol problems.

2.4 Treatment as Usual with Assessment (TAU+) and Assessment with Brief Motivational Intervention (BMI)

Patients were randomized to either treatment as usual with assessment (TAU+) or an assessment with Brief Motivational Intervention (BMI) using a permuted block design (block size 6) to ensure approximately equal distribution of patients according to their race/ethnicity. To reduce interviewer bias, study clinicians were blinded to patient randomization prior to completion of the baseline assessment. All patients, regardless of treatment assignment received information regarding hospital and community services relevant to the injured patient. This information included, but was not limited to, substance abuse treatment and self help groups and the availability of drug and alcohol counselors. Information pertaining to hospital and community resources relevant to the care of injured patients was also provided. All patients were also provided handouts regarding the effects of alcohol, defition of at risk drinking and strategies to quite or cut down.

2.4.1 Treatment as Usual with Assessment (TAU+)

Following the initial assessment, all patients assigned to TAU+ were provided patient handouts. This was consistent with general practice for treating patients with alcohol problems at the Level 1 trauma center at the time the clinical trial was conducted.

2.4.2 Brief Motivational Intervention (BMI)

Brief Motivational Intervention (BMI) with injured patients has been described elsewhere (Dunn, Hungerford, Field, McCann, 2005; Field, Hungerford, Dunn, 2005). In short, brief intervention is based on motivational interviewing and the primary components consist of acknowledging the patients responsibility for changing drinking, encouraging the patient to explore pros and cons of drinking, assessing importance, confidence and readiness to change drinking behavior, reinforcing patient’s sense of self-efficacy, and providing support for any efforts or intention to quit drinking or reduce harm associated with drinking, including injury. Following BMI, patients were provided the handouts described above in a manner consistent with Motivational Interviewing (e.g., provided by request of the patient or with their permission).

2.4.3 Training and Supervision

Initial training for study clinicians consisted of a mix of didactic lectures, video examples and role play. Clinicians read the first eleven chapters of the Second Edition of Motivational Interviewing: Preparing People for Change by Miller and Rollnick (2002) and watched the training videos with the Study Psychologist, Dr Craig Field. All clinicians received 3 days of training in Motivational Interviewing from an experienced trainer in the Motivational Interviewing Network of Trainers. In addition, clinicians received two days of training regarding the application of Motivational Interviewing principles in the trauma care setting from an experienced trainer in the Motivational Interviewing Network of Trainers.

Clinicians were selected on the basis of their ability to achieve and maintain threshold proficiency in Motivational Interviewing as indicated by the Motivational Interviewing Skill Code v1.0 (MISC). The clinicians included students obtaining a Masters Degree in Public Health and licensed professional counselors. Successful completion of the certification process by study clinicians required submission of three audio taped interventions with clients which exceeded threshold proficiency as indicated by coding on the MISC. Following training, three procedures were used to monitor clinician performance: group supervision, coaching using direct observation and audio recording of interventions. Ten percent of interventions were randomly selected to be audio taped. Clinicians were required to submit an audio tape at least once per month. Remedial training and additional supervision was provided to clinicians who did not maintain threshold proficiency on the MISC. In all, 113 of the 736 interventions were taped and coded using the Motivational Interviewing Skill Code v1.0. The mean of the Global Therapist Rating (M=5.8, SE=.08), Reflection to Question Ratio (M=1.6, SE=.13), Percent Open Questions (M=.55, SE=..02), Percent Complex Reflections (M=.41, SE=..02) and Percent MI Consistent (M=.97, SE=1.3) behaviors counts were determined from the MISC ratings. With the exception of the percent of complex reflections, in which some audio tapes were below threshold proficiency (>40%), the means and 95% CI indicated that therapist behaviors were at or above the threshold or expert proficiency levels. There was no significant difference in the performance of BMI as measured by the MISC between degreed and non-degreed clinicians or those with training in psychology or other counseling field and those without.

2.5 Follow Up Assessment

Research staff blind to treatment assignment conducted follow up assessments by telephone at six and 12 months. The follow up assessments included the measurements of baseline alcohol use, alcohol problems, diagnosis of alcohol dependence and treatment utilization described above. Of the patients eligible for follow up, 77% completed a six month assessment and 66% completed a 12 month assessment. Hispanics (OR=.59, 95% CI=.43–.83) were less likely to complete 6 month follow up. There were no significant predictors of loss to follow up at 12 months.

2.6 Statistical Analysis

Longitudinal analyses were conducted using hierarchical linear modeling (HLM) of drinking outcomes with random effects for subject and time within subject. Analyses were carried out using HLM version 6.06 (Raudenbush & Bryk, 2002; Raudenbush et al., 2004). The primary outcomes of interest in this study were volume per week, maximum amount consumed in one day, percent days abstinent, alcohol problems and dependence status. Volume per week and maximum amount per occasion were log transformed. Analyses controlled for age, gender, ethnicity, employment status, marital status, education, type of injury and injury severity. HLM was used to model the effects of treatment, alcohol dependence an interaction between treatment and alcohol dependence and covariates of interest on change from baseline to the six and twelve month follow-up. With the exception of dependence status and treatment utilization, drinking outcomes were modeled using maximum likelihood. The logit function was used to model dependence status and treatment utilization at follow up which were binary outcomes. When a significant treatment effect was observed, effect sizes were calculated using changes in mean score from baseline to 6 months or from baseline to 12 months (Cohen, 1988; Rosnow & Rosenthal, 1996). The pooled standard deviation was calculated using the standard deviations for BMI and TAU+ of patients meeting criteria for alcohol dependence at baseline (Cohen, 1988; Rosnow & Rosenthal, 1996). Because the parent study indicated a significant interaction between brief motivational intervention and ethnicity, with Hispanics benefiting from the intervention, subsequent analysis controlled for this interaction. However, inclusion of this interaction did not influence the significance of the findings or their implications. As a result, the current study reports the effects of BMI among dependent and non-dependent drinkers without controlling for the interactions observed in the parent study.

3. Results

The patient population was predominately male (n= 1095, 82%), employed (n=917, 69%), currently single or never married (n=615, 46%) with an average age of 33 (SD=11). Approximately one third (n=455, 34%) of the current sample were Hispanic, 20% (n=264) were Black or and 46% (n=617) were White, non-Hispanic. Additionally, 37% (n=502) had less than a high school education and 36% (n=476) had a high school diploma or the equivalent. Forty four percent (n=588) of participants met criteria for alcohol dependence at baseline. An additional 9% (n=116) met criteria for alcohol abuse and 47% (n=1095) did not meet criteria for either alcohol dependence or alcohol abuse.

In comparison to patients that did not meet criteria for alcohol dependence, patients meeting criteria for alcohol dependence were more likely to be Hispanic (X2=14.5, p<.001), male (X2=7.5, p<.01), single or never married (X2=9.3, p<.01) with less than a high school education (X2=21.7, p<.0001). There was no significant difference in age, employment status or type of injury.

3.1 Volume per Week

Table 1a shows average volume per week for injured patients receiving BMI and TAU+ at 6 and 12 month follow up among those with and without a diagnosis of alcohol dependence. After controlling for age, gender, ethnicity, employment status, marital status, education, type of injury and injury severity, there was a significant interaction between BMI and alcohol dependence status at six and 12 month follow up (p=.03 and p=.02, respectively; Table 1b). Observed effect sizes among patients meeting criteria for alcohol dependence at baseline were d=−.07 at 6 months and d=−.17 at 12 months. Patients with alcohol dependence who received BMI reduced the average number of standard drinks per week from baseline to six and 12 month follow up by 11.9 (SD=34.1) and 12.2 standard drinks per week (SD=36), respectively. In contrast, observed effect sizes of BMI at six and 12 months among non-dependent drinkers were d=.02 and d=.03, respectively. Thus, the observed effect of BMI among non-dependent drinkers was in the opposite direction and reflected a small, although non-significant, increase from baseline in volume per week.

Table 1.

Table 1a Volume per week at Baseline and Follow up by treatment assignment and dependence status
BMI TAU+
Baseline 6 Months 12 Months Baseline 6 Months 12 Months
Dependent 25.3 (29.1) 11.7 (22.1) 12.9 (23.1) 27.0 (35.8) 14.7 (28.9) 17.5 (31.3)
Non-Dependent 8.2 (10.1) 7.3 (13.4) 8.4 (14.9) 8.1 (9.3) 7.2 (14.3) 7.8 (13.9)
Table 1b Volume Per Week*
6 months 12 months
Coefficient Std Error p value Coefficient Std Error p value
Brief Motivational Intervention .17 .16 .31 .16 .17 .35
Alcohol Dependence −.38 .18 .03† −.38 .19 .045†
Interaction between Brief Motivational Intervention and Dependence Status at Baseline −.56 .25 .03† −.63 .27 .02†
Open in a new tab
*

log normalized, controls for age, gender, ethnicity, employment status, marital status, education, type of injury and injury severity

†

p≤.05

‡

p≤.01

3.2 Maximum Amount

Table 2a shows the maximum amount consumed in one day for injured patients receiving BMI and TAU+ at 6 and 12 month follow up among those with and without a diagnosis of alcohol dependence. After controlling for age, gender, ethnicity, employment status, marital status, education, type of injury and injury severity, there was a significant interaction between BMI and alcohol dependence status at six months (p=.04; Table 2b). The observed effect size among patients meeting criteria for alcohol dependence at baseline was d=−.18 at 6 months. While no significant treatment effect was found for BMI among patients without alcohol dependence, the estimated effect at 6 months was d=−.10. Patients without alcohol dependence who received BMI reduced the maximum amount consumed by an average of 4.2 (SD=9.0) standard drinks from baseline to six months. In contrast, patients with alcohol dependence that received BMI reduced the maximum amount consumed by more than twice that amount (mean=8.5, SD=12.6 standard drinks).

Table 2.

Table 2a Maximum Amount at Baseline and Follow up by treatment assignment and dependence status
BMI TAU+
Baseline 6 Months 12 Months Baseline 6 Months 12 Months
Dependent 18.0 (13.0) 8.2 (8.4) 9.0 (9.7) 17.0 (11.1) 9.5 (9.1) 10.0 (8.9)
Non- Dependent 10.8 (7.7) 6.8 (7.5) 7.1 (7.4) 10.4 (6.9) 6.8 (7.5) 7.2 (7.0)
Table 2b Maximum Amount*
6 months 12 months
Coefficient Std Error p value Coefficient Std Error p value
Brief Motivational Intervention .02 .10 .81 −.04 .10 .66
Alcohol Dependence −.03 .11 .80 −.09 .11 .40
Interaction between Brief Motivational Intervention and Dependence Status at Baseline −.31 .15 .04† −.24 .16 .14
Open in a new tab
*

log normalized, controls for age, gender, ethnicity, employment status, marital status, education, type of injury and injury severity

†

p≤.05

‡

p≤.01

3.3 Percent Days Abstinent

Table 3a shows percent days abstinent for injured patients receiving BMI and TAU+ at 6 and 12 month follow up among those with and without a diagnosis of alcohol dependence. After controlling for age, gender, ethnicity, employment status, marital status, education, type of injury and injury severity, there was a significant interaction between BMI and alcohol dependence status at 12 months (p=.007; Table 3b). The observed effect size of BMI among patients meeting criteria for alcohol dependence at baseline was d=−.23 at 12 months. Patients with alcohol dependence who received BMI reported an additional 25. 6 days abstinent in comparison to patients with alcohol dependence who were assigned to TAU+ (65.7 days abstinent and 40.15 days abstinent, respectively). Although no significant treatment effect was observed among non-dependent drinkers, the effect size was d=.11. Patients without alcohol dependence who received TAU+ increased the average number of days abstinent by an average of 14.6 days per year at 12 month follow up. In contrast, patients without alcohol dependence who received BMI reported an average increase of 7.3 days abstinent over the one year follow up period. Thus patients without alcohol dependence assigned to TAU+ experienced more days abstinent than those who received BMI.

Table 3.

Table 3a Percent Days Abstinent at Baseline and Follow up by treatment assignment and dependence status
BMI TAU+
Baseline 6 Months 12 Months Baseline 6 Months 12 Months
Dependent 55% (33%) 74% (31%) 73% (31%) 53% (33%) 70% (33%) 64% (35%)
Non- Dependent 75% (25%) 80% (26%) 77% (28%) 75% (24%) 81% (26%) 79% (28%)
Table 3b Percent Days Abstinent*
6 months 12 months
Coefficient Std Error p value Coefficient Std Error p value
Brief Motivational Intervention −.02 .02 .68 −.04 .03 .14
Alcohol Dependence .11 .03 .0001‡ .06 .03 .03†
Interaction between Brief Motivational Intervention and Dependence Status at Baseline .03 .04 .50 .11 .04 .007‡
Open in a new tab
*

controls for age, gender, ethnicity, employment status, marital status, education, type of injury and injury severity

†

p≤.05

‡

p≤.01

3.4 Alcohol Problems

Table 4a shows the total number of alcohol problems for injured patients receiving BMI and TAU+ at 6 and 12 month follow up among those with and without a diagnosis of alcohol dependence. After controlling for age, gender, ethnicity, employment status, marital status, education, type of injury and injury severity, there was a significant interaction between BMI and alcohol dependence status at 12 months (p=.04; Table 4b). The observed effect size among patients meeting criteria for alcohol dependence at baseline was d=−.02 at 12 months. While no significant treatment effect was observed among non-dependent drinkers the estimated effect size was d=.10. Thus, patients without alcohol dependence who received BMI experienced an increase in the occurrence of alcohol problems as measured by the SIP+6 at twelve month follow up.

Table 4.

Table 4a Alcohol Problems at Baseline and Follow up by treatment assignment and dependence status
BMI TAU+
Baseline 6 Months 12 Months Baseline 6 Months 12 Months
Dependent 16.3 (14.2) 10.0 (14.5) 9.8 (13.5) 15.9 (14.0) 10.6 (14.3) 11.9 (15.5)
Non- Dependent 2.3 (3.8) 2.8 (7.1) 3.0 (6.8) 2.5 (4.0) 3.0 (8.6) 2.4 (6.0)
Table 4b Alcohol Problems
6 months 12 months
Coefficient Std Error p value Coefficient Std Error p value
Brief Motivational Intervention .28 .84 .74 .78 .85 .36
Alcohol Dependence −4.9 .91 .0001‡ −3.1 .93 .001‡
Interaction between Brief Motivational Intervention and Dependence Status at Baseline −.68 1.3 .60 −2.7 1.4 .04†
Open in a new tab
*

controls for age, gender, ethnicity, employment status, marital status, education, type of injury and injury severity

†

p≤.05

‡

p≤.01

3.5 Alcohol Dependence Status

Table 5a shows dependence status at 6 and 12 month follow up for injured patients receiving BMI and TAU+ with and without a diagnosis of alcohol dependence at baseline. After controlling for age, gender, ethnicity, employment status, marital status, education, type of injury and injury severity, patients with alcohol dependence who received BMI were significantly less likely to meet criteria for alcohol dependence at six month follow up (p=.005; Table 5b). Patients with alcohol dependence at baseline were .59 (95% CI=.39–.91) times less likely to meet criteria for alcohol dependence at six months. In contrast, patients without alcohol dependence at baseline were no less likely to report changes in alcohol dependence status (OR=.76, 95% CI=.46–1.27).

Table 5.

Table 5a Dependence Status at 6 and 12 month follow up*
6 Months 12 Months
Dependence Status at Baseline Dependence Status at Follow up TAU+ BMI TAU+ BMI
Dependent Dependent 83 (45) 60 (33) 78 (49) 56 (38)
Non-Dependent 100 (55) 122 (67) 82 (51) 89 (61)
Non- Dependent Dependent 42 (15) 29 (12) 35 (14) 34 (15)
Non- Dependent 235 (85) 213 (88) 219 (86) 187 (85)
Table 5b Dependence Status at Follow Up
6 months 12 months
Coefficient Std Error p value Coefficient Std Error p value
Brief Motivational Intervention −.62 .22 .005‡ −.34 .23 .13
Open in a new tab
*

frequency (% within treatment group)

*

controls for age, gender, ethnicity, employment status, marital status, education, type of injury and injury severity

†

p≤.05

‡

p≤.01

3.6 Treatment Utilization

At 6 and twelve month follow up, 149 (14.5%) and 135 (15.2%) participants, respectively, had sought specialized treatment or attended self-help groups for their alcohol problems. Throughout the entire twelve month follow up period, 199 (22.7%) participants sought help for their alcohol problems. A large majority of the patients who sought help attended Alcoholics Anonymous (67%). After controlling for age, gender, ethnicity, employment status, marital status, education, type of injury and injury severity, patients who received BMI were no more likely to seek services for alcohol problems. There was also no significant interaction between treatment assignment and dependence status at baseline.

4.0 Discussion

Contrary to implicit assumptions in the research literature and current clinical guidelines, the current study indicates that patients with alcohol dependence may be among the most appropriate candidates for brief intervention in the medical setting. While the effect of BMI varied across time, the impact of brief intervention among alcohol dependent patients was consistent across measures of alcohol use commonly associated with injury and other problems commonly associated with alcohol dependence. Thus, at least among injured patients, brief intervention may be most beneficial for patients with alcohol dependence. It may be that injured patients with alcohol dependence are more likely to be responsive to intervention following injury because they have already experienced a significant amount of problems as a result of their drinking. In contrast, the injury event itself in combination with screening and assessment may effectively reduce drinking and its associated problems among injured patients with less severe alcohol problems. These findings may seem counterintuitive given that one might assume that patients with more severe alcohol problems, those who are alcohol dependent, would require more intense treatment to change their drinking behavior. However, several reviews have observed that brief interventions are just as effective as more extended treatment (Bien et al, 1993; Moyer et al, 2002; Wilk et al, 1997). Given that the current investigation has significant implications for public health and clinical guidelines, the generalizability and consistency of current findings across patient populations and settings should be further evaluated.

Prior to this investigation, no studies have empirically evaluated the effectiveness of opportunistic brief interventions among alcohol dependent patients in the trauma care setting. As described in the introduction, previous findings have not focused on the effect of dependence status and the ancillary findings in these studies have been inconsistent (Gentilelo, 1999, Schermer, 2006, Guth, 2008). Guth (2008) specifically assessed the effects of dependence status on drinking outcomes in the primary care setting. Guth found no evidence that patients with alcohol dependence in the primary care setting realized any less benefit from brief intervention in terms of alcohol consumption. In contrast, the current study suggests that brief intervention significantly reduces alcohol consumption, alcohol problems and dependence status among injured patients meeting criteria for alcohol dependence at the time of the intervention. The setting in which brief intervention is provided may impact its effect. It is possible that in the absence of an emotionally salient event such as serious injury a brief intervention will not have a positive effect on drinking outcomes among dependent participants. It is also possible that the marked reduction in drinking and alcohol problems may be attributed to something other than the combined effects of intervention and the natural response to the injury event. For example, the observed effect might also be explained as regression to the mean among individuals with more severe problems. Given that the legal and financial pressures to underreport are probably greatest at the time of injury, regression to the mean seems to provide an inadequate explanation for the observed effects. Finally, there was no significant difference in treatment utilization at follow up which further suggests that the observed treatment effects is a function of the BMI rather than subsequent treatment or involvement in self help groups.

The results reported herein should be interpreted in light of the overrepresentation of alcohol dependent patients in the trauma care setting. For example, Cherpitel (1995) determined that 19% of injured patients met criteria for alcohol dependence. Soderstrom (1992) found that 67% of trauma patients who had a positive BAC met criteria for alcohol dependence and an additional 46% of those with a negative BAC also met dependence criteria (Soderstrom, 1992). Similarly, nearly half of all participants in the current study met DSM-IV criteria for alcohol dependence (Field, Caetano & Pezzia, 2008). Thus, screening procedures commonly employed in the trauma care setting are very likely to yield a relatively large proportion of patients with alcohol dependence. Both Guth (2008) and Saitz (2007) observed similarly high rates of alcohol dependence in the general medical setting (68% and 77%, respectively). Thus, the current results indicating that brief interventions can be effective with alcohol dependent patients hold considerable promise for application in other medical settings where a large proportion of identified patients have severe alcohol problems. Furthermore, the current findings may also help explain why some studies of the effectiveness of brief interventions that excluded injured patients with an indication of alcohol dependence have resulted in null findings (Soderstrom, 2007; Daeppen, 2007).

Although some alcohol-dependent individuals recover without treatment, many do not (Bischof et al., 2003; Dawson et al., 2005; Wang et al., 2005a). Moreover, participation in alcohol treatment is clearly associated with improved outcomes. For instance, Weisner et al. (2003) found clear benefits of treatment. Specifically, 30-day abstinence rates 1 year after baseline were 57% for the treatment sample and 12% for the population sample. Non-problematic drinking at follow-up also favored the treated sample (40% versus 23%). A recent examination of the NESARC data by Dawson et al. (2006) also suggests that treatment increases the chance of recovery among individuals with a diagnosis of alcohol dependence. More specifically, individuals who met the criteria for alcohol dependence in the last year and sought treatment were more likely to be classified as having recovered during the survey period than those who never sought help (45.7% versus 32.5%). Unfortunately, the prevalence of past year treatment use was merely 12% among respondents with a past year diagnosis (Cunningham, 2006). Individuals who both participated in 12-Step programs and received formal treatment had more than twice the increased likelihood of AR as those who received formal treatment only (Dawson, 2006). Brief intervention in the emergency department and trauma care setting may facilitate the recovery process. In the current study, a large majority of patients sought help through Alcoholics Anonymous. While those who attended AA attended nearly one meeting per week (results not shown), they were very unlikely to seek formal treatment. Thus, while a stepped care approach involving formal treatment followed by AA attendance may increase success among these patients, they were very unlikely to follow this path to recovery. Thus, there is a continued need to encourage people meeting criteria for alcohol dependence to seek formal treatment followed by involvement in AA. This may further improve outcomes among patients with severe alcohol problems. Active referral for formal treatment should continue to be a part of standardized brief interventions in the medical setting. While there is a continuing need to further evaluate the effectiveness of brief interventions across settings and patient populations, the assumption that brief intervention is either not effective or less effective for patients with an indication of alcohol dependence should not be a foregone conclusion in future studies.

Acknowledgments

Work on this paper was supported by a grant from the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (R01 013824; PI: Caetano) to the University of Texas School of Public Health

The lead author would like to acknowledge the support of the NIH Health Disparities Loan Repayment Program funded by the National Center of Minority Health and Health Disparities

Contributor Information

Craig A. Field, Email: Craig.field@austin.utexas.edu, Research Associate Professor, University of Texas at Austin, School of Social Work, Center for Social Work Research, Health Behavior Research and Training Institute, 1717 West 6thSt, Suite 295, Austin, TX 78703, Program Director, Behavioral Health Services, Screening and Brief Intervention, University Medical Center at Brackenridge, 601 E 6thSt, Austin, TX 78701

Raul Caetano, Professor of Epidemiology, University of Texas School of Public Health at Houston, Dallas Regional Campus, 5323 Harry Hines Blvd., V8.112, Dallas, Texas 75390-9128, Dean, Allied Health, UT Southwestern Medical Center at Dallas, 5303 Harry Hines Blvd, Dallas TX 75235.

References

  1. American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. 4. American Psychiatric Association; Washington, DC: 1994. [Google Scholar]
  2. Andrews G, Peters L. The psychometric properties of the Composite International Diagnostic Interview. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology. 1998;33:80–88. doi: 10.1007/s001270050026. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Babor TF. Avoiding the horrid and beastly sin of drunkenness: does dissuasion make a difference? J Consult Clin Psychol. 1994;62:1127–1140. doi: 10.1037//0022-006x.62.6.1127. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Bien TH, Miller WR, Tonigan JS. Brief interventions for alcohol problems: a review. Addiction. 1993;88:315–336. doi: 10.1111/j.1360-0443.1993.tb00820.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Bischof G, Rumpf HJ, Hapke U, Meyer C, John U. Types of natural recovery from alcohol dependence: a cluster analytic approach. Addiction. 2003;98:1737–1746. doi: 10.1111/j.1360-0443.2003.00571.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Burke BL, Arkowitz H, Dunn CW. The efficacy of motivational interviewing and its adaptations: What we know so far. In: Miller WR, Rollnick S, editors. Motivational interviewing: Preparing people for change. 2. New York: Guilford Press; 2002. [Google Scholar]
  7. Caetano R. Prevalence, incidence and stability of drinking problems among whites, blacks and Hispanics: 1984–1992. Journal of Studies on Alcohol. 1997;58:565–572. doi: 10.15288/jsa.1997.58.565. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Caetano R, Clark C. Trends in alcohol-related problems among whites, blacks, and Hispanics: 1984–1995. Alcohol Clin Exp Res. 1998;22:534–538. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Caetano R, Kaskutas LA. Changes in drinking patterns among whites, blacks and Hispanics: 1984–1992. Journal of Studies on Alcohol. 1995;56:558–565. doi: 10.15288/jsa.1995.56.558. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Cherpitel CJ. Alcohol and injury in the general population: data from two household samples. Journal of Studies on Alcohol. 1995;56:83–89. doi: 10.15288/jsa.1995.56.83. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Cherpitel CJ. Alcohol and casualties: comparison of county-wide emergency room data with the county general population. Addiction. 1995;90:343–350. doi: 10.1046/j.1360-0443.1995.9033434.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Cherpitel CJ. Alcohol, injury, and risk-taking behavior: data from a national sample. Alcohol Clin Exp Res. 1993;17:762–766. doi: 10.1111/j.1530-0277.1993.tb00837.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Cherpitel CJ, Bond J, Ye Y, Room R, Poznyak V, Rehm J, Peden M. Clinical assessment compared with breathalyser readings in the emergency room: concordance of ICD-10 Y90 and Y91 codes. Emerg Med J. 2005;22:689–695. doi: 10.1136/emj.2004.016865. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Cherpitel CJ, Ye Y, Bond J, Borges G. Causal attribution of alcohol and injury: a cross-national meta-analysis from ERCAAP. Alcohol Clin Exp Res. 2003;27:1805–1812. doi: 10.1097/01.ALC.0000095863.78842.F0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Chick J, Lloyd G, Crombie E. Counselling problem drinkers in medical wards: a controlled study. BMJ (Clin Res Ed) 1985;290:965–967. doi: 10.1136/bmj.290.6473.965. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Chisholm D, Rehm J, Van Ommeren M, Monteiro M. Reducing the global burden of hazardous alcohol use: A comparative cost-effectiveness analysis. J Stud Alcohol. 2004;65:782–793. doi: 10.15288/jsa.2004.65.782. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Clifford P, Maisto S. Subject reactivity effects and alcohol treatment outcome research. J Stud Alcohol. 2000;61:787–793. doi: 10.15288/jsa.2000.61.787. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Cohen J. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. 2. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum; 1988. [Google Scholar]
  19. Daeppen JB. A meta-analysis of brief alcohol interventions in emergency departments: few answers, many questions. Addiction. 2008;103(3):377–378. [Google Scholar]
  20. Daeppen JB, Gaume J, Bady P, Yersin B, Calmes JM, Givel JC, Gmel G. Brief alcohol intervention and alcohol assessment do not influence alcohol use in injured patients treated in the emergency department: a randomized controlled clinical trial. Addiction. 2007;102(8):1224–1233. doi: 10.1111/j.1360-0443.2007.01869.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Dawson DA. Methodological issues in measuring alcohol use. Alcohol Res Health. 2003;27(1):18–29. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Dawson DA, Grant BF, Stinson FS, Chou PS. Estimating the effect of help-seeking on achieving recovery from alcohol dependence. Addiction. 2006a;101(6):824–834. doi: 10.1111/j.1360-0443.2006.01433.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Dawson DA, Grant BF, Stinson FS, Chou PS. Maturing out of alcohol dependence: The impact of transitional life events. J Stud Alcohol. 2006b;67(2):195–203. doi: 10.15288/jsa.2006.67.195. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Dawson DA, Grant BF, Stinson FS, Chou PS, Huang B, Ruan WJ. Recovery from DSM IV alcohol dependence: United States, 2001–2002. Addiction. 2005;100(3):281–292. doi: 10.1111/j.1360-0443.2004.00964.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Dunn CW, DeRoo L, Rivara FP. The use of brief interventions adapted from motivational interviewing across behavioral domains: A systematic review. Addiction. 2001;96:1725–1742. doi: 10.1046/j.1360-0443.2001.961217253.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Dunn C, Hungerford DW, Field CA, McCann B. The stages of change: when are trauma patients truly ready to change? J Trauma. 59:S27–32. doi: 10.1097/01.ta.0000185298.24593.56. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Emmen MJ, Schippers GM, Bleijenberg G, Wollersheim H. Effectiveness of opportunistic brief interventions for problem drinking in a general hospital setting: systematic review. BMJ. 2004;328:318. doi: 10.1136/bmj.37956.562130.EE. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Factors associated with untreated remissions from alcohol abuse or dependence. Addictive Behaviors. 25:317–321. 834. doi: 10.1016/s0306-4603(98)00130-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Field CA, Hungerford DW, Dunn C. Brief motivational interventions: an introduction. J Trauma. 2005;59:S21–6. doi: 10.1097/01.ta.0000179899.37332.8a. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Field CA, O’Keefe G. Psychological and behavioral risk factors for traumatic injury: hospital based case control study. J Emerg Med. 2004;26(4):27–35. doi: 10.1016/j.jemermed.2003.04.004. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Fleming MF, Barry KL, Manwell LB, Johnson K, London R. Brief physician advice for problem alcohol drinkers - A randomized controlled trial in community-based primary care practices. JAMA. 1997;277(13):1039–1045. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. Fleming MF, Mundt MP, French MT, Manwell LB, Stauffacher EA, Barry KL. Brief physician advice for problem drinkers: Long-term efficacy and benefit-cost analysis. Alcohol Clin Exp Res. 2002;26:36–43. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  33. Gentilello LM, Rivara FP, Donovan DM, Jurkovich GJ, Daranciang E, Dunn CW, Villaveces A, Copass M, Ries RR. Alcohol interventions in a trauma center as a means of reducing the risk of injury recurrence. Ann Surg. 2001;230:473–480. doi: 10.1097/00000658-199910000-00003. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. Gentilello LM, Ebel BE, Wickizer TM, Salkever DS, Rivara FP. Alcohol interventions for trauma patients treated in emergency departments and hospitals: a cost benefit analysis. Ann Surg. 2005;241:541–550. doi: 10.1097/01.sla.0000157133.80396.1c. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  35. Grant BF, Dawson DA, Stinson FS, Chou SP, Dufour MC, Pickering RP. The 12-month prevalence and trends in DSM-IV alcohol abuse and dependence: United States, 1991–1992 and 2001–2002. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2004;74:223–234. doi: 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2004.02.004. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  36. Greenfield TK. Evaluating competing models of alcohol-related harm. Alcohol Clin Exp Res. 1998;22:S52–S62. doi: 10.1097/00000374-199802001-00008. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  37. Greenfield TK. Ways of measuring drinking patterns and the difference they make: Experience with graduated frequencies. Journal of Substance Abuse. 2000;12:33–49. doi: 10.1016/s0899-3289(00)00039-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  38. Havard A, Shakeshaft A, Sanson-Fisher R. Systematic review and meta-analyses of strategies targeting alcohol problems in emergency departments: interventions reduce alcohol-related injuries. Addiction. 2008;103(3):368–376. doi: 10.1111/j.1360-0443.2007.02072.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  39. Hettema J, Steele J, Miller WR. Motivational interviewing. Ann RevClin Psychol. 2005;1:91–111. doi: 10.1146/annurev.clinpsy.1.102803.143833. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  40. Hilton ME. A comparison of a prospective diary and two summary recall techniques for recording alcohol consumption. British Journal of Addiction. 1989;84:1085–1092. doi: 10.1111/j.1360-0443.1989.tb00792.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  41. Institute of Medicine. Broadening the Base of Treatment for Alcohol Problems: Report of a Study by a Committee of the Institute of Medicine, Division of Mental Health and Behavioral Medicine. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 1990. [Google Scholar]
  42. Kahn M, Wilson L, Becker L. Effectiveness of physician-based Interventions with problem drinkers. Canadian Medical Association Journal. 1995;152:851–859. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  43. Kaner EFS, Beyer F, Dickinson HO, et al. Effectiveness of brief alcohol interventions in primary care populations. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2007;(2):CD004148. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD004148.pub3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  44. Kaufman CR, Branas CC, Brawley ML. A population-based study of trauma recidivism. J Trauma. 1998;45:325–332. doi: 10.1097/00005373-199808000-00019. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  45. Longabaugh R, Woolard RE, Nirenberg TD, Minugh AP, Becker B, Clifford PR, Carty K, Sparadeo F, Gogineni A. Evaluating the effects of a brief motivational intervention for injured drinkers in the emergency department. J Stud Alcohol. 2001;62(6):806–816. doi: 10.15288/jsa.2001.62.806. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  46. Marin BV, Marin G, Perez-Stable EJ, Otero-Sabogal R, Sabogal F. Cultural differences in attitudes toward smoking: Developing messages using the theory of reasoned action. Journal of Applied Social Psychology. 1990;20:478–493. [Google Scholar]
  47. Marin BV, Marin G, Juarez R. Differences between Hispanics and non-Hispanics in willingness to provide AIDS prevention advice. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences. 1990;12:153–164. [Google Scholar]
  48. Marin BV, Marin G, Juarez RA, Sorenson JL. Intervention from family members as a strategy for preventing HIV transmission among intravenous drug users. Journal of Community Psychology. 1992;20(1):90–97. [Google Scholar]
  49. Marin BV, Perez-Stable EJ, Marin G, Sabogal F, Otero-Sabogal R. Attitudes and behaviors of Hispanic smokers: Implications for cessation interventions. Health Education Quarterly. 1990;17(3):287–297. doi: 10.1177/109019819001700305. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  50. Marin G. AIDS prevention among Hispanics: Needs, risk behaviors, and cultural values. Public Health Reports. 1989;104:411–415. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  51. Marin G. Expectancies for drinking and excessive drinking among Mexican Americans and non-Hispanic Whites. Addictive Behaviors. 1996;21(4):491–507. doi: 10.1016/0306-4603(96)85558-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  52. Marin G, Burhansstipanov L, Connell C, Gielen AC, Helitzer-Allen D, Lorig K, Morisky DE, Tenney M, Thomas S. A research agenda for health education among underserved populations. Health Education Quarterly. 1995;22(3):346–363. doi: 10.1177/109019819402200307. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  53. Marin G, Gamba RJ. Acculturation and changes in cultural values. In: Chun KM, Balls-Organista P, Marin G, editors. Advances in theory, measurement, and applied research. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association; 2003. [Google Scholar]
  54. Marin G, Marin BV, Otero-Sabogal R, Sabogal F, Perez-Stable E. The role of acculturation in the attitudes, norms, and expectancies of Hispanic smokers. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology. 1989;20:399–415. [Google Scholar]
  55. Marin G, Marin BV. Perceived credibility of channels and sources of AIDS information among Hispanics. AIDS Education and Prevention. 1990;2(2):154–161. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  56. Marin G, Marin MA. Differential perceptions of drinkers of alcoholic beverages by Mexican-Americans and non-Hispanic Whites. Substance Use and Misuse. 1997;32(10):1369–1384. doi: 10.3109/10826089709039383. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  57. Marin G, Posner SF, Kinyon JB. Alcohol expectancies among Hispanics and non-Hispanic Whites: roles of drinking status and acculturation. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences. 1993;15(3):373–381. [Google Scholar]
  58. McManus S, Hipkins J, Haddad P, Guthrie E, Creed F. Implementing an effective intervention for problem drinkers on medical wards. Gen Hosp Psychiatry. 2003;25:332–337. doi: 10.1016/s0163-8343(03)00073-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  59. Midanik LT. Comparing usual quantity/frequency and graduated frequency scales to assess yearly alcohol consumption: Results from the 1990 U.S. national alcohol survey. Addiction. 1994;89:407–412. doi: 10.1111/j.1360-0443.1994.tb00914.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  60. Miller WR, Rollnick S. Motivational Interviewing: Preparing People to Change. New York: Guilford Press; 2002. [Google Scholar]
  61. Miller WR, Tonigan JS, Longabaugh R. Project MATCH Monograph Series. Vol. 4. Rockville, MD: NIAAA; 1995. The Drinker Inventory of Consequences (DrInC): An instrument for assessing adverse consequences of alcohol abuse. DHHS Publication No. 95–3911. [Google Scholar]
  62. Moyer A, Finney JW, Swearingen CE, Vergun P. Brief interventions for alcohol problems: a meta-analytic review of controlled investigations in treatment-seeking and non-treatment-seeking populations. Addiction. 2002;97:279–292. doi: 10.1046/j.1360-0443.2002.00018.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  63. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) Traffic Safety Facts 1997: Alcohol. Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration; 1998. [Google Scholar]
  64. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism. A Guide to Sentencing DUI Offenders. Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration; 1996. [Google Scholar]
  65. National Institutes of Health. Helping Patients Who Drink Too Much: A Clinician’s Guide. Bethesda, MD: National Institutes of Health; 2005. [Google Scholar]
  66. Peterson J, Marin G. Issues in the prevention of AIDS among Black and Hispanic men. Amer Psych. 1988;43(11):871–877. doi: 10.1037//0003-066x.43.11.871. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  67. Posner SF, Marin G. Expectancies for driving under the influence of alcohol among Hispanics and non-Hispanic Whites. Substance Use and Misuse. 1996;31(4):409–421. doi: 10.3109/10826089609045818. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  68. Project MATCH Research Group. Matching alcoholism treatments to client heterogeneity: Project MATCH three-year drinking outcomes. Alcohol Clin Exp Res. 1998;21:1300–1311. doi: 10.1111/j.1530-0277.1998.tb03912.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  69. Raudenbush SW, Bryk AS. Hierarchical Linear Models: Applications and Data Analysis Methods. 2. Newbury Park, CA: Sage; 2002. [Google Scholar]
  70. Raudenbush SW, Bryk AS, Cheong YF, Congdon R. HLM 6: Hierarchical Linear and Nonlinear Modeling. Lincolnwood, IL: Scientific Software International; 2004. [Google Scholar]
  71. Rehm J, Room R, Graham K, Monteiro M, Gmel G, Sempos CT. The relationship of average volume of alcohol consumption and patterns of drinking to burden of disease: An overview. Addiction. 2003;98(9):1209–1228. doi: 10.1046/j.1360-0443.2003.00467.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  72. Rosnow RL, Rosenthal R. Computing contrasts, effect sizes, and counternulls on other people’s published data: General procedures for research consumers. Pyschological Methods. 1996;1:331–340. [Google Scholar]
  73. Sabogal F, Marin G, Otero-Sabogal R, Marin BV, Perez-Stable E. Hispanic familism and acculturation: What changes and what doesn’t? Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences. 1987;9:397–412. [Google Scholar]
  74. Saitz R. Unhealthy alcohol use. N Engl J Med. 2005;352:596–607. doi: 10.1056/NEJMcp042262. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  75. Saitz R, Palfai TP, Cheng DM, Horton NJ, Freedner N, Dukes K, Kraemer KL, Roberts MS, Guerrero RT, Samet JH. Brief intervention for medical inpatients with unhealthy alcohol use. Ann Intern Med. 2007;146:167–176. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-146-3-200702060-00005. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  76. Schermer CR, Moyers TB, Miller WR, Bloomfield LA. Trauma center brief interventions for alcohol disorders decrease subsequent driving under the influence arrests. J Trauma. 2006;60:29–34. doi: 10.1097/01.ta.0000199420.12322.5d. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  77. Sobell MB, Brochu S, Sobell LC, Roy J, Stephens JA. Alcohol treatment outcome evaluation methodology: State of the art 1980–1984. Addictive Behaviors. 1987;12:113–128. doi: 10.1016/0306-4603(87)90018-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  78. Soderstrom CA, Dischinger PC, Smith GS, McDuff DR, Hebel JR, Gorelick DA. Psychoactive substance dependence among trauma center patients. Journal of the American Medical Association. 1992;267:2756–2759. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  79. Soderstrom CA, DiClemente CC, Dischinger PC, Hebel JR, McDuff DR, Auman KM, Kufera JA. A controlled trial of brief intervention versus brief advice for at-risk drinking trauma center patients. J Trauma. 2007;62(5):1102–11. doi: 10.1097/TA.0b013e31804bdb26. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  80. Soderstrom CA, Smith GS, Dischinger PC, McDuff DR, Hebel JR, Gorelick DA, Kerns TJ, Ho SM, Read KM. Psychoactive substance use disorders among seriously injured trauma center patients. JAMA. 1997;277:1769–1774. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  81. Sutocky JW, Schultz JM, Kizer KW. Alcohol-related mortality in California, 1980 to 1989. American Journal of Public Health. 1993;83:817–823. doi: 10.2105/ajph.83.6.817. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  82. Trandis H, Marin G, Lasinsky J, Betancourt H. Simpatia as a cultural script of Hispanics. J Personality and Social Psych. 1984;47:1363–1375. [Google Scholar]
  83. US Preventive Services Task Force. Screening and behavioral counseling interventions in primary care to reduce alcohol misuse: recommendation statement. Ann Intern Med. 2004;140:554–556. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-140-7-200404060-00016. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  84. Waller JA. Management issues for trauma patients with alcohol. J Trauma. 1990;30:548–553. doi: 10.1097/00005373-199012000-00020. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  85. Wang PS, Berglund P, Olfson M, Pincus H, Wells KB, Kessler RC. Failure and delay in initial treatment contact after first onset of mental disorders in the National Co-morbidity Survey Replication. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2005;62:603–613. doi: 10.1001/archpsyc.62.6.603. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  86. Weisner C, Matzger H, Kaskutas LA. How important is treatment? One-year outcomes of treated and untreated alcohol-dependent individuals. Addiction. 2003;98:901–911. doi: 10.1046/j.1360-0443.2003.00438.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  87. Vasilaki EI, Hosier SG, Cox WM. The efficacy of motivational interviewing as a brief intervention for excessive drinking: a metaanalytic review. Alcohol. 2006;41:328–335. doi: 10.1093/alcalc/agl016. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  88. Whitlock EP, Polen MR, Green CA, Orleans T, Klein J. Behavioral counseling interventions in primary care to reduce risky/harmful alcohol use by adults: A summary of the evidence for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Ann Intern Med. 2004;140:557–568. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-140-7-200404060-00017. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  89. Wilk AI, Jensen NM, Havighurst TC. Meta-analysis of randomized control trials addressing brief interventions in heavy alcohol drinkers. Journal of General Internal Medicine. 1997;12:274–283. doi: 10.1046/j.1525-1497.1997.012005274.x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

RESOURCES