Community-based alcohol counselling: a randomized clinical trial.
Saved in:
| Title: | Community-based alcohol counselling: a randomized clinical trial. |
|---|---|
| Authors: | Shakeshaft, Anthony P. (AUTHOR), Bowman, Jenny A. (AUTHOR), Burrows, Sally (AUTHOR), Doran, Christopher M. (AUTHOR), Sanson‐Fisher, Rob W. (AUTHOR) |
| Source: | Addiction. Nov2002, Vol. 97 Issue 11, p1449-1463. 15p. 4 Charts. |
| Subjects: | Cognitive therapy, Alcoholism counseling |
| Geographic Terms: | Australia |
| Abstract: | Aims To examine the effectiveness of a brief intervention (BI) and cognitive behaviour therapy (CBT) for alcohol abuse. Design A randomized trial with clients randomized within counsellors. Setting Community-based drug and alcohol counselling in Australia. Participants Of all new clients attending counselling, 869 (82%) completed a computerized assessment at their first consultation. Four hundred and twentyone (48%) were defined as eligible, of whom 295 (70%) consented and were allocated randomly to an intervention. Of these, 133 (45%) were followed-up at 6 months post-test. Interventions BI comprised the elements identified by the acronym FRAMES: feedback, responsibility, advice, menu, empathy, self-efficacy. Face-to-face counselling time was not to exceed 90 minutes. CBT comprised six consecutive weekly sessions: introduction; cravings and urges; managing crises; saying 'no' and solving problems; emergencies and lapses; and maintenance. Total face-toface counselling time was 270 minutes (six 45-minute sessions). Measurements Treatment outcomes are measured in terms of counsellor compliance, client satisfaction, weekly and binge consumption, alcohol-related problems, the AUDIT questionnaire and cost-effectiveness. Findings When analysed on an intention-to-treat basis and for those followedup, treatment outcomes between BI and CBT were not statistically significantly different at pre- or post-test, whether considered as continuous or categorical variables. BI was statistically significantly more cost-effective than CBT and there was no difference between them in clients' reported levels of satisfaction. Conclusion For low-dependence alcohol abuse in community settings, BI may be the treatment of choice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
| Copyright of Addiction is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.) | |
| Database: | Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection |
|
Full text is not displayed to guests.
Login for full access.
|
|
| Abstract: | Aims To examine the effectiveness of a brief intervention (BI) and cognitive behaviour therapy (CBT) for alcohol abuse. Design A randomized trial with clients randomized within counsellors. Setting Community-based drug and alcohol counselling in Australia. Participants Of all new clients attending counselling, 869 (82%) completed a computerized assessment at their first consultation. Four hundred and twentyone (48%) were defined as eligible, of whom 295 (70%) consented and were allocated randomly to an intervention. Of these, 133 (45%) were followed-up at 6 months post-test. Interventions BI comprised the elements identified by the acronym FRAMES: feedback, responsibility, advice, menu, empathy, self-efficacy. Face-to-face counselling time was not to exceed 90 minutes. CBT comprised six consecutive weekly sessions: introduction; cravings and urges; managing crises; saying 'no' and solving problems; emergencies and lapses; and maintenance. Total face-toface counselling time was 270 minutes (six 45-minute sessions). Measurements Treatment outcomes are measured in terms of counsellor compliance, client satisfaction, weekly and binge consumption, alcohol-related problems, the AUDIT questionnaire and cost-effectiveness. Findings When analysed on an intention-to-treat basis and for those followedup, treatment outcomes between BI and CBT were not statistically significantly different at pre- or post-test, whether considered as continuous or categorical variables. BI was statistically significantly more cost-effective than CBT and there was no difference between them in clients' reported levels of satisfaction. Conclusion For low-dependence alcohol abuse in community settings, BI may be the treatment of choice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 09652140 |
| DOI: | 10.1046/j.1360-0443.2002.00199.x |
