Advertisement

International Journal of Clinical Pharmacy

, Volume 35, Issue 6, pp 1178–1187 | Cite as

Alcohol brief intervention in community pharmacies: a feasibility study of outcomes and customer experiences

  • Natasha S. Khan
  • Ian J. Norman
  • Ranjita Dhital
  • Paul McCrone
  • Peter Milligan
  • Cate M. WhittleseaEmail author
Research Article

Abstract

Background Studies indicate that community pharmacy-based alcohol brief intervention (BI) is feasible. However, few studies report significant reductions in post-BI alcohol consumption and customer experience. Cost-effectiveness has not been previously examined. Objectives This 5 month study adopted a single group pre- and post-experimental design to: (1) assess uptake of the community pharmacy alcohol BI service; (2) establish post-BI changes in alcohol consumption for hazardous drinkers; (3) report the acceptability of the service to customers who received it; and (4) undertake a preliminary economic evaluation of the service through establishing whether pharmacy-based alcohol BI affected health and social care costs, including lost employment costs, and whether it was cost-effective. Setting 26 community pharmacies in south London, UK. Method Trained pharmacists used the AUDIT-C and a retrospective 7-day Drinking Diary to identify risky drinkers and inform feedback and advice. Harmful drinkers were referred to their general practitioner and/or specialist alcohol services. A confidential service feedback questionnaire was completed by alcohol BI recipients. Baseline and 3-month follow-up telephone interviews were conducted with hazardous and low risk drinkers to assess post-BI alcohol use change and service cost-effectiveness. Main outcome measures AUDIT-C, 7-day alcohol unit consumption, drinking days, cost utilisation data. Results Of the 663 eligible customers offered alcohol BI, 141 (21 %) took up the service. Three-quarters of customers were identified as risky drinkers. Follow-up interviews were conducted with 61 hazardous/low risk drinkers (response rate = 58 %). Hazardous drinkers were found to significantly reduce their 7-day alcohol unit consumption and drinking days, but not AUDIT-C scores. The majority of harmful drinkers (91 %, n = 10) who were contactable post-BI had accessed further alcohol related services. Customer feedback was generally positive. Over 75 % of customers would recommend the service to others. The cost of delivering the service was estimated to be £134. The difference in service costs pre-BI and post-BI was not statistically significant and remained non-significant when calculated on 500 customers receiving the intervention. Conclusion Community pharmacy-based alcohol BI is a low cost service that may not have immediate beneficial impact on health and social service use, but can be effective in reducing drinking in hazardous drinkers.

Keywords

Alcohol Brief intervention Community pharmacy Cost-effectiveness Hazardous drinking Screening United Kingdom 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We thank the pharmacists, support staff and service users who contributed to this study and Dr Abu Mohiddin, NHS Lambeth, Public Health Directorate, Dr Karen Rosenbloom, King’s College London, Institute of Pharmaceutical Science and the King’s College London & Lambeth PCT Brief Intervention Service in Community Pharmacy Settings Steering Group for their input into the service evaluation design.

Funding

This service evaluation was funded by a New Services and Innovations in Healthcare grant by the Guy’s and St Thomas’ Charity.

Conflicts of interest

None.

References

  1. 1.
    Rehm J, Mathers C, Popova S, Thavorncharoensap M, Teerawattananon Y, Patra J. Global burden of disease and injury and economic cost attributable to alcohol use and alcohol-use disorders. Lancet. 2009;373(9682):2223–33.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Babor TF, Higgins-Biddle JC. Brief intervention for hazardous and harmful drinking: a manual for use in primary care. Geneva: World Health Organisation; 2001.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Alcohol-use disorders: preventing the development of hazardous and harmful drinking. London: National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. 2010. Available at: http://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/PH24. Accessed 1 July 2013.
  4. 4.
    Kaner EF, Dickinson HO, Beyer FR, Campbell F, Schlesinger C, Heather N, et al. Effectiveness of brief interventions in primary care populations. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2007, Issue 2. Art. No.: CD004148. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD004148.pub3.
  5. 5.
    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(3):279–92.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Purshouse RC, Brennan A, Rafia R, Latimer NR, Archer RJ, Angus CR, et al. Modelling the cost-effectiveness of alcohol screening and brief interventions in primary care in England. Alcohol Alcohol. 2013;48(2):180–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Solberg LI, Maciosek MV, Edwards NM. Primary care intervention to reduce alcohol misuse. Ranking its health impact and cost effectiveness. Am J Prev Med. 2008;34(2):143–52.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Nilsen P. Brief alcohol intervention—where to from here? Challenges remain for research and practice. Addiction. 2010;105(6):954–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Department of Health. Choosing health through pharmacy—a programme of pharmaceutical public health 2005–2015. London: The Stationery Office; 2005.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    NHS Future Forum. NHS Future Forum: summary report—second phase. London: Department of Health, 2012. Available at: http://www.dh.gov.uk/prod_consum_dh/groups/dh_digitalassets/documents/digitalasset/dh_132085.pdf. Accessed 1 July 2013.
  11. 11.
    National Audit Office. Health resource allocation: a briefing for the House of Commons Health Select Committee. London: The Stationery Office, 2010. Available at: http://www.nao.org.uk/publications/1011/health_resource_allocation.aspx. Accessed 1 July 2013.
  12. 12.
    Dhital R. Feasibility and usefulness of setting up an alcohol screening service in community pharmacy [MSc dissertation]. London: University College London; 2004.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Dhital R, Whittlesea CM, Norman IJ, Milligan P. Community pharmacy service users’ views and perspectives of alcohol screening and brief intervention. Drug Alcohol Rev. 2010;29(6):596–602.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Fitzgerald N, McCaig DJ, Watson H, Thomson D, Stewart DC. Development, implementation and evaluation of a pilot project to deliver interventions on alcohol issues in community pharmacies. Int J Pharm Pract. 2008;16(1):17–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Sheridan J, Stewart J, Smart R, McCormick R. Risky drinking among community pharmacy customers in New Zealand and their attitudes towards pharmacist screening and brief interventions. Drug Alcohol Rev. 2012;31(1):56–63.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Dhital R, Greene R, Lovejoy A. Feasibility of an alcohol screening service in a community pharmacy. Int J Pharm Pract. 2005;13(Suppl 1):R84.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Dhital R. Alcohol screening and brief intervention by community pharmacists: benefits and communication methods. J Commun Healthc. 2008;1(1):20–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Saunders JB, Aasland OG, Babor TF, de la Fuente JR, Grant M. Development of the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT): WHO collaborative project on early detection of persons with harmful alcohol consumption-II. Addiction. 1993;88(6):791–804.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Watson MC, Blenkinsopp A. The feasibility of providing community pharmacy-based services for alcohol misuse: a literature review. Int J Pharm Pract. 2009;17(4):199–205.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Fitzgerald N, Stewart D. Drinking interventions in pharmacies study (DIPS). Aberdeen: School of Pharmacy, Robert Gordon University, 2006. Available at: http://alcoholresearchuk.org/downloads/finalReports/AERC_FinalReport_0038.pdf. Accessed 1 July 2013.
  21. 21.
    Hodgson R, Alwyn T, John B, Thom B, Smith A. The fast alcohol screening test. Alcohol Alcohol. 2002;37(1):61–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Barbosa C, Godfrey C, Parrott S. Methodological assessment of economic evaluations of alcohol treatment: what is missing? Alcohol Alcohol. 2010;45(1):53–63.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Dhital R, Whittlesea CM, Milligan P, Khan NS, Norman IJ. The impact of training and delivering alcohol brief intervention on the knowledge and attitudes of community pharmacists: a before and after study. Drug Alcohol Rev. 2013;32(2):147–56.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Bush K, Kivlahan DR, McDonell MB, Fihn SD, Bradley KA. The AUDIT alcohol consumption questions (AUDIT-C): an effective brief screening test for problem drinking. Arch Intern Med. 1998;158(16):1789–95.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Bradley KA, DeBenedetti AF, Volk RJ, Williams EC, Frank D, Kivlahan DR. AUDIT-C as a brief screen for alcohol misuse in primary care. Alcohol Clin Exp Res. 2007;31(7):1208–17.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Gordon AJ, Maisto SA, McNeil M, Kraemer KL, Conigliaro RL, Kelley ME, et al. Three questions can detect hazardous drinkers. J Fam Pract. 2001;50(4):313–20.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Reinert DF, Allen JP. The alcohol use disorders identification test: an update of research findings. Alcohol Clin Exp Res. 2007;31(2):185–99.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Beecham JK, Knapp MRJ. Costing psychiatric interventions. In: Thornicroft G, Brewin C, Wing JK, editors. Measuring mental health needs. London: Gaskell; 1992. p. 163–83.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    World Health Organization. The drink-less program. Available at: http://www.sswahs.nsw.gov.au/sswahs/Drinkless/. Accessed 1 July 2013.
  30. 30.
    Drinkaware. Unit & calorie calculator. Available at: https://resources.drinkaware.co.uk/unit-calorie-calculator. Accessed 1 July 2013.
  31. 31.
    Department of Health. Units and You. London: Crown copyright, 2008. Available at: http://www.dh.gov.uk/prod_consum_dh/groups/dh_digitalassets/documents/digitalasset/dh_085427.pdf. Accessed 1 July 2013.
  32. 32.
    Curtis L. Unit costs of health and social care 2009. Canterbury: Personal Social Services Research Unit; 2010.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Kaner E, Bland M, Cassidy P, Coulton S, Dale V, Deluca P, et al. Effectiveness of screening and brief alcohol intervention in primary care (SIPS trial): pragmatic cluster randomised controlled trial. BMJ. 2013;346:e8501. doi: 10.1136/bmj.e8501.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Brotons C, Bulc M, Sammut MR, Sheehan M, da Silva Martins CM, Björkelund C, et al. Attitudes toward preventive services and lifestyle: the views of primary care patients in Europe. The EUROPREVIEW patient study. Fam Pract. 2012;29(Suppl 1):i168–76.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Watson MC, Stewart DC, Inch J, Jaffray M, Duncan E, Afolabi E. Screening and brief interventions for alcohol misuse delivered in the community pharmacy setting: a pilot study (2011). Available at: http://www.cso.scot.nhs.uk/Publications/ExecSumms/JuneJuly11/WatsonPH.pdf. Accessed 1 July 2013.
  36. 36.
    Mdege ND, Chindove S. Effectiveness of tobacco use cessation interventions delivered by pharmacy personnel: a systematic review. Res Soc Adm Pharm. 2013;. doi: 10.1016/j.sapharm.2013.04.015.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Jonas DE, Garbutt JC, Amick HR, Brown JM, Brownley KA, Council CL, et al. Behavioral counseling after screening for alcohol misuse in primary care: a systematic review and meta-analysis for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Ann Intern Med. 2012;157(9):645–54.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Heather N. The case for extended brief interventions. Zdrav Var. 2012;50(1):1–11.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Davis CG, Thake J, Vilhena N. Social desirability biases in self-reported alcohol consumption and harms. Addict Behav. 2010;35(4):302–11.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Booth-Kewley S, Larson GE, Miyoshi DK. Social desirability effects on computerized and paper-and-pencil questionnaires. Comput Hum Behav. 2007;23(1):463–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Tourangeau R, Yan T. Sensitive questions in surveys. Psychol Bull. 2007;133(5):859–83.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Koninklijke Nederlandse Maatschappij ter bevordering der Pharmacie 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Natasha S. Khan
    • 1
  • Ian J. Norman
    • 2
  • Ranjita Dhital
    • 2
  • Paul McCrone
    • 3
  • Peter Milligan
    • 4
  • Cate M. Whittlesea
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.King’s Health Partners, Pharmaceutical Science Clinical Academic Group, Institute of Pharmaceutical ScienceKing’s College LondonLondonUK
  2. 2.Florence Nightingale School of Nursing and MidwiferyKing’s College LondonLondonUK
  3. 3.Department of Health Service and Population Research, Institute of PsychiatryKing’s College LondonLondonUK
  4. 4.School of Biomedical SciencesKing’s College LondonLondonUK

Personalised recommendations