View clinical trials related to Hazardous Drinking.
Filter by:There has been a significant increase in the prevalence of stress- and alcohol- related disorders during the COVID-19 pandemic. This project aims to conduct a feasibility study and examine the impact of stress including COVID-19 related stress on increasing risk of alcohol misuse and intervention outcome in risky social drinkers after a digital intervention.
The World Health Organization (WHO) defines three levels of problematic alcohol use; hazardous drinking (HD) (which puts a person at risk of developing health/social problems), harmful drinking (where health/social problems are already occurring), and alcohol dependence (where serious problems have already occurred). Although HD and harmful drinking affects a larger proportion of the population (and causes many more problems) than alcohol dependence, Indian health policy focuses mainly on institutional delivery of care for alcohol dependence. Extensive evidence globally demonstrates the effectiveness of Brief Interventions (BIs) in reducing drinking in HD. However, in India, barriers to providing such treatments are the inequitable distribution of trained healthcare professionals and concerns about the cultural generalisability of interventions developed in the West. Mobile phone technology like SMS (Short Messaging Service) and interactive voice response (IVR) can deliver BIs to large numbers of HDs, quickly and at low cost, as demonstrated in smoking cessation interventions. Furthermore, a growing body of evidence demonstrates that following a systematic methodology to culturally adapt psychosocial interventions increases acceptability by recipients and delivery agents, and feasibility of delivery. The overall objective of AMBIT is to develop a contextually appropriate BI for HD that can be delivered using mobile phone technology to overcome barriers to access in low resource settings. Preliminary formative research has informed the development of the first version of the treatment package, which was tested through a case series, by refining the intervention content and delivery through an iterative process, to develop the final intervention. This pilot Randomised Control Trial (RCT) will aim to empirically evaluate the feasibility and acceptability, as well as preliminary impact of the BI, and fine-tune the procedures for a definitive RCT. It therefore does not have clear hypotheses, but instead different primary objectives, which are listed in the following. OBJECTIVES 1. To assess the feasibility of delivering the mobile-based BI. 2. To assess the acceptability of delivering the mobile-based BI. 3. To inform sample size calculation (based on preliminary estimate of effectiveness) and refine procedures for a definitive RCT. 4. To refine the mobile-based BI package for a definitive RCT. 5. To assess the impact of the mobile-based BI, on treatment outcomes.
Despite recent improvements in the US economy, unemployment remains a significant concern, and estimates indicate that one-third of unemployed persons drink at hazardous levels, adversely impacting their health and abilities to find jobs. Reinforcement interventions are highly efficacious in reducing substance use, and they can be applied to increase job-seeking activities as well. In partnership with CT United Labor Agency, this project is designed to reduce hazardous drinking and enhance active participation in job-seeking activities among those with job loss. It will evaluate the independent and combined effects of reinforcing negative breathalyzer samples and job-seeking activities to ascertain the simplest and most cost-effective approach to improving outcomes in this population. Unemployed individuals with hazardous drinking (N = 280) will be randomly assigned to one of four conditions using a 2 x 2 design: standard care, standard care with reinforcement for submitting negative breathalyzer samples, standard care with reinforcement for job-seeking activities, or standard care plus reinforcement for both negative breathalyzer samples and job-seeking activities. Participants in all conditions will receive usual services part of CT United Labor Agency, along with a novel remote breath alcohol monitoring procedure. The study interventions will be in effect for three months, and participants will be followed for one year. Alcohol and other drug use, employment, psychiatric symptoms, and global measures of health will be assessed throughout treatment and follow-up. Reinforcing negative breathalyzer samples is expected to significantly reduce drinking, and reinforcing job-seeking activities is expected to increase re-employment rates and reduce time until job attainment. Reinforcing both negative breathalyzer samples and job-seeking activities is hypothesized to improve outcomes along both domains. The reinforcement interventions may also decrease psychiatric distress and slow progression of physical decline, common among the unemployed. If efficacious and cost-effective, results from this study may stimulate adoption of reinforcement interventions in the context of unemployment services. Reducing the adverse consequences of hazardous drinking and improving job re-entry may have pronounced benefits in a highly vulnerable segment of the US population.
Brief Interventions (BIs) for risky drinkers are an effective tool in primary care. Lack of time in daily practice has been identified as a barrier for the wide implementation of BI. There is growing evidence that e-health tools such as web based BIs can be an efficient alternative to standard face-to-face BIs and save time to general practitioners (GP). The main aim of this study is to test non-inferiority of a web based BI for risky drinkers against a traditional face to face BI delivered by a general practitioner. We have designed a randomised controlled non-inferiority trial comparing both interventions, to be performed in primary care health centres in Catalonia, Spain. Adults attending in primary care centres and willing to participate, will be invited to fill the short Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT-C) in a specific website. Those screening positive and who accept to share the baseline data with their GP will be invited to an online assessment of their drinking and randomized to a standard BI with their GP or to the online BI. Follow-up assessment will be conducted online at months 3 and 12, using the full Alcohol Use Disorder Identification Test (AUDIT) and the quality of life questionnaire (D5-EQD5). The main outcome will be the proportion of risky drinkers according to the AUDIT. Assuming a 30% reduction in the proportion of risky drinkers in the control group (classroom), allowing for an overall attrition of 10% of patients in the trial and non-inferiority assessed against a specified margin of 10%, it is estimated that 500 patients would be required in each group to give the test a 90% power (1-β) to reject the null hypothesis.
The purpose of this study is to test - in a workplace setting - if an online multi-session alcohol intervention improves treatment effect over and above a single session screening with feedback. Hypothesis: automated online multi-session follow-up improves the effect on alcohol consumption over and above a single session screening
The purpose of this study is to test whether an online multi session alcohol intervention improves treatment effect compared to single session screening with feedback only. All participants in the trial received a single session screening procedure including individualized normative feedback (usual care). Additionally, half of the participants received a simple online booklet about the effects of alcohol. The other half received an online multi session follow up program.
This study will determine whether a group cognitive-behavioral therapy intervention that demonstrates preliminary evidence of reducing alcohol use among HIV-infected outpatients in western Kenya is effective when compared against a group health education intervention in a large sample over a longer period of time. It will be delivered by paraprofessionals, individuals with limited formal education and little or no relevant professional experience. This approach is consistent with successful cost-effective models of service delivery in resource-limited settings in which paraprofessionals (e.g., clinical officers, traditional birth attendants and peer counselors) are trained.
This is a randomized clinical trial to examine the effects of a brief counseling intervention for heavy drinking HIV-infected men who have sex with men compared to HIV care as usual. The study tests the hypothesis that brief counseling will lower drinking in these patients and that reductions in drinking will be associated with better HIV-related outcomes.
The aim of the randomized controlled trial was to test two behavioral interventions among job-seekers with risky drinking. The interventions differed in their theoretical background: Intervention A was tailored to the stage of change, and Intervention B was non-stage-tailored. Over 12 months, job-seekers were pro-actively screened for risky drinking at three job-agencies. Job-seekers with risky drinking were asked to participate in the study. All three groups were assessed at baseline, and 3, 6 and 15 months later. The baseline assessment was self-administered using handheld computers. The follow-up assessments by interviews on the phone, primarily. Both intervention groups received individualized computer generated feedback letters at baseline and 3 months later.
The aim of this study is to investigate whether motivation-tailored alcohol interventions are more effective when delivered by person or by computer-generated feedback letters. A sample of 920 general hospital inpatients with risky drinking will be recruited through a computerized screening procedure. Patients with more severe alcohol problems will be excluded from the study. Participants will be allocated by time frame randomization to one of three study arms: (1) personal counseling based on Motivational Interviewing, (2) computer-expert system intervention that generates individualized feedback-letters, and (3) control group (treatment-as-usual). The interventions differ in their channel of delivery, but not regarding their content. Both intervention groups receive interventions at three time points: directly after the baseline-assessment at the general hospital, and 1 and 3 months later by mail and phone, respectively. Outcome will be assessed six, 12, 18 and 24 months after baseline.