Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
9 The Community Role: Identification, Brief Intervention, and Referral In responding to the fundamental questions raised in the first section of this report, the committee has developed the premises on which its discussion of treatment for alcohol problems is based. Among these is a definition of the target population of the treatment enterprise that includes not only those who manifest the more severe sorts of alcohol problems but those with less severe problems. Indeed, as noted in Chapter 1, the target population for treatment comprises all who experience or who are likely to experience any sort of problem arising in connection with their use of beverage alcohol. Another premise, as noted in Chapter 2, is a definition of treatment that includes not only the therapeutic activities of those who specialize exclusively in dealing with individuals manifesting alcohol problems but any activity which has to do with the reduction of alcohol consumption and its consequences in members of the target population. Most of the balance of this report focuses on the management of more severe alcohol problems in the specialized treatment sector. In this chapter, however, the focus is upon the other end of the spectrum. Perhaps because of the historical development of the field (see the Introduction and Summary), which reflects the natural tendency to divert the lion's share of initial attention to the most obvious problems, less is known about effective ways to deal with alcohol problems of lesser magnitude. A recent review has described this effort as being "still in its early stages (Babor et al., 1987a). Nevertheless, dealing with mild and moderate alcohol problems is of great importance even at present and is likely to become even more important as further knowledge develops. It is the view of the committee that the appropriate location for the effort directed at mild and moderate problems lids not within the specu~lized treatment sector but within community agencies that provide general services to various populafior~s. The specialized treatment sector most appropriately addresses itself to substantial or severe alcohol problems; thus a collaborative effort between community agencies and the specialized treatment sector is required in order to have a significant positive impact upon the broad spectrum of alcohol problems. In this effort the role of community agencies in the treatment of alcohol problems is threefold. First, it involves the identification of individuals with alcohol problems. Second, it involves the provision of therapeutic attention in the form of brief intervention to those with mild or moderate alcohol problems. Third, it involves the referral of those with substantial or severe problems, or those for whom brief intervention does not suffice, to the specialist sector for therapeutic attention. The reasons for this approach and the manner in which it might be undertaken are the subjects of this chapter. An Orientation to the Community Role in Treatment To orient the reader the committee offers a simple diagram of its view of the spectrum of interventions for alcohol problems (Figure 9-1) (Skinner, 1988~. The area included within the triangle represents the general population. On the right the apex of the triangle represents that proportion of the population with substantial or severe alcohol problems, for whom specialized treatment is appropriate. (Dotted lines are used to indicate that such categorical distinctions, although useful, are not to be considered as hard and fast distinctions in the real world.) 211
212 BROADENING TEIE BASE OF TREATMENT FOR ALCOHOL PROBLEMS On the left of the diagram the base of the triangle represents those persons in the population who do not manifest alcohol problems. Primary prevention is shown as being directed principally toward this segment of the population; it was defined in a recent review as "policies or programs that affect whole (or substantial parts of) communities with the ALCOHOL PROBLEMS Primary Mild Moderate ~Intervention Prevention FIGURE 9-1 A spectrum of responses to alcohol problems. The triangle represents the population of the United States, with the spectrum of alcohol problems experienced by the population shown along the upper side. Responses to the problems are shown along the lower side (based on Skinner, 1988). In general, specialized treatment is indicated for persons with substantial or severe alcohol problems; brief intervention is indicated for persons with mild or moderate alcohol problems; and primary prevention is indicated for persons who have not had alcohol problems but are at risk of developing them. The dotted lines extending the arrows suggest that both primary prevention and brief intervention may have effects beyond their principle target populations. The prevalence of categories of alcohol problems in the population is represented by the area of the triangle occupied; most people have no alcohol problems, many people have a few alcohol problems, and some people have many alcohol problems. intention of reducing the incidence of problems experienced by individuals (Moskowitz, 1989:54~. The dotted portion of the primary prevention line indicates that, although primary prevention activities are directed toward the population of individuals without alcohol problems (represented by the solid portion of the line) and are designed to prevent them from developing such problems, they nevertheless have important effects on individuals who have already developed problems. Such programs tend to Operate generally throughout the society . . . drinkers in many patterns of consumption are affected" (Moore and Gerstein, 1981:53-54~. For example, primary prevention measures that are taken to reduce the supply of alcohol are principally intended to keep those without problems from developing them. Yet such measures will also tend to reduce the consumption of other drinkers, including drinkers with varying kinds of alcohol problems (cf. Popham et al., 1975~. Although
THE COMMUNITY ROLE: IDENTIFICATION, BRIEF INTERVENTION, & REFERRAL 213 primary prevention is of great interest and concern, it has been extensively considered in a recent report detailing a research agenda for this important area (IOM, 1989) and will not receive major emphasis here. The middle section of the triangle represents persons who exhibit mild or moderate alcohol problems. "Brief intervention" is the term used (in Figure 9-1 and in this report) to designate those activities that are employed to deal with this group; what these activities might consist of will be discussed further below. The objective of brief intervention is to reduce or eliminate the individual's alcohol consumption in a timely and efficient manner, with the goal of preventing the consequences of that consumption. Other terms that are generally synonymous include Secondary prevention" (to contrast with primary prevention efforts directed at noncases and tertiary prevention efforts directed at severe cases), "early intervention," and "prompt intervention." Although directed toward persons who manifest mild or moderate alcohol problems, brief intervention approaches also have some significance for those with more serious problems (indicated by the dotted line for brief intervention in the diagram). Most persons who experience substantial or severe alcohol problems neither seek nor receive formal treatment for them. Current information suggests that, at minimum, this statement applies in North America to four out of live such individuals (Hingson et al., 1982; McEvoy et al., 1987), though figures from older studies have been even higher (Baekeland and Lundwall, 1977; Smart et al., 1980~. Similar findings have been reported outside of North America in a variety of settings, suggesting that problems of the availability of service are not a ~ ~ A. _ ~ _ _ ._ _ _ ~ _ ~ ~ _ _ _ . ~ ~ _ ~ significant cause of the general failure of such individuals to seek treatment (see Appendix C). The principal reason for not seeking treatment even in the face of substantial or severe alcohol problems seems to be a belief that such problems do not require assistance and will take care of themselves (Hingson et al., 1982; McEvoy et al., 1987~. The persis- tence of such a belief, together with additional factors including the denial of problems and the stigma that an individual may perceive as being attached to his or her identification as someone with alcohol problems and to the seeking of treatment, may result in the continuing failure of many persons with substantial or severe alcohol problems to seek specialized treatment. A broadly based program of brief intervention, appropriately situated, can be viewed as in some measure responsive to this need. Many of those who have substantial or severe alcohol problems but do not seek treatment for them will nevertheless seek assistance for other problems of many kinds that may be either related or unrelated to their consumption of alcohol. In this process they will come into contact with a variety of health, social services, and other community agencies. While ideally such persons upon being identified would accept referral to the specialized treatment sector, some proportion in fact will not do so. The availability of brief intervention within the community agency itself would assure that at least a degree of therapeutic attention is provided to these individuals and to their problems. In this introductory section, the committee has provided, through a diagram and its accompanying text, an overview of what it believes might constitute the community role in treatment. Details of this role and how it might be implemented are provided below. First, however, the committee considers it necessary to indicate why the community role in treatment is of fundamental importance in the overall response to alcohol problems. A Paradox and Its Implications Let us return to Figure 9-1 and examine an aspect of it that has not yet been fully elaborated. As noted earlier, that portion of the population manifesting substantial or severe alcohol problems is represented on the right by the apex of the triangle. On the
214 BROADENING THE BASE OF TREATMENT FOR ALCOHOL PROBLEMS left are those with no problems, and in the center, those with mild or moderate problems. Simple inspection suggests that the number of persons in each category declines as one moves from left to right in the diagram, with the smallest number of persons being in the substantial or severe problems portion of the diagram. What the diagram suggests is that most people have no alcohol problems, many people have some alcohol problems, and a few people have many alcohol problems. This suggestion has a substantial basis in empirical data. A national survey carried out more than 20 years ago (in 1964-1965 and 1967) on a carefully drawn household probability sample (Cahalan, 1970) looked in detail at specific alcohol problems. The survey found, first, that during the 3 preceding years, 57 percent of the men and 79 percent of the women in the study reported having none of the eleven actual or potential problems specifically asked about in the survey questionnaire. Second, 43 percent of the men and 21 percent of the women reported having some degree of one or more of these problems. Third, 28 percent of the men and 17 percent of the women had experienced a moderate level of problems. Fourth, 15 percent of the men and 4 percent of the women had experienced a high level of problems. These data are consistent with the general shape of the diagram and are substantiated by the most recent version of the same survey (Hilton, 1987), which was again conducted on a nationwide sample. In this survey, however two kinds of "drinking problems" were separately examined. One was "problematic drinking," which "consists of a set of drinking behaviors and immediate sequelae of drinking which, although not necessarily problematic in themselves, are thought to be indicative of alcohol dependence" (cf. the discussion of the alcohol dependence syndrome in Chapter 2~. Examples included the inability to cut down on drinking, memory loss or tremors after drinking, and morning or binge drinking. The second kind of drinking problems surveyed was "tangible consequences," that is, "specific problems that can arise because of drinking." Examples included problems with one's spouse, problems on the job, problems with the police, and health problems. The 1984 survey specifically asked about 13 items of "problematic drinking and 32 "tangible consequences." All items of the earlier survey are included in the later survey, but the list in the later survey is obviously considerably expanded. In the committee's somewhat broader definition, all 45 of the items surveyed would be considered to be indicative of alcohol problems. Although the two categories in the survey are separately reported, both manifest the type of distribution indicated by Figure 9-1. Thus, 20 percent of current drinkers endorsed one or more "problematic drinking items; 11 percent endorsed two or more; 7 percent, three or more; 4 percent, four or more; 3 percent, five or more, and 2 percent, six or more. Similarly, 21 percent endorsed one or more "tangible consequences" items; 15 percent endorsed two or more; 10 percent, four or more; 7 percent, six or more; 5 percent, 8 or more; 3 percent, 12 or more; and 1 percent, 16 or more (Hilton, 1987~. These data indicate that the form of the diagram has held relatively constant over the last two decades in terms of the nation as a whole. Some additional data reflect that this tendency may hold for local samples as well. In a household probability sample of the population in Contra Costa County, California, in 1987, a total of 1,980 persons was asked to respond specifically to 10 "alcohol related problematic events," a combination of what were called in the Hilton survey "problematic drinking and "tangible consequences items. It was found that 96 percent of the respondents had experienced none of these consequences in the last year; 3 percent had experienced one consequence; and 1 percent had experienced two consequences (C. M. Weisner, Alcohol Research Group, University of California, Berkeley, personal communication, May, 1989~. A hazard of citing such data as the foregoing is that figures will be taken out of context to calculate an exact number of persons with alcohol problems for the country at
THE COMMUNITY ROLE: IDENTIFICATION, BRIEF INTERVENTION, & REFERRAL 215 large. The committee could preclude this error only by not citing the data, but it considers the information to be relevant to this study. Perhaps the best course is to repeat a caution voiced by one of the principal researchers in this field: The problem distributions . . . are quite gradual. The gradient between drinkers with few problems and those with many is such that the data themselves never suggest a convenient, empirically derived dividing line that can be used to separate problematic from nonproblematic drinkers. Instead, analysts must rely on arbitrarily chosen cutpoints and prevalence estimates will vary accordingly. Given this state of affairs, it must be recognized that it is not possible to give a simple answer to the question "What is the prevalence of problem drinking in the United States?" on the basis of survey data. The answer depends heavily on the cutpoints that are chosen. (Hilton, 1987:171) Data on other parameters are also consistent with the diagram. For example, in an examination of alcohol consumption based on seven national surveys, it was found that 35 percent of the population were abstainers, 32 percent light drinkers (up to three drinks weekly), 22 percent moderate drinkers (up to two drinks daily), and only 11 percent were heavy drinkers (more than two drinks daily). The authors observed: "lilt is remarkable how much of the population either is completely abstinent or drinks very little. We calculate that close to two-thirds of the adult population drinks three or fewer drinks per week" (Moore and Gerstein, 1981:28~. They go on to comment on alcohol problems as follows: While chronic drinkers with high consumption both cause and suffer far more than their numerical share of the adverse consequences of drinking, their share of alcohol problems is still only a fraction typically less than half-of the total. Alcohol problems occur throughout the drinking population. They occur at lower rates but among much greater numbers as one moves from the heaviest drinkers to more moderate drinkers. (Moore and Gerstein, 1981:44; emphasis in the original) Thus far, perhaps, there is nothing here that is counterintuitive. To put it simply, people who drink a lot have many problems, but few people drink a lot. People who only drink a little have fewer problems, but there are a great many people who drink a little. Therefore, the total number of problems experienced by those who drink a little is likely to be greater than the total number experienced by those who drink a lot, simply because more people drink a little than a lot. What does tend to be surprising is the logical implication of this distribution of alcohol problems for intervention. If the alcohol problems experienced by the population are to be reduced signif~cant0, the distribution of these problems in the population suggests that a principal focus of intervention should be on persons with mild or moderate alcohol problems. That such a focus may be advisable has been termed "the preventive paradox" (Kreitman, 1986~. What seems paradoxical is that the focus of efforts to reduce alcohol problems has characteristically been only on those who manifested many of them, that is, on the heavy drinkers who experience multiple consequences of their drinking. Those often labeled "chronic alcoholics" are commonly seen as the source of the burden of alcohol problems, and it is difficult and somewhat puzzling to be asked to shift one's gaze away from this more troubled population, and to concentrate on a less apparent, albeit more familiar, group.
216 BROADENING THE BASE OF TREATMENT FOR ALCOHOL PROBLEMS In health care generally, however, it is not exclusively the major problems that must be dealt with, even though they may be the more immanently hazardous. It has been said of dermatological conditions, for example, that although they may not immediately threaten life, they may make it not worth living. Moreover, there is evidence from a field related to the treatment of alcohol problems, that of smoking cessation, that effective brief interventions can be mounted in a cost-effective manner (Cummings et al., 1989~. Reference to the vignettes at the beginning of Chapter 2 may help to illustrate the potential utility of identification, brief intervention, and referral in dealing with alcohol problems of less than the greatest degree of severity or with those which arise from relatively low levels of consumption. George, a college freshman pledging a fraternity, becomes intoxicated and suffers a broken pelvis as a consequence of an auto accident. Characteristically a low-level consumer of alcohol, he is young (aged 19) and was drinking under the pressure of social conformity; certainly he may "mature out" of his drinking, and it would be difficult to argue that specialized treatment for alcohol problems is indicated. On the other hand, he may not Mature out" of his present drinking pattern. An auto accident and a broken pelvis are matters of no small concern; and even if George's overall level of consumption remains low, another episode of intoxication could produce further serious trauma, especially if it occurred while driving or boating. He is unlikely to be referred for court action with respect to driving while intoxicated, but if this did happen the appropriateness and effectiveness of the intervention could be questioned. Yet some level of attention, albeit short of specialized treatment, would be prudent. Sally, a young lady with a long-term speech impediment, has begun a pattern of regular drinking because she feels alcohol reduces her disability in some way. Although she initially disliked alcohol, she is beginning to find her drinking gratifying. Being both young and female, she is (on a statistical basis) more likely than George to "mature out." Yet she is already drinking regularly, drinking to cope with a problem, and under the influence of alcohol while working. Again, although specialized treatment for alcohol problems does not seem in order presently, some kind of helpful approach seems to be indicated. Should this initial intervention prove to be ineffective, and should the problems persist or worsen, referral for specialized treatment may indeed be indicated. Gregory has a very low level of consumption: approximately two drinks in his lifetime. Yet a consequence of his having taken those drinks, as well as other probable factors, is that he is now in jail for murder. Although they may seem excessive, the constellation of symptoms he exhibited has frequently been described (e.g., Banay, 1944; May and Ebaugh, 1953; Marinacci, 1963; Bach-y-Rita et al., 1970; Skelton, 1970; Maletzly, 1976, 1978; Cold, 1979; Wolf, 1980~. Little is known of the precise etiology of what has often been referred to as "pathological intoxication" (or, in the current American nomenclature, Alcohol idiosyncratic intoxications) (American Psychiatric Association, 1987:128-129) or of its effective treatment. Perhaps Gregory's experience will prove sufficiently chastening that he will not drink again. In view of the potential consequences, however, it may be better not to leave his treatment entirely to natural processes. Finally, one may consider Elizabeth. An individual deeply imbedded in the wine-growing culture, and consequently with a high level of alcohol intake, she nevertheless experienced no apparent alcohol problems at all until the very moment of her acute hemorrhage from the gastrointestinal tract. Certainly she would not have sought assis- tance for problems that, from her point of view, she was not experiencing. Yet there is the hope that someone might have done something to prevent matters from progressing to this point. Excess mortality from cirrhosis of the liver, the presumptive antecedent cause of Elizabeth's acute emergency, is high among those who, like her, are exposed to alcohol in the course of their occupation (Plant, 1988~; a program of identification, brief intervention, and referral for this group might be advisable.
THE COMMUNI,IY ROLE: IDENTIFICATION, BRIEF INTERVENTION, & REFERRAL 217 None of these four individuals conforms to the stereotypical picture of the alcoholic, nor could any of them be confidently said to exhibit the characteristics of alcohol dependence. All, however, fall within the committee's definition of alcohol problems. Although the level of alcohol consumption in three of these four cases was not high, each individual nevertheless suffered significant consequences in connection with his or her consumption. They are consequences that require address in and of themselves, regardless of whether there may or may not be subsequent progression to more serious alcohol prob- lems. The possibility of progression, although not high, is nevertheless not negligible; furthermore, should brief intervention prove to be ineffective, referral for more extensive intervention may be necessary. These four cases well illustrate the complex interrelationships, outlined in Figure 9-2, among vulnerability factors, exposure to alcohol, modifying variables, and the consequences of alcohol consumption (Babor et al., 1987b). One important feature of the diagram is that it illustrates the possible independence of the consequences of alcohol consumption from the development of alcohol dependence. Although one pathway illustrates that the development of acute and long-term consequences of alcohol consumption can be preceded or accompanied by the significant symptoms of alcohol use that suggest alcohol dependence, there are other pathways that indicate the occurrence of such consequences in the absence of these symptoms. MODIFYING VULNERABILITY EXPOSURE VARIABLES r PERSONAL AN'rECENDENTS AGE, SEX, BODY MASS GENEllC VULNERABILITY, PERSONALITY SOCIAL 1~JTECENDENTS AmTUDES NORMS CUSTOMS RITUAIS CONSEQUENCES Or 1/ BAC DRUGS CONTm SPEED OF DRINKING DRINKING PATTERN QUANTITY FREQUENCY V~BILITY - t DIET NUTRlllON SMOKING YEARS DRINKING DEPENDENCE ~- TOLERANCE ~ITHDRA'AL | RELIEF DRINKING ACUTE CONSEQUENCES ACCIDENTS VIOLENCE ~ \ ~ \ _ ~ \ \ \ \ \ _ \ ~ \ fir LONG-TERM CONSEQUENCES - lIEDICAL' PSYCHOLOGICA1, AND SOCIAL DISABILITIES FIGURE 9-2 The complex interrelationships between vulnerability factors, exposure to alcohol, modifying variables, and the consequences of alcohol consumption (Babor et al., 1987:395). The multiple pathways indicate that the acute and long-term consequences of alcohol consumption may or may not be associated with dependence on alcohol. None of the individuals described in the four case vignettes would be likely to appear in a specialized treatment program for alcohol problems. Rather, George would be seen in the acute medical care inpatient system; Sally might be seen by a speech pathologist or her general practitioner or both; and Gregory would be dealt with primarily by the criminal justice system. If seen at all subsequent to acute treatment for the dramatic event that initiated her difficulties, Elizabeth (absent the implementation of some special program as discussed above) might possibly receive routine attention from occupational health personnel, providing she was employed by a large enough company.
218 BROADENING THE BASE OF TREATMENT FOR ALCOHOL PROBLEMS It is unlikely that any of these individuals, with the possible exception of Elizabeth, would have been referred as a first order of business to the specialist sector for treatment of their alcohol problems. Because their problems are mild or moderate, such a referral would not be strikingly appropriate. Indeed, the acceptance of an immediate referral to the specialist sector by an individual manifesting mild or moderate problems might be unfortunate, in terms of the potential adverse consequences of mislabeling and the potentially inappropriate use of scarce treatment resources. Moreover, appropriate or not, such a referral might not have been accepted. As a result, under the circumstances that obtain at present, none of these individuals would receive any direct attention for their alcohol problems. Such an outcome would be unfortunate indeed. The implications of this analysis are clear. There is a need for a spectrum of interventions that matches the spectrum of alcohol problems. It may be that, even prior to brief intervention, some work will be required to persuade individuals that even a mild or moderate problem exists; a stepwise progression into treatment interventions of graded levels of intensity should be possible. At present, in the absence of the capability for such a stepwise approach, an individual's denial that entry into, let us say, prolonged inpatient treatment is required is tantamount to a denial that any problem exists. Lee specu~lized treatment sector for alcoholproblems cannot be the sole locus oftreatment. If significant inroads are to be made into the overall burden of alcohol problems, a widespread, broad-based therapeutic approach must be taken within which gradations of therapeutic attention are possible. For this vision of treatment to be realized, the community and its resources must become a major part of the therapeutic system. How that might be accomplished will be the subject of the balance of this chapter. Identifying People with Alcohol Problems The development of an effective role for community agencies in the treatment of alcohol problems depends, first of all, upon the ability to identify persons with such problems. A considerable amount of work has gone into developing methods to accomplish this identification rapidly and effectively (see reviews by Kaplan et al., 1974; Morse and Hurt, 1979; Saunders and Kershaw, 1980; Skinner et al., 1981; Bernadt et al., 1982, 1984; Babor and Kadden, 1985; Babor et al., 1986, 1987a; NIAAA, 1987; Allen et al., 1988; Leigh and Skinner, 1988; J. B. Saunders, 1988~. Two major methods of identifying cases in populations have evolved. One is the use of questions or questionnaires. The other is the laboratory examination of body fluids. There is general agreement in the reviews noted above that currently available laboratory examinations are significantly less useful than questionnaires in identifying new cases. Laboratory examinations have comparatively low levels of sensitivity; that is, they are likely miss a large number of actual cases. They tend to be more costly than are questionnaire methods. They are also difficult to deploy in any but a medical setting, which generally brings with it the necessary skill and the tradition of obtaining samples of body fluids. Medical care settings do, however, constitute a major potential source of otherwise unrecognized individuals with alcohol problems (see below), and laboratory examinations are often routinely done in such settings. It has been possible to develop methods for using routine laboratory examinations to identify persons with problems (Beresford et al., 1982~. Certainly the development of highly sensitive and specific laboratory means of identifying individuals with alcohol problems would do much to enhance physicians' interest in doing so (NIAAA, 1987~. Some initially promising new measures such as levels of enzymes in blood platelets, carbohydrate-deficient transferrin, and various acetaldehyde ad
IlIE COMMUNITY ROLE: IDENTIFICATION, BRIEF INTERVEN'IION, & REFERRAL 219 ducts await further investigation (Allen et al., 1988) but may possess more favorable case-finding characteristics than the laboratory methods presently available. Laboratory examinations may also prove useful for monitoring persons who are receiving brief or other interventions and for providing feedback to treatment personnel and to the individuals being treated regarding the success (or lack thereof) of the treatment effort (Kristenson et al., 1983; Schuckit and Irwin, 1988~. Not necessarily a replacement for questionnaires, laboratory examinations may be a useful supplement to them in the case identification process, particularly in instances in which there is reason to suspect a high level of denial of problems. Yet the choice of the appropriate supplementary test may be a rather complex matter (Bernadt et al., 1984~. Manylaboratory tests involve delays and expense; however, an accurate, inexpensive, and rapid method of measuring alcohol in body fluids that could readily be used outside of medical settings, the alcohol dipstick, has been developed (Kapur and Israel, 1985; Peachey and Kaput, 1986~. The range of available question-based methods for identifying the presence of alcohol problems is impressive. An NIAAA conference achieved consensus that case finding should begin with a single question: nDo you drink now and then?" (NIAAA, 1987~. A study in an ambulatory care medical setting came up with two questions: "Have you ever had a drinking problem?n and When was your last drink?n (the latter question being scored as positive if the drink was within the 24 hours prior to the appointment)(Cyr and Wartman, 1988~. The widely used CAGE questionnaire consists of four questions: "Have you ever felt you ought to Cut down on your drinking? Have people Annoyed you by criticizing your drinking? Have you ever felt bad or Guilty about your drinking? Have you ever had a drink first thing in the morning to steady your nerves or get rid of a hangover (Eyeopener)?~ (Ewing, 1984~. There are a number of multi-item questionnaires that are useful in case-finding; for example, the Michigan Alcoholism Screening Test (MAST) (Seizer, 1971), the Reich questionnaire (Reich et al., 1975) the Alcohol Dependence Scale (ADS) (Skinner and Allen, 1982), and the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT) (J. B. Saunders and Aasland, 1987; Babor et al., 1989~. The MacAndrew Scale, which contains no questions having any direct alcohol-related content, was developed on an actuarial basis from the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI) to get around problems of denial (MacAndrew, 1965~. Although it has gained some additional notice of late with the development of increased concern about the validity of self-reports (see Chapter 101, a critical review indicates that this particular scale may be fatally flawed (Gottesman and Prescott, 1989~. Finally, there are case-finding packages, such as the Alcohol Clinical Index (ACI) (Skinner et al., 1986; Skinner and Holt, 1987) which contain a number of different components used together (clinical, laboratory, and questionnaire data). Many of the instruments that are currently available for identifying alcohol problems were developed specifically to identify severe alcohol problems. An exception is the AUDIT; items for it were developed from a pool of questionnaires containing no responses from persons with severe alcohol problems (their questionnaires were removed) (J. B. Saunders and Aasland, 1987; Babor et al., 1989~. The AUDIT was also developed on a cross-national basis, using large samples from six quite different countries. Its 10 items are simple and readily administered by nontechnical staff, or they can be self-administered. The items cover alcohol consumption, symptoms of alcohol use, and consequences of alcohol use, three areas of content that are desirable for the full description of an alcohol problem (see Chapter 10~. Finally, as each of the 10 AUDIT questions is scored on a 0-4 basis, the possible range of scores is 0-40, a potentially useful feature in determining which individuals to retain for brief intervention in a general setting and which to refer directly to specialized treatment settings. Initial indications are that the instrument has highly satisfactory sensitivity and specificity (J. B. Saunders and Aasland, 1987; Babor et al., 1989~. , A
220 BROADENING THE BASE OF TREATMENT FOR ALCOHOL PROBLEMS Thus, a range of options is available for the identification of persons with alcohol problems, from single questions to case-finding packages. There is a trade-off between the accuracy of identification desired and the resources available to be expended. Although the more elaborate instruments are generally more precise, their use entails a greater commitment of resources. A possible compromise is to use a staged strategy, with simpler measures deployed first, followed by more elaborate measures for those tentatively identified as possible cases. These issues are discussed further in Chapter 10, which deals at greater length with assessment, of which identification may be considered a subset. Problem identification in many community settings (see below) might appropriately be undertaken not for alcohol problems alone but for a range of ~lifestyle" problems that include those related to alcohol, tobacco, caffeine, medications, nonmedical drugs, diet, sleep, sexual functioning, and exercise (Babor et al., 1987a,b; cf. NIAAA, 1987; J. B. Saunders and Aasland, 1987~. Not only is such broadly based inquiry more congruent with the overall mission of many community settings (e.g., physician's offices or social agencies) but "many patients may be willing to discuss their drinking within the broader context of health behaviours, such as smoking, that are less threatening to talk about initially" (Babor et al., 1987a:335~. In one series of studies a lifestyle questionnaire was developed and administered in three different formats while patients were waiting to see their primary care physician. One format was a self-administered computerized version. The level of acceptance of the lifestyle questionnaire in all three formats was very high, and there was evidence that its administration significantly increased the patient's intention to raise questions regarding the target areas in the questionnaire during the subsequent interview with the physician (Skinner et al., 1985a,b). Brief Intervention Once persons with alcohol problems have been identified in a community setting, the exercise of a triage function seems advisable. The committee believes that those persons who are identified and who appear to have a substantial or severe alcohol problem (see Chapter 3) should be referred to the specialist sector for treatment. However, those with mild or moderate alcohol problems should be dealt with in the community agency itself by staff who have been trained to deliver brief interventions. Making the distinction between mild and moderate problems that require only brief intervention on the one hand and substantial and severe problems that require specialized treatment on the other is a function both of the screening instruments used and of the judgment of those who use them. As noted above, some instruments (the AUDIT is an example) provide a wide range of scores that would facilitate the making of such distinctions. Further research and experience will help to sharpen the ability to provide accurate triage of this kind; in particular the continued monitoring of outcomes in individual cases will provide essential information. Irrespective of the triage classification, those who do well following brief intervention need not be referred on, whereas those who do not do well will need additional attention or referral, or both. This type of feedback between intervention and outcome is also important in the specialized treatment sector (see Chapter 13~. Because referral has been an option since the redevelopment of the specialized treatment sector following Prohibition (see Chapter 1), what has facilitated the possibility of an effective community agency role in the treatment of alcohol problems has been the development of effective brief interventions. That anything short of the most heroic efforts might be a reasonable way of dealing with alcohol problems will seem to some quite contrary to experience and common sense. How can such major, serious problems be
THE COMMUNITY ROLE: IDENTIFICATION, BRIEF INTERVENTION, & REFERRAL 221 amenable to a brief and straightforward approach? At first glance, it seems unlikely. However, as has been reviewed in Chapter 6 of this report, a significant proportion of such problems will resolve without any formal treatment (so-called Spontaneous remissions). Given this well-established fact, it is perhaps less surprising that some sort of formal inter- vention, even a brief one, might add in a significant way to the proportion of positive results. Not every individual with an alcohol problem, of course, can be helped by a brief intervention. Many persons (as already noted) will require more prolonged and intensive treatment to achieve a good outcome. Yet it seems clear (see below) that some individuals will be helped. Many would otherwise receive no assistance at p11 for their problems, either refusing a referral outright or, in a pattern that is all too familiar, accepting the referral but failing to see it through. A well-thought-out and effective brief intervention delivered on the spot and immediately following identification of the problem avoids these difficulties. Even if the intervention is ineffective in an individual case, little will have been lost, and possibly the individual may as a consequence of the attempt and its failure be motivated to undertake a more extensive approach to his or her problems. In recent years a number of controlled studies have demonstrated the efficacy of brief interventions in the treatment of alcohol problems. The committee views this as a highly significant development and will review these studies in some detail below, partly because it senses a high level of ambient skepticism about brief interventions. The review will also serve to describe in some detail the interventions that have been studied. Because the area of smoking cessation is closely related to that of brief intervention for alcohol problems, one of the more important studies in this area will be reviewed as well. Efficacy of Brief Interventions The Edwards and Orford study of advice vs. treatment Interest in brief interventions for alcohol problems was stimulated by an important British study (Edwards et al., 1977~. A hundred married men who were admitted consecutively to an outpatient clinic for treatment of alcohol problems were randomly assigned, following a careful initial assessment, to one of two treatment conditions. One group was offered a multiplicity of services including an anti-alcohol drug, an introduction to Alcoholics Anonymous, and regular outpatient care, with admission to a 6-week inpatient unit if that seemed advisable. The other group was given a single session of advice, conjointly with their wives, by a professional team that directed them toward abstinence, a good work record for the husband, and mutual effort in improving the marital relationship. One year later there were no significant differences in outcome between the two groups, and a two-year follow-up (Orford et al., 1976) yielded similar results. That is, for the group as a whole, a single brief session of advice appeared to be as effective as much more extensive treatment. There was evidence of a matching effect, in that those with more severe problems tended to do better with the more extensive treatment program and those with less severe problems tended to do better with the single conjoint session of advice (Orford et al., 1976; see also Glaser, 1980~. One of the conclusions of the original paper was that "we should look much more closely at the efficacy of less intensive treatment methods than have previously been thought adequate" (Edwards et al., 1977:1027~. Following their own advice, the principal authors published a paper on "a plain treatment for alcoholism" (Edwards and Orford, 1977~. Me Mating study Another influential study has been reported from Sweden (Kristenson et al., 1983~. As part of an exercise in preventive medicine, all of the male residents of Malmo born between 1926 and 1933 were invited to attend a health screening program at the city's general hospital. Those with high serum levels of gamma glutamyl
222 BROADENING THE BASE OF TREATMENT FOR ALCOHOL PROBLEMS transferase (GGT), an enzyme often elevated as a consequence of the consumption of alcohol, were offered a second blood test. The study group consisted of all those who had elevated GGT levels on both of these occasions. Systematic evaluation of this group revealed them to be, in general, very heavy drinkers. These 585 individuals were randomly assigned either to a control group or to the treatment group. The control group was informed by letter that they should be restrictive in their alcohol intake and was asked to return every two years for repeat GGT determinations. The treatment group was provided with continuing follow-up by a con- sistent physician every three months, together with monthly GGT determinations and contact with a consistent nurse. "The subjects were carefully informed of the GGT level at every [monthly] checkup and stimulated to attain normal levels" (p. 204~. The authors comment that "in focusing on the GGT value, which can be completely normalized when alcohol consumption is ceased, the patient perceives a direct advantage of restricting his drinking habits, which cannot be accomplished by the questionnaires" (p. 208~. The nurse also offered counseling that was "focused on living habits," and the treatment goal was "moderate drinking rather than abstinences (p. 204~. In the follow-up period both groups reduced their GGT levels significantly, but there were major differences in favor of the treatment group on absenteeism, hospitalization, and mortality. At four years there was 80 percent more absenteeism in the control group; at five years the control group had 60 percent more hospital days; and at six years there were twice as many deaths in the control group as in the treatment group "Thus, the intervention program was effective in preventing medico-social consequences of heavy drinking (Kristenson et al., 1983:203~. The Edinburgh study One hundred fifty-six men who had been admitted to medical wards at the Royal Edinburgh Hospital and the Royal Infirmary and who were identified as problem drinkers by means of a structured interview agreed to participate in this study (Chick et al., 1984~. They were randomly assigned to a control and a treatment group No comments were made about the interview findings to members of the control group, and they received no advice regarding their craning as a part of the study, though the physician in charge may have advised modification of alcohol consumption "according to his normal practicer (p. 966~. All patients in the treatment group received a counseling session from a nurse The session lasted up to 6() minutes, during wn~cn tne nurse gave one panting ~ sp`;~;~y prepared booklet and engaged him in a discussion on his lifestyle and health, which helped him to weigh up the drawbacks of his pattern of drinking and to come to a decision about his future consumption. The objective was to help the patient towards problem free drinking, though abstinence was the agreed goal for somen (p. 966~. At the one-year follow-up point, both groups had reduced their consumption of alcohol significantly from what it had been at intake, and there was currently no difference in consumption between them. There had been a 41 percent decline in "problems related to alcohol" for the treatment group, however, as opposed to a 14 percent decline for the controls, a difference achieving statistical significance. The treatment group also experienced a significant decline in mean GGT levels, whereas the control group did not. Finally, there was a significant difference between the two groups in global categories of outcome: 52 percent of the treatment group were categorized as "definitely improved," as opposed to 34 percent of the control group. The authors describe their results as "encouraging." They further comment that Patients may be especially receptive to counselling when recovering from a medical illness. Screening for alcohol problems should become a routine part of nursing assessment and the medical history so that advice can be given before irreversible physical or psychosocial problems have developed" (Chick et al., 1984:967~.
THE COMMUNITY ROLE: IDENTIFICATION, BRIEF INTERVENTION, & REFERRAL 223 The New Zealand referral study Admissions to three orthopedic and two surgical wards at a general hospital were screened by "two nurses with specific training in alcohol problems" (Elvy et al., 1988), and 198 study subjects were identified using various instruments and criteria. "Most of the patients in this study were non-dependent problem drinkers who did not have medical complications from alcohol abuse, nor were deviant drinking patterns a major feature of their alcohol related problems. Instead they were usually characterized by a number of minor personal and social problems" (p. 87~. These patients were randomly assigned to two groups. One was a control group "where no action was taken." In the "referral group," the patients were "confronted with their self-reported drinking problems . . . and asked if they would accept referral to an alcoholism counsellor for further assessment and possible treatment. In the confrontation, patients were told that their drinking was leading to inappropriate and unacceptable behaviours, and they would need help to overcome their difficulties" (p. 84~. The results of the study were reported principally in terms of those who were referred and those who were not referred to counseling. Only 14 percent of the referral group and 4 percent of the control group were actually admitted to treatment agency programs. Nevertheless, after 12 months the referred group as a whole improved significantly more than the control group sin terms of: time since last drinking; desire to drink less; happiness with the amount drunk; and CAST, the total alcohol problem scores (p. 86~. Interestingly, the control group began to improve after the 12-month research follow-up interview, so that by 18 months the differences between the referral and control groups had diminished; this outcome was interpreted as a reactive effect of the follow-up interview itself. fit seems, observed the authors, "that the 12-month follow-up did act as a form of intervention which still had some beneficial effects at 18 months" (p. 88~. But the main effect of the study was, they felt, to show that There are beneficial effects from screening for problem drinkers and providing brief assessment or counselling" (p. 88~. "e British General Practitioner study A large controlled trial of brief intervention (Wallace et al., 1988) has recently been reported from the Medical Research Council's general practice research framework, involving 47 group practices. Most of the practices were in rural or small urban settings. The study recruited 909 patients (641 men and 268 women) whose alcohol consumption exceeded predetermined limits (they were designated as heavy drinkers) and randomly assigned them to a control and a treatment condition. Patients in the control group received no advice from the general practitioner regarding their drinking unless (1) they requested such advice or (2) they had substantially impaired liver function. The general practitioners who delivered the brief intervention to the treatment group had received a training session in its delivery that featured Ha specially recorded video programme to illustrate the elements of the intervention. Patients randomized to the treatment group were then contacted by the practitioners and Asked to attend for a brief interview. After an initial assessment that covered the pattern and amount of their alcohol consumption, evidence of alcohol- related problems, and symptoms of dependence, patients were provided with a histogram "to illustrate how their weekly consumption compared with that of the general population." They were advised about the potential harmful effects of their current level of consumption, which was reinforced by the distribution of an information pamphlet entitled That's the Limit. Specific limits for safe drinking were also prescribed, and each patient was given a drinking diary that bore on its cover the likeness of a prescription emblazoned with the words Cut Down on your Drinking!n An initial follow-up appointment was routinely offered. Further follow-up appointments at four, seven, and ten months were at the discretion of the individual practitioner. "During these sessions the patient's drinking diary was reviewed and feedback
224 BROADENING THE BASE OF TREATMENT FOR ALCOHOL PROBLEMS given on the results of blood tests indicating damage due to alcohol. The outcome results were assessed by a research nurse who was blind to whether the patient was in the treatment or the control condition of the study. The largest changes in reported alcohol consumption took place in the first six months of the trial. Both men and women in the treatment condition showed highly significant reductions in alcohol consumption in comparison with the controls at that point. At one year there were similarly significant differences among men in the treatment and control conditions but some abatement of the differences for women; nevertheless, at that point there was a reduction of nearly one fifth in the proportion of excessive drinkers of both sexes. Reduction in consumption increased significantly with the number of general practitioner interventions. The mean reduction in GOT was significant for men and was significantly associated with the number of general practitioner intervention sessions. The authors comment that, given the prevalence of heavy drinking in their target population, the frequency with which general practitioners are consulted, and the results of the study, "our findings suggest that if all general practitioners were to participate actively in preventive intervention at least 15% of these patients that is, around 250,000 men and 67,500 women would reduce their consumption to moderate levels" (p. 667~. Accordingly, they recommend that "general practitioners and other members of the primary health care team should therefore be encouraged to include counselling about alcohol consumption in their preventive activities (Wallace et al., 1988:663~. The Russell study of smoking cessafior~ As noted earlier, brief interventions have been found to be efficacious in the area of cigarette smoking, which is closely related to alcohol problems and in which similar impressions of intractability exist. It seems reasonable to provide an example of the work that has been done in this area. All adult smokers who attended five London general practices over a one month period (2,138 individuals) were involved in the study. In the intervention group, those whose questionnaire responses indicated a significant level of smoking were advised to stop; given an information leaflet on methods of stopping; And warned that they would be followed up." This process occupied one to two minutes of the physician's time. At the end of one year, 5.1 percent of the intervention group had stopped smoking, compared with 0.3 percent of the control group, a highly significant result (Russell et al., 1979~. Of course, the corollary of a 5 percent success rate for the two-minute intervention is a 95 percent failure rate. It is the failure rate that often catches the public's attention and is felt to be discouraging. But 5 percent of the original sample in this study amounted to 107 individuals who became smoke-free in one year, and in only five general practices. The authors estimate that, if all British general practitioners adopted this approach, the overall yield would amount to a half million smoke-free individuals in one year. Small, incremental gains of this kind can eventually produce significant cumulative effects. It is noteworthy that in this study there was no increase in the proportion of individuals who succeeded each time they attempted to stop smoking. That proportion remained constant. However, the effect of the physician's intervention was to increase the number of attempts to stop. Eventually, therefore, the number of persons who succeeded increased. Although not a magical or dramatic approach, it was one that proved effective over the long run. Further studies of the efficacy of brief intervention for alcohol problems would be most useful. The AMETHYST study, an international collaborative effort mounted by the World Health Organization (see the discussion earlier of its instrument for identifying alcohol problems, the AUDIT), is continuing its efforts with a trial of brief intervention and will provide much in terms of further data. One of the collaborating centers for the project is in the United States, a most welcome development; it is worthy of mention that controlled studies of brief intervention for alcohol problems have yet to be reported from this country.
THE COMMUNITY ROLE: IDENIIFICAlION, BRIEF INTERVENTION, & REFERRAL 225 Taken together, however, the foregoing reports of research already completed are (the committee believes) highly encouraging. It appears that a variety of techniques can be deployed us diaperers setting by various kinds of personnel without disrupting the usual flow of activities and that such techniques can produce sign~`car~ arid health-relerant elects. Although they are carefully crafted, the kinds of interventions used in the studies reported in this section are sensible and easily grasped, both by practitioners and by members of the target population. The effects may not be dramatic, but they are palpable. With persistence in their application they could eventually achieve major gains. Varieties of Brief Intervention In the foregoing summaries of efficacy studies, particular attention was paid to descriptions by authors of the brief interventions they had actually used. These interventions included many different elements. Some of the more prominent were: persuasion to reduce the consumption of alcohol; information that the level of alcohol consumption was above acceptable, safe, or usual levels for the relevant population; the underscoring of adverse consequences that had already or were likely to accrue to the continued use of alcohol; feedback of laboratory test results; provision for objective and ongoing recordkeeping on alcohol consumption; and ongoing mutual surveillance of the problem. Though relatively straightforward, most of these elements (and this enumeration is hardly exhaustive) have a strong basis in theory (cf. Babor et al., 1987a). These (and, no doubt, other) elements can be combined in a variety of ways into an intervention package, which can be delivered to the target population by a variety of individuals following a quite modest amount of training. This package is what the committee refers to as a brief intervention. Use of the package is congruent with the normal flow of activities in most settings, because it requires only a few minutes to an hour to deliver, and at most one additional session. An example of brief intervention that is consistent with the foregoing, although not labelled as such, may be found in a pamphlet entitled The Busy Physician's Five-Minute Guide to the Management of Alcohol Problems" (Kinney, n.d.~. In addition to alcohol, the interventions can readily be structured to cover a variety of lifestyle problems. All of these features permit the ready integration of brief interventions into a wide range of settings. Because of these characteristics, as well as a relative or absolute lack of a specialized treatment sector, this kind of brief intervention has become an important element in the therapeutic planning of many developing countries (see Appendix c,. leery Is another category of 1nte~ven~lo~ .~. ~lalI! ball fills` w~ ~- ~,~.' of specialized formal treatment for alcohol problems and yet are quite different from brief interventions. They have been referred to collectively as Brief therapy and are described as follows: "Brief therapy involves instructing clients in specific behavioral methods for reaching abstinence or moderate drinking (i.e. goal-setting, self-monitoring, identification of 'high risk' situations, and instruction in procedures for avoiding drinking or overdrinking). Usually brief therapy is preceded by a comprehensive assessment and does not exceed six sessions of outpatient counselling" (Sanchez-Craig, 1988:3~. Brief therapy may be viewed as an intermediate form of therapeutic approach falling between brief intervention and specialized treatment. It clearly requires much more than does brief intervention in the way of training, and because of its extent is not as readily incorporated into the standard operations of some settings. It might constitute a logical "next step" in the event that brief intervention is not successful and specialized treatment is not acceptable. In settings with a large staff complement and a high proportion of individuals with alcohol problems in the target population, a small number of staff could be trained in a brief therapy and could deliver it on a referral basis to
226 BROADENING THE BASE OF TREATMENT FOR ALCOHOL PROBLEMS selected individuals. Brief therapy is considerably more complex than brief intervention and probably requires therapists with relatively high levels of professional training. The target population might be those whose problems were somewhat more severe, or who had failed to improve following brief intervention, or who had refused referral for specialized treatment. Brief therapy is thus a further significant addition to the therapeutic armamentarium. Mention should also be made of self-help manuals, the use of which for treatment purposes is sometimes referred to as bibliotherapy. Even the most casual bookstore browser knows that self-help manuals are both ubiquitous and popular. There are those who prefer to learn what they need to know and use through the medium of print rather than human interaction. For them the self-help manual may be an excellent way to enter the therapeutic process. They have been widely available for some time (e.g. Miller and Munoz, 1982) and there is evidence for their efficacy (Miller and Taylor, 1980; Heather, 1986; Heather et al., 1986~. As noted above in the descriptions of controlled studies, printed materials are sometimes incorporated as an element in brief intervention. That different kinds of brief interventions exist poses some problems with respect to selection but is on balance a real advantage. As is the case with more complex forms of treatment fsee Chanter 11), it is possible that different kinds of brief interventions will ~ r-~ prove to be differentially acceptable and effective for different individuals. However, the level of knowledge and, indeed, the level of availability of brief interventions make such sophistication in their use a matter for the future. At present, it is a large enough task for personnel in a given setting to become familiar enough with a single brief intervention package and to deploy it effectively in a generic manner. Once this admittedly limited goal is accomplished, further refinements can be introduced. Finally, it should be apparent from the foregoing discussion that the committee does not view brief intervention as a one-time activity that is sufficient unto itself Although there is much evidence for the efficacy of brief interventions, in an individual instance that efficacy cannot be assumed. Cor~tinui~ of care is essen~u~l to determine whether the brief ir~terveraion has sufficed or whether further attention to the alcohol problems of the individual may be required. Inspection of the efficacy studies summarized above will reveal that continuing contact is an element of most brief interventions and that there is evidence for its efficacy apart from the interventions themselves (see especially the New Zealand referral study). The provision of such continuity could be viewed as the responsibility of the community provider of brief intervention. Alternatively, the responsibility for this function could be assumed by those who provide it for the specialist sector. A third possibility is to view the responsibility for continuity of care as residing with the individual who manifests the problem. Although there is some evidence linking the provision of continuity of care with favorable outcome in other fields (see the discussion of continuity of care in Chapter 13), little is available in the treatment of alcohol problems. Accordingly, this issue seems to present an important opportunity for future research. The Target of Brief Intervention It was emphasized earlier in this chapter that the target of brief intervention is not persons with substantial or severe alcohol problems. However, there is, as has been frequently noted, an important exception. Some proportion of persons with substantial or
THE COMMUNITY ROLE: IDENTIFICATION, BRIEF INTERVENTION, & REFERRAL 227 severe alcohol problems will not accept specialized treatment for them. Under these circumstances, the use of brief interventions (or brief therapies or both) is preferable to no therapeutic action at all. The success rate may not be high, but neither will it be negligible. Moreover, a failure may nevertheless help to persuade the individual to move on to a more rigorous intervention. As an alternative target of brief interventions, mild or moderate alcohol problems have been put forward. The committee is sympathetic to this formulation but is willing to go somewhat beyond it. Consider the individual whose pattern of alcohol consumption, whether acute or chronic, is Eked to result in a negative consequenc~an alcohol problem, by our definition but has not done so as yet. (This pattern is consistent with the definition of "hazardous alcohol consumption" proposed by the World Health Organization, namely, "a level of alcohol consumption or a pattern of drinking that is likely to result in harm should present drinking habits persist" [Edwards et al., 1981; J. B. Saunders and Aasland, 1987~?. Let us say further that, in some way, this pattern of drinking is identified in a community agency setting. Under these circumstances the committee feels it is reasonable to proceed with a brief intervention. For example, let us say that, prior to his auto accident and pelvic fracture, George, the fraternity pledge of Chapter 2's vignettes, had developed a severe upper respiratory infection and sought relief from the college infirmary. Because his college infirmary staff had been among those trained to identify alcohol problems and to briefly intervene when they were present, all persons seen there were routinely given a lifestyle questionnaire. The recent change in George's alcohol consumption was detected, and an alert attending physician perceived the potential dangers. No actual problems had occurred as yet, but the physician made the judgment to deploy the brief intervention anyway. As a result, George was sensitized to the problem, took appropriate action to reduce his alcohol consumption and alter its pattern, and the accident and consequent injury did not occur. It is a possible scenario. Its implication is that brief interventions may also be targeted toward the period slightly prior to the development of actual alcohol problems. Simply put, the target could be considered to be the consumption of alcohol itself. To illustrate this concept, the committee has drawn the dotted line in Figure 9-1 that leads to brief intervention very slightly to the left of Mild alcohol problems.n As will be seen, this is by no means a plea for any sort of prohibition; but it does involve the recognition, as pointed out in a recent review, that sin effect, any use of alcohol involves risk" (Babor et al., 1987b:392). In another review the author offers, after meticulous consideration, an alternative approach to the more common preventive plan of reducing alcohol consumption below a specific limit: An across-the-board reduction for the whole population, eschewing all notions of safe limits" (Kreitman, 1986:261~. Anticipating the argument that such an approach will inevitably fail, because people "may see no reason to reduce their consumption for the sake of gains which are more evident to the epidemiologist than to the man in the street," Kreitman draws an analogy to the control of blood cholesterol in the prevention of cardiovascular disease: The health message in relation to diet and blood cholesterol is simply to reduce. It seems that the public, at least in the U.S.A-, does not pose the question "What is the maximum blood cholesterol that is safe and above which I will take appropriate action?" but rather "What is the minimum level I can reasonably achieve?" The feasibility of promoting a similar strategy for alcohol consumption should at least be debated (pp. 362-363~.
228 BROADENING THE BASE OF TREATMENT FOR ALCOHOL PROBLEMS The Goal of Brief Intervention The goal of brief intervention is to reduce or eliminate the alcohol consumption of those individuals to whom it is applied, with the objective of reducing or eliminating their alcohol problems. In the specialized treatment of alcohol problems, which deals with persons who manifest substantial or severe alcohol problems, there has been a prevalent view that the reduction of alcohol consumption to zero should always be the explicit goal. With regard to moderate alcohol problems, a study has been carried out in which individuals manifesting such problems received the same brief therapy but were randomly assigned either to a goal of abstinence or to a goal of reduced drinking. The outcome of treatment at one year was the same in both instances (Sanchez-Craig et al., 1984~. In the review of controlled studies of brief intervention earlier in this chapter, it can be seen that some studies utilized abstinence and some reduced drinking as their goal. The AMETHYST project of the World Health Organization takes a balanced approach with respect to this issue. Subjects in the project are provided with a pamphlet that contains guidelines about whether to choose abstinence or reduced drinking as a goal. The decision is left to the individual (Babor et al., 1987a). In view of the available evidence, the committee considers the approach exemplified by the AMETHYST project, combining guidance and individual choice, to be sound. Referral The final element in the community role is referral, which in this instance means referral of individuals to the specialized treatment sector for alcohol problems. One advantage of the committee's vision of a treatment system in the specialized sector (see Chapters 1 and 13) is that it incorporates a pretreatment assessment as an essential element. Referral from the community would logically be to this assessment function, obviating the need for the referring source to make its own determination as to which of many specialized treatments would be most appropriate. Because such a determination is not a simple matter (see Chapter 11), a major advantage of the committee's proposed system is that it lifts a considerable burden from community providers of brief intervention. There remains, however, a potential problem of continuity of care between the community and the specialized treatment sector for alcohol problems. Some persons may be referred but may not attend. Under such circumstances three options are available: (1) the community provider must assume responsibility for continuity of care; (2) whatever provision is made for continuity of care in the specialized sector must be extended to the community; or (3) continuity of care must become the responsibility of the individual who is manifesting the problem (see Chapter 13~. Implementing the Community Role Having specified identification, brief intervention, and referral as the principal activities constituting the role of community agencies in treatment, it remains to specify in what settings and by whom this role is to be implemented.
THE COMMUNITY ROLE: IDENTIFICATION, BRIEF INTERVENTION, & REFERRAL 229 Settings Health care settings are an obvious and important locus for the activities noted above. There is evidence that persons attending such settings have an increased prevalence of alcohol problems. Although it seems most readily apparent that primary health care settings might yield a large number of cases, the evidence is as compelling in nonprimary as in primary health care venues. One recent study, for example, found a prevalence of alcohol problems of 20.3 percent among new patients in an ambulatory medical care setting (Cyr and Wartman, 1988~. Although there are methodological problems in estimating the prevalence of alcohol problems in the general hospital inpatient population (McIntosh, 1982), an average of 23% has been given; moreover, individual hospitals surveys have resulted in findings of as high as 55 percent (Beresford, 1979~. A recent prospective study of all inpatient admissions to the Johns Hopkins Hospital over a 15-month period identified 3()4 of 2,001 patients, or 19.7 percent, as having substantial or severe alcohol problems. These individuals were to be found in varying proportions on all admitting services and were not identified by the hospital staff in from 44 to 90 percent of instances, depending on the service. The authors noted that a diagnosis related to alcohol "was a primary diagnosis in only 6% of the patients in psychiatry and in none of the patients in the other departments. Therefore, most of these patients had this as a premorbid condition and not as the principal reason for admission" (Moore et al., 1989~. Data from this study and from a related study suggest that there may be a higher prevalence of persons with alcohol problems in the inpatient population of hospitals than in the general population. The lifetime prevalence figure for the Baltimore subset of the Epidemiologic Catchment Area (ECA) study was 15.23 percent (Helzer and Burnham, in press). Although this study was done in 1981-1982 and the Hopkins hospital data were gathered in 1986-1987, per capita consumption of alcohol in Maryland decreased during that period (USDHHS, 1987:4, Table 2~. The two studies used different diagnostic instruments: the Hopkins study employed the CAGE questionnaire (Ewing, 1984) and the short version of the Michigan Alcoholism Screening Test (SMASI) (Seizer et al., 1975), and the ECA study used DSM-III criteria with data gathered using the Diagnostic Interview Schedule (DIS) (Robins et al., 1981~. Three of the four CAGE questions, however, have close equivalents in the DIS (J. H. Helzer, personal communication, April 29, 1989) and those with a DIS-DSM-III diagnosis for alcohol abuse or dependence tend to achieve very high scores on the full version of the MAST (Ross et al., 1988~. Thus the difference between the ECA prevalence for Baltimore of 15.23 percent and the 19.7 percent prevalence found in the recent study at Johns Hopkins Hospital may represent a real difference and may reflect a concentration of alcohol problems in the hospital inpatient population greater than that obtaining in the general population. The emergency room is another medical setting in which there is extensive contact with alcohol problems. Between 10.8 and 32 percent of casualty case samples seen in emergency departments have had substantial alcohol involvement (Peppiatt et al., 1978; Ward et al., 1982~. In another study, 46 percent of 400 casualty cases had positive breathalyzer readings when evening, and particularly weekend evening, admissions were sampled (Holt et al., 1980~. A recent study of emergency rooms in San Francisco and the surrounding county area showed a significant and positive association between injuries, high breathalyzer readings, self-reported alcohol consumption, and more frequent heavy drinking (the city sample reported a 21 percent rate of binge drinking in the past year, and the county sample an 8 percent rate, compared with a rate of 1 percent in the general population) (Cherpitel, 1988~. Forty-one percent of injured males in the city sample re
230 BROADENING ITIE BASE OF TREATMENT FOR ALCOHOL PROBLEMS ported alcohol involvement, and more than half of both males and females injured in fights and assaults reported drinking prior to the event (Cherpitel, 1989~. Thus, there is little question that a substantial number of persons with alcohol problems are seen in medical ambulatory care, inpatient, and emergency room settings. The same is true for medical specialty settings. For example, prevalences of 31.9 percent in males and 23.1 percent in females were found among consecutive new admissions for inpatient and outpatient psychiatric service (Davis, 1984~. Of all patients admitted to a regional burn center in the Midwest over a six-month period in 1988, 22.9 percent had blood alcohol levels of 100 mg/dl or greater (F. C. Blow, personal communication, February 15, 1989; cf. Howland and Hingson, 1987~. Another example comes from the surgical specialty area of orthopedics. The association between such orthopedic problems as fractures and high alcohol consumption is well known. A prevalence of 30.1 percent was identified among consecutive admissions to an orthopedic service for acute injuries (Beresford et al., 1982~. Indeed, the presence of fractures is sufficiently associated with alcohol problems that it has been proposed as a data element in screening for alcohol problems (Skinner et al., 1984; NORMA, 1987~. In obstetrics, alcohol problems and, indeed, alcohol consumption are of particular importance, and for a reason other than prevalence-the health of the fetus. The full-blown fetal alcohol syndrome (FAS) may develop only in the face of sustained heavy drinking during pregnancy (Rosett and Weiner, 1985~. Yet significant adverse consequences, sometimes referred to as fetal alcohol effects (FAE), may occur at lower levels of maternal alcohol consumption (Little, 1977; Hanson et al., 1978; Harlap and Shiono, 1980; Sokol et al., 1980; Streissguth et al., 1980; Rosett et al., 1983~. There is evidence that, in this population, an approach such as that recommended here can be effective ~ Larsson, 1983; Rosett et al., 1983~. Although data are not copious, alcohol problems are likely to be important in other medical care specialty settings as well. Internists, and particularly gastroenterologists, will frequently see patients whose medical problems are directly related to alcohol consumption and would be improved if that consumption decreased (for example, peptic ulcer and hypertension). Given the uncertain state of current treatment for alcohol and other drug problems among adolescents (Blum, 1987; see Chapter 15) adolescent medicine settings may be another area of particular relevance. A further consideration is that, although the general practitioner in some medical care systems is an important gatekeeper and hence an important person in identification and brief intervention (cf. Wallace et al., 1988), the smaller size of the general practitioner pool in the United States and the tendency to take many problems directly to specialists argues against dependence on the general practitioner alone in this country. In sum, it is possible to conclude from the available data that a significant proportion of persons who seek medical care will either have alcohol problems or will be consuming alcohol in such a way that it contributes substantially to their actual or potential medical problems. The committee therefore believes that all persons coming for care to medical settings should be screened for alcohol problems. If mild or moderate problems are presera, a brief intervention should be provided in situation and observed for its effect; A substage l or severe problems are present, a referral to specialized treatment should be effected. Put another way, medical settings are a major site in which the role of community agencies in the treatment of alcohol problems should be enacted. The rationale for this viewpoint should be abundantly clear from the preceding discussion. Absent this kind of approach, alcohol consumption that incurs a risk to the health of the individual or to the health of others, or that incurs a risk of alcohol problems, is likely to go unnoticed or unaddressed. Some persons, in particular those with mild or moderate problems, will not perceive these problems as requiring specialized attention and will not accept a referral to a specialist treatment apparatus. Others who
THE COMMUNITY ROLE: IDENTIFICATION, BRIEF INTERVENTION, & REFERRAL 231 may be willing to grant that alcohol consumption is a problem for them also will not accept referral, for a variety of reasons. For these people the delivery of brief intervention in the medical setting may offer the only opportunity for effective assistance; as noted above, there is considerable evidence that brief interventions can be effective. Even if the intervention is unsuccessful, it is possible that the experience will contribute to an eventual decision to seek more formal help. These recommendations are consistent with those of the forthcoming Guide to Clinical P~remive Services, to be issued by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Section 47 of this report addresses "Screening for Alcohol and Other Drug Abuse. A Clinical intervention" is recommended as follows: Clinicians should routinely ask all adults and adolescents to describe their use of alcohol and other drugs . . . Certain questionnaires may be useful to clinicians in assessing important alcohol use patterns . . . All persons who use alcohol should be informed of the health and injury risks associated with consumption and should be encouraged to limit consumption . . . Many patients may benefit from referrals to appropriate consultants and community programs specializing in the treatment of alcohol and other drug dependencies. (U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, 1989:186~. Health care settings are not the only venues to be considered for a community-based program of identification, referral, and brief intervention. Socu~l assistance agencies are also a possibility. Less is known about the prevalence of alcohol problems among those seeking social services. However, the ECA study did find that, for black, white, and hispanic women, and for black and white men, the current prevalence of serious alcohol problems was higher for those receiving welfare assistance than for those not receiving welfare assistance (Helzer and Burnham, in press). It has been suggested (Murray, 1977) that vagrants, prisoners, and those cited for legal offenses connected with drinking are other groups likely to be seen in social service settings that may include a high proportion of persons with alcohol problems. Family service agencies often see individuals whose problems are the result of or are aggravated by alcohol consumption. The same is true of welfare agencies and of agencies that provide assistance for persons with various kinds of handicaps. For example, a survey of all of California's county social services departments found that, on average, 23 percent of individuals on the general assistance caseload were public inebriates (Spieglman and Smith, 1985~. Alcohol problems may be manifested by the designated client but also frequently by other members of the family, a traditional focus of family and other social agency concerns. Alcohol problems are quite significant in the homeless population (IOM, 198%; see also pages 386-388 of this report). Again, referral for formal alcohol treatment will be effective only for a portion of the individuals identified by social agencies, and an onsite identification and intervention capability in social agencies would add an important dimension to overall management. There are exhortations to this effect in the social work literature (Raspa, 1965; Ehline and Tighe, 1977; Deakins, 1983~. Educational settings must also be considered, and are especially important in instances in which students are in residence (e.g., in boarding schools and colleges). In such settings students are away from their parents, and their parents' social support systems, and must depend to a greater degree on the resources and guidance of the institutions they are attending. Recently a number of serious incidents relating to the use of alcohol on college campuses in the United States have risen to general attention, and the time may be propitious for identification and brief intervention efforts in these and
232 BROADENING THE BASE OF TREATMENT FOR ALCOHOL PROBLEMS other educational settings. Many such settings have health services whose personnel have been trained to help persons with alcohol problems, but other educational personnel may appropriately be involved in such efforts as well (see the discussion on personnel below). Health and especially alcohol problems have long been a matter of concern in occupational settings. Indeed, many such settings have developed employee assistance programs (EAPs) that are designed to deal with a broad spectrum of problems (see Section IV). However, although the identification of persons with alcohol problems has been much stressed in such programs, the therapeutic focus has been primarily on referral rather than on intervention. Referral may, indeed, be appropriate in some instances, but an onsite capability for dealing with at least some proportion of employee alcohol problems would be a logical extension of occupational health and employee assistance programs. Finally, consideration should be given as well to the cr~minaljustice system and the settings it potentially offers for a community agency program. The association between crime and alcohol is complex but significant (cf. Collins, 1981~. Alcohol is associated in some way with many activities that come before the courts. Driving while intoxicated (DWI) is an example (see also pages 381-385~. Some proportion of persons who drive while intoxicated have severe alcohol problems, but many others do not (Donovan et al., 1983; Vingilis, 1983; Wilson and Jonah, 1985; Perrine, 1986~. Yet there is evidence that the specialized treatment sector for alcohol problems is being flooded with DWI and other offenders (Fillmore and Kelso, 1987; State of Connecticut, 1988~. In 1986-1987, for example, the state of Connecticut experienced a 400% increase in DWI referrals to alcohol treatment services (State of Connecticut, 1988~. There is scant evidence that an approach such as that recommended in this chapter has been successful in the criminal justice system. On the other hand, there are particular features of the system that would facilitate an approach based on identification, brief intervention, and referral. Persons who enter the criminal justice system are often extensively evaluated in a variety of ways, and it would not be discordant to make the identification of alcohol problems a part of such evaluations. Given the authority of the courts, compliance with intervention and follow-up regimes may prove less of a problem in this system than elsewhere; as noted in Chapter 6, not all persons will respond favorably to such coercion, but some will. Finally, those who enter the correctional system constitute a target population that is at least readily available for interventions of various kinds. Although the importance of alcohol problems in all of these settings is considerable, it does not follow that the settings will necessarily be receptive to mounting intervention programs. It may be necessary over time to foster a climate of institutional change with respect to alcohol problems. Employee assistance programs have done signal work in industry in this regard, and similar approaches in some school settings (i.e., student assistance programs) have also been effective. Medical settings are not inherently well disposed toward dealing with alcohol problems (Sparks, 1976~. The development of specialized consultation teams may be quite helpful in this regard (Lewis and Gordon, 1983; Williams et al., 1985; Glaser, 1988~. Institutional change in training settings may be of equal or greater importance in the long run; as noted earlier, one medical school (Johns Hopkins) has made a thorough understanding of alcohol problems the principal goal of its educational efforts (Holder, 1985; Moore et al., 1989~. The importance of this example can hardly be overestimated. To recapitulate: there are a number of settings other than those for the specialized treatment of alcohol problems in which persons with such problems are likely to appear. If these individuals can be effectively identified, a proportion will be appropriate for and will accept referral to specialized treatment programs. But many persons, perhaps most, either will have problems that are not sufficiently severe to require specialized treatment, or, even if their problems are severe, will not accept a referral. For these persons a brief intervention mounted within the setting in which they are identified
THE COMMUNITY ROLE: IDENTIFICATION, BRIEF INTERVENTION, & REFERRAL 233 is probably the only alternative to receiving no assistance at all for their alcohol problems. Even if the brief intervention should be unsuccessful it may serve the purpose of engaging the attention and interest of the individual, who may consequently be more willing to accept referral to the specialist sector. The settings noted in this section as ones in which such a program might be effectively mounted include primary, specialized, and emergency medical services; social agencies; educational institutions; occupational settings; and the criminal justice system. A process of institutional change may be required to foster intervention programs of the kind proposed. Personnel Within the settings that have been indicated in the previous discussion, which personnel should be given the responsibility for identification and brief intervention? The simplest answer is that this responsibility should be given to those personnel who already deal with the target populations of the setting. It is a sensible response and leads to a recommendation for an extensive program of on-thejob training. Yet it is also quite a limited response. The personnel in a given setting are in constant flux. As some leave and others take their places, the new staff will have to be trained, or the capability to perform the community role in treatment will rapidly decline. On-thejob training, however, is a difficult effort to sustain over the long haul. Alcohol problems have been a part of human history from the beginning. They are not going to go away. Thus, a long-range plan for training various kinds of personnel to identify and deal with alcohol problems must be developed. Such a plan would involve the development of a capability for identification and brief intervention during the training of personnel likely to be active in he target settings. But who are these personnel? In the medical setting, one thinks immediately of physwu~r~s. There have been important and effective efforts in recent years to educate physicians about alcohol problems during their period of training (Lewis et al., 1987~. Johns Hopkins Medical School in particular has set an important example (see above and Holden, 1985; Moore et al., 1989~. Special mention may be made of the career teacher program sponsored jointly by the National Institutes on Drug Abuse and on Alcoholism and Alcohol Abuse, which singled out junior faculty members at medical schools for specialized development in this area. Although the program has now been discontinued, it was felt to be highly effective (Pokorny and Solomon, 1983; see Chapter 4~. Certainly, physicians would be a critical target population for training of this kind. The encouragement of physician involvement in a multiplicity of ways in dealing with alcohol problems has come from the highest levels of the government and of the profession (Bowen and Sammons, 1988~. Yet physicians are not the only possible target for such training in the medical setting. plumes represent another important potential resource. There are 220 schools of nursing in the United States, and they admit approximately 14,000 students annually. Enlisting this manpower would constitute a major addition to the personnel pool for treatment based in community agencies. The suitability of nurses for the proposed tasks is attested to by their having implemented them in whole or in part in three of the major trials that have been reported to date: the Malmo study, the Edinburgh study, and the New Zealand referral study (Kristensen et al., 1983; Chick et al., 1984; Elvy et al., 1988~. To take a leaf from past experience, a career teacher program in nursing might be an excellent vehicle through which to achieve the desired competency in this important group. Nurses often work regularly in some settings viewed as important to this effort, such as social agencies, educational and occupational settings, and the criminal justice system. Physicians as well may work in such settings, but unlike nurses they are more often on a consultative or minor part-time basis. Finally, there has been a movement in _ ~ . . .
234 BROADENING THE BASE OF TREATMENT FOR ALCOHOL PROBLEMS the United States and elsewhere toward the provision of primary health care by nurse practitioners (Spitzer et al., 1974), making their involvement all the more critical. Social workers are a significant personnel target group in terms of social agency settings; like nurses, they tend to work in multiple settings and in important, full-time roles in those agencies. Social workers have a long and growing tradition of providing therapeutic services. Psychologists are another potential target group; they often play a major evaluative role in educational and criminal justice settings, developing and administering assessment instruments. Theories developed by psychologists have been of particular relevance to the development of brief intervention techniques (cf. Babor et al., 1987a). Although there are some physicians, nurses, social workers, and psychologists in educational settings, there may be other personnel here to be considered. Teachers play a large role in some approaches to primary prevention and might play a role in secondary prevention as well. They spend a great deal of time with students on a regular basis and may be in a good position to identify those who are in difficulty. They are accustomed to imparting large bodies of complex information to their students; brief intervention approaches have a large informational component and may be well within their capabili- ties. Guidance and counseling personnel and supervisory personnel in the systems deployed in large organized living arrangements (e.g., dormitories, and fraternity and sorority houses) may be considered as well. Occupational services employees in occupational settings for example, RAP personnel-and parole, probation, arid corrections o~`cers in criminal justice settings may be additional candidates. An increasingly important group that bears consideration, and that is not particularly connected with any one of the target settings but could and perhaps should be, is alcoholism counselors. Their training and orientation have traditionally been toward the specialized treatment sector, but this seems more a matter of custom than necessity. Alcoholism counselors might welcome the opportunity to expand their role into this aspect of the field and might bring some unique perspectives and abilities to it. To recapitulate: on-thejob training will be required in the short run to equip existing personnel within relevant settings to identify and provide brief interventions to persons with alcohol problems. In the long run, however, such capabilities will be most efficiently imparted to relevant personnel during the course of their training. It should be stressed that, to be effective, such training must be broad; it cannot be oriented exclusively toward the more severe problems, as has frequently been the case in the past, but must be oriented toward the entire spectrum of alcohol problems. Among the groups that may be targeted for such training are physicians; nurses; social workers; psychologists; teachers; occupational services employees; parole, probation, and corrections officials; and alcoholism counselors. Effects and Costs The successful deployment of a capability for widespread identification of persons with alcohol problems and of brief intervention for those problems, as outlined above, is intended to reduce the overall burden of alcohol problems to the individual and to society at large. There is reason to believe that this desirable result would follow. However, there would be little point in introducing such a major innovation in care unless provisions were made for a careful determination of whether the desired result did in fact occur. Some may entertain the hope that the costs accruing to the specialized treatment of substantial or severe alcohol problems could be greatly reduced through such a program. This seems a possible but not a necessary consequence. The widespread availability of brief intervention would remove from the specialist treatment pool those individuals who would
THE COMMUNITY ROLE: IDENTIFICATION, BRIEF INTERVENTION, & REFERRAL 235 respond to less extensive kinds of treatment. However, the systematic identification of individuals with alcohol problems in the many settings in which this would take place might result in a significantly increased level of referrals to specialized treatment overall. The net result in this instance would probably be an overall increase in the cost of treatment for alcohol problems. As is discussed further in Chapter 20, the great likelihood is that the overall costs of treatment would continue to be far less than the cost to society of alcohol problems. An initial financial investment of some magnitude in the development of a comprehensive system of identification and brief intervention would seem to be unavoidable. Further study of these processes, the development and dissemination of appropriate packages of identification and intervention materials, the training of appropriate personnel, and the evaluation of the effort require it. However, once the system is in place, and, one would hope, working well, existing funding mechanisms should be able to cover the provision of services, which will have become part of standard practice. At the same time the overall financial benefits from the reduction of the alcohol problem burden (e.g., reduced collisions, reduced accidents, reduced domestic violence) may begin to be felt. There is evidence that the provision of preventive services of the kind contemplated is at least as cost-effective as many accepted prevention practices (Cummings et al., 1989) A further comment seems in order regarding the financial implications of brief therapy. Unlike brief intervention (one or two sessions), it is difficult to see how brief therapy (six or eight sessions) can be construed as a part of standard practice, at least for reimbursement purposes. Moreover, although some physicians may be trained in brief therapy, the committee can see no necessary requirement of medical training as a part of its delivery and anticipates that it may be provided for the most part by practitioners other than physicians. In the current climate of health insurance, reimbursement of nonphysicians would very largely not be possible. The committee urges strongly that a f nancial mechanism be developed to furul brief therapy outside of, as well as within, the context of funding for medical or medicalb-superv~sed services. Conclusions and Recommendations The committee recommends a broader and more comprehensive nationwide effort to establish a strong community role in dealing with mild to moderate alcohol problems, to complement the exhorts of the specialized treatment sector in dealing with substantial and severe alcohol problems. The goal of this effort is to reduce or eliminate the consumption of alcohol by persons experiencing problems, with the object of reducing the overall burden of problems. The role of community agencies in treatment would involve (1) identifying in a variety of human service settings those persons with alcohol problems, (2) referring those who are appropriate to specialized treatment, and (3) dealing with the rest by providing brief intervention or brief therapy. To carry out this program, it would be necessary to designate a strong leadership capability in this area. The most appropriate approaches to these activities need to be defined and developed. A major training effort, directed at a variety of human services professionals and their supporting institutions, would need to be mounted, as well as an evaluation effort capable of determining both the outcome of the community role in treatment and its costs. Methods of financing those components of the program not underwritten by existing mechanisms (e.g., planning, materials development, further re- search, feasibility studies, training, and the provision of brief therapy) would also have to be developed.
236 BROADENING THE BASE OF TREATMENT FOR ALCOHOL PROBLEMS The committee recognizes that these recommendations constitute a major and (at least initially) a costly proposal, but it also recognizes the appalling magnitude of the cost of alcohol problems to society. For the reasons developed in this chapter, the committee believes that the further development of the community component of treatment offers a significant possibility of ultimately containing these costs. REFERENCES Allen, J. P., M. J. Eckhardt, and J. Wallen. 1988. Screening for alcoholism: Techniques and issues. Public Health Reports 103:586-592. American Psychiatric Association. 1987. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 3rd Edition, Revised. Washington, D.C.: American Psychiatric Association. Babor, T. F., and R. Kadden. 1985. Screening for alcohol problems: Conceptual issues and practical considerations. Pp. 1-30 in Early Identification of Alcohol Abuse, N. C. Chang and H. M. Chao, eds. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office. Babor, T. F., E. B. Ritson, and R. J. Hodgson. 1986. Alcohol-related problems in the primary health care setting: A review of early intervention strategies. British Journal of Addiction 81:23-46. Babor, T. F., P. Korner, C. Wilber, and S. P. Good. 1987a. Screening and early intervention strategies for harmful drinkers: Initial lessons from the Amethyst Project. Australian Drug and Alcohol Review 6:325-339. Babor, T. F., H. R. Kranzler, and R. J. Lauerman. 1987b. Social drinking as a health and psychosocial risk factor. Anstie's limit revisited. Pp. 373402 in Recent Developments in Alcoholism, vol. 5, M. Galanter, ed. New York: Plenum Press. Babor, T. F., R. de la Fuente, J. Saunders, and M. Grant. 1989. Manual for the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT). Geneva: World Health Organization. Bach-y-Rita, G., J. R. Lion, and F. R. Ervin. 1970. Pathological intoxication: Clinical and electroencephalographic studies. American Journal of Psychiatry 127:698-703. Baekeland, F., and L. K Lundwall. 1977. Engaging the alcoholic in treatment and keeping him there. Pp. 161-195 in Treatment and Rehabilitation of the Chronic Alcoholic, Vol. 5 of The Biology of Alcoholism, B. Kissin and H. Begleiter, eds. New York: Plenum Press. Banay, R. S. 1944. Pathologic reaction to alcohol. I. Review of the literature and original case reports. Quarterly Journal of Studies on Alcohol 4:580 605. Beresford, T. P. 1979. Alcoholism consultation and general hospital psychiatry. General Hospital Psychiatry 1:293-300. Beresford, T. P., R. Adduci, D. Low, F. Goggans, and R. C. W. Hall. 1982. A computerized biochemical profile for detection of alcoholism. Psychosomatics 23:713-720. Bernadt, M. W., J. Mumford, C. Taylor, B. Smith, and R. M. Murray. 1982. Comparison of questionnaire and laboratory tests in the detection of excessive drinking and alcoholism. Lancet 1:325-328. Bernadt, M. W., J. Mumford, and R. M. Murray. 1984. A discriminant-function analysis of screening tests for excessive drinking and alcoholism. Journal of Studies on Alcohol 45:81-86. Blum, R. W. 1987. Adolescent substance abuse: Diagnostic and treatment issues. Pediatric Clinics of North America 34:523-537. Bowen, O. R., and J. H. Sammons. 1988. The alcohol-abusing patient: A challenge to the profession. Journal of the American Medical Association 260:2267-2270. Cahalan, D. 1970. Problem Drinkers: A National Survey. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
THE COMMUNITY ROLE: IDENTIFICATION, BRIEF INTERVENTION, & REFERRAL 237 Cherpitel, C. J. S. 1988. Alcohol consumption and casualties: A comparison of two emergency room populations. British Journal of Addiction 83:1299-1307. Cherpitel, C. J. S. 1989. Breath analysis and self-reports as measures of alcohol-related emergency room admissions. Journal of Studies on Alcohol 50:155-161. Chick, J., G. Lloyd, and E. Crombie. 1984. Counselling problem drinkers in medical wards: A controlled study. British Medical Journal 290:965-967. Cold, J. 1979. Mania a potu: A critical review of pathological intoxication. Psychological Medicine 9:709-719. Collins, J. J., Jr., ed. 1981. Drinking and Crime: Perspectives on the Relationships Between Alcohol Consumption and Criminal Behavior. New York: Guilford Press. Cummings, S. R., S. M. Rubin, and G. Oster. 1989. The cost-effectiveness of counseling smokers to quit. Journal of the American Medical Association 261:75-79. Cyr, M. G., and S. A. Wartman. 1988. The effectiveness of routine screening questions in the detection of alcoholism. Journal of the American Medical Association 259:51-54. Davis, D. I. 1984. Differences in the use of substances of abuse by psychiatric patients compared with medical and surgical patients. Journal of Nervous and Mental Diseases 172:654-657. Deakins, S. M. 1983. In support of routine screening for alcoholism. Pp. 16-22 in Social Work Treatment of Alcohol Problems, D. Cook, C. Fewell, and J. Riolo, eds. New Brunswick, N. J.: Rutgers Center for Alcohol Studies. Donovan, D. M., G. A. Marlatt, and P. M. Salzberg. 1983. Drinking behavior, personality factors, and high-risk driving: A review and theoretical formulations. Journal of Studies on Alcohol 44:395-428. Edwards, G., J. Orford, S. Egert, S. Guthrie, A. Hawker, C. Hensman, M. Mitcheson, E. Oppenheimer, and C. Taylor. 1977. Alcoholism: A controlled trial of "treatment" and "advice." Journal of Studies on Alcohol 38:1004-1031. Edwards, G., and J. Orford. 1977. A plain treatment for alcoholism. Proceedings of the Royal Society of Medicine 70:344-348. Edwards, G., A. Arif, and R. Hodgson. 1981. Nomenclature and classification of drug- and alcohol-related problems: A WHO memorandum. Bulletin of the World Health Organization 59:225-242. Ehline, D., and P. O. Tighe. 1977. Alcoholism: Early identification and intervention in the social service agency. Child Welfare 56:584-592. Elvy, G. A., J. E. Wells, and K A. Baird. 1988. Attempted referral as intervention for problem drinking in the general hospital. British Journal of Addiction 83:83-89. Ewing, J. A. 1984. Detecting alcoholism: The CAGE questionnaire. Journal of the American Medical Association 252:1905-1907. Fillmore, K M., and D. Kelso. 1987. Coercion into alcoholism treatment: Meanings for the disease concept of alcoholism. Journal of Drug Issues 17:301-319. Glaser, F. B. 1980. Anybody got a match? Treatment research and the matching hypothesis. Pp. 178-196 in Alcoholism Treatment in Transition, G. Edwards and M. Grant, eds. London: Croom Helm. Glaser, F. B. 1988. Alcohol and drug problems: A challenge to consultation-liaison psychiatry. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry 33:259-263. Gottesman, I. I., and C. ~ Prescott. 1989. Abuses of the MacAndrew MMPI alcoholism scale: A critical review. Clinical Psychology Reviews 9:223-242. Hanson, J. W., A. P. Streissguth, and D. W. Smith. 1978. The effects of moderate alcohol consumption during pregnancy on fetal growth and morphogenesis. Journal of Pediatrics 92:457-460.
238 BROADENING THE BASE OF TREATMENT FOR ALCOHOL PROBLEMS Harlap, S., and P. H. Shiono. 1980. Aleohol, smoking, and incidence of spontaneous abortions in the first and second trimester. Laneet 2:173-176. Heather, N. 1986. Change without therapists: The use of self-help manuals by problem drinkers. Pp. 331-359 in Treating Addictive Behaviors: Processes of Change, W. R. Miller and N. Heather, eds. New York: Plenum Press. Heather, N., B. Whitton, and I. Robinson. 1986. Evaluation of a self-help manual for media-recruited problem drinkers: S'x-month follow-up results. British Journal of Clinieal Psychology 25:19-34. Helzer, J. E., and A. Burnham. In press. Aleohol abuse and dependence. In Psychiatric Disorders in America, L. Robins and D. A. Regier, eds. New York: The Free Press. Hilton, M. E. 1987. Drinking patterns and drinking problems in 1984: Results from a general population survey. Alcoholism: Clinieal and Experimental Researeh 11:167-175. Hingson, R., T. Mangione, A. Meyers, and N. Scotch. 1982. Seeking help for drinking problems: A study in the Boston metropolitan area. Journal of Studies on Aleohol 43:273-288. Holden, C. 1985. The neglected disease in medical education. Science 229:741-742. Holt, S. I., I. Stuart, J. Dixon, R. Elton, T. Taylor, and K Little. 1980. Aleohol and the emergency service patient. British Medical Journal 281:638-640. Howland, J., and R. Hingson. 1987. Aleohol as a risk factor for injuries or death due to fires and burns: A review of the literature. Public Health Reports 102:475-483. Institute of Medicine (IOM). 1988. Homelessness, Health, and Human Needs. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press. Institute of Medicine (IOM). 1989. Prevention and Treatment of Alcohol Problems: Researeh Opportunities. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press. Kaplan, H. B., A. D. Pokorny, T. Kanas, and G. Lively. 1974. Screening tests and self-identification in the detection of alcoholism. Journal of Health and Social Behavior 15:51-56. Kapur, B. M., and Y. Israel. 1985. Alcohol dipstick-a rapid method for analysis of ethanol in body fluids. Pp. 310-20 in Early Identification of Alcohol Abuse, N. C. Chang and H. M. Chao, eds. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office. Kinney, J. N.d. (ca. 1988). The Busy Physician's Five-Minute Guide to the Management of Alcohol Problems. Produced through a grant from the American Medical Association Department of Substance Abuse. Kreitman, N. 1986. Alcohol consumption and the preventive paradox. British Journal of Addiction 81:353-363. Kristenson, H., H. Ohlin, M. B. Hulten-Nosslin, E. Trell, and B. Hood. 1983. Identification and intervention of heavy drinking in middle-aged men: Results and follow-up of 24 60 months of long-term study with randomized controls. Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research 7:203-209. Larsson, G. 1983. Prevention of fetal alcohol effects: An antenatal program for early detection of pregnancies at risk. Acta Obstetrica and Gynecologica Scandinavica 62:171-178. Leigh, G., and H. A. Skinner. 1988. Physiological assessment. Pp. 112-136 in Assessment of Addictive Behaviors, G. ~ Marlatt and D. M. Donovan, eds. New York: Guilford Press. Lewis, D. C., and A. J. Gordon. 1983. Alcoholism and the general hospital: The Roger Williams intervention program. Bulletin of the New York Academy of Medicine 59:181-197. Lewis, D. C., R. G. Niven, D. Czeehowiez, and J. G. Trumble. 1987. A review of medical education in alcohol and other drug abuse. Journal of the American Medical Association 257:2945-2948. Little, R. E. 1977. Moderate alcohol use during pregnancy and decreased infant birth weight. American Journal of Public Health 67:1154-1156.
THE COMMUNITY ROLE: IDENTIFICATION, BRIEF INTERVENTION, & REFERRAL 239 MacAndrew, C. 1965. The differentiation of male alcoholic outpatients from non-alcoholic psychiatric outpatients by means of the MMPI. Quarterly Journal of Studies on Alcohol 26:238-246. Maletzky, B. M. 1976. The diagnosis of pathological intoxication. Journal of Studies on Alcohol 37:1215-1228. Maletzky, B. M. 1978. The alcohol provocation test. Journal of Clinical Psychiatry 39:403, 407411. Marinacci, A. A. 1963. A special type of temporal lobe (psychomotor) seizures following ingestion of alcohol. Bulletin of the Los Angeles Neurological Society 28:241-250. May, P. R. A., and F. G. Ebaugh. 1953. Pathological intoxication, alcoholic hallucinosis, and other reactions to alcohol: A clinical study. Quarterly Journal of Studies on Alcohol 14:200-227. McEvoy, L., L. N. Robins, J. E. Helzer, and E. L. Spitznagel. 1987. Alcoholism and mental health services: Who comes to treatment? Washington University School of Medicine, Department of Psychiatry, St. Lewis, Ma. McIntosh, I. D. 1982. Alcohol-related disabilities in general hospital patients: A critical assessment of the evidence. International Journal of the Addictions 17:609-639. Miller, W. R., and R. F. Munoz. 1982. How to Control Your Drinking, rev. ed. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press. Miller, W. R., and C. A. Taylor. 1980. Relative effectiveness of bibliotherapy, individual and group self control training in the treatment of problem drinkers. Addictive Behaviors 5:13-24. Moore, M. H., and D. R. Gerstein. 1981. Alcohol and Public Policy: Beyond the Shadow of Prohibition. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press. Moore, R. D., L. R. Bone, G. Geller, J. A. Mamon, E. J. Stokes, and D. M. Levine. 1989. Prevalence, detection, and treatment of alcoholism in hospitalized patients. Journal of the American Medical Association 261:403-407. Morse, R. M., and R. D. Hurt. 1979. Screening for alcoholism. Journal of the American Medical Association 242:2688-2690. Moskowitz, J. M. 1989. The primary prevention of alcohol problems: A critical review of the research literature. Journal of Studies on Alcohol 50:54-88. Murray, R. M. 1977. Screening and early detection instruments for disabilities related to alcohol consumption. Pp. 89-105 in Alcohol Related Disabilities, G. Edwards, M. M. Gross, M. Keller, J. Moser, and R. Room, eds. Geneva: World Health Organization. National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA). 1987. Screening for Alcoholism in Primary Care Settings: Report of A Workshop Held in Bethesda, Maryland, May 27, 1987. Rockville, Md: NL\AA Orford, J., E. Oppenheimer, and G. Edwards. 1976. Abstinence or control: The outcome for excessive drinkers two years after consultation. Behavior Research and Therapy 14:409-418. Peachey, J. E., and B. M. Kapur. 1986. Monitoring drinking behavior with the alcohol dipstick during treatment. Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research 10:663 666. Peppiatt, R., R. Evans, and P. Jordan. 1978. Blood alcohol concentrations of patients attending an accident and emergency department. Resuscitation 6:37-43. Perrine, B. 1986. Varieties of drunken and drinking drivers: A review, a research program, and a model. In Alcohol, Drugs, and Traffic Safety. Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Alcohol, Drugs, and Traffic Safety, Amsterdam, September. Plant, M. 1988. Good news for doctors? Alcohol and Alcoholism 23:5~. Pokorny, A. D., and J. Solomon. 1983. A follow-up survey of drug abuse and alcoholism teaching in medical schools. Journal of Medical Education 58:316-321. Popham, R. E., W. Schmidt, and J. de Lint 1975. The prevention of alcoholism: Epidemiological studies of the effects of government control measures. British Journal of Addiction 70:125-144.
240 BROADENING THE BASE OF TREATMENT FOR ALCOHOL PROBLEMS Raspa, G. 1965. Public welfare and problem drinkers: Providing financial assistance, therapeutic facilities, and case work help. Pp. 55-62 in Treatment Methods and Milieus in Social Work with Alcoholics. Proceedings of a conference held by the University of California Extension Division, Berkeley, Cali£, December 3-5. Reich, T., L. N. Robins, R. A. Woodruff, Jr., M. Taibelson, C. Rich, and L. Cunningham. 1975. Computer-assisted derivation of a screening interview for alcoholism. Arehives of General Psyehiatry 32:847-852. Robins, L. N., J. H. Helzer, J. Croughan, and K S. Rateliff. 1981. National Institute of Mental Health Diagnostic Interview Schedule: Its history, characteristics, and validity. Arehives of General Psyehiatry 38:381-389. Rosett, H. L., and L. Weiner. 1985. Alcohol and pregnancy: A clinical perspective. Annual Review of Medicine 36:73~0. Rosett, H. L., L. Weiner, A. Lee, B. Zuekerman, E. Dooling, and E. Oppenheimer. 1983. Patterns of alcohol consumption and fetal development. Obstetrics and Gynecology 61:539-546. Ross, H. E., F. B. Glaser, and T. Germanson. 1988. The prevalence of psychiatric disorders in patients with alcohol and other drug problems. Arehives of General Psychiatry 45:1023-1031. Russell, M. A. H., C. Wilson, C. Taylor, and C. D. Baker. 1979. Effect of general practitioners' advice against smoking. British Medical Journal 2:231-235. Sanehez-Craig, M. 1988. Exeeutive summary: Secondary prevention of alcohol problems by brief intervention. Prepared for the IOM Committee for the Study of Treatment and Rehabilitation Services for Aleoholism and Alcohol Abuse. Sanehez-Craig, M., H. M. Annis, A. R. Bornet, and K R. MacDonald. 1984. Random assignment to abstinence and controlled drinking: Evaluation of a cognitive-behavioral program for problem drinkers. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 52:390-403. Saunders, J. B. 1988. Exeeutive summary: Sereening techniques for alcohol problems. Prepared for the IOM Committee for the Study of Treatment and Rehabilitation Services for Aleoholism and Alcohol Abuse. Saunders, J. B., and O. G. Aasland. 1987. WHO Collaborative Project on Identification and Treatment of Persons with Harmful Alcohol Consumption: Report on Phase I Development of a Sereening Instrument. Geneva: World Health Organization, Division of Mental Health. Saunders, W. M., and P. W. Kershaw. 1980. Sereening tests for alcoholism--findings from a community study. British Journal of Addiction 75:37-41. Sehuekit, M. A., and M. Irwin. 1988. Diagnosis of alcoholism. Medical Clinics of North America 72:1133-1153. Selzer, M. L. 1971. The Michigan Aleoholism Screening Test: The quest for a new diagnostic instrument. American Journal of Psyehiatry 127:1653-1658. Seizer, M. L., A. Vinokur, and L. van Rooijen. 1975. Self-administered Short Michigan Aleoholism Screening Test (SMAST). Journal of Studies on Alcohol 36:117-126. Skelton, W. D. 1970. Alcohol, violent behavior, and the electroencephalogram. Southern Medical Journal 63:465 466. Skinner, H. A. 1988. Exeeutive summary: Spectrum of drinkers and intervention responses. Prepared for the IOM Committee for the Study of Treatment and Rehabilitation Services for Alcoholism and Alcohol Abuse. Skinner, H. A., and B. Allen. 1982. Alcohol dependence syndrome: Measurement and validation. Journal of Abnormal Psychology 91:199-209. SWnner, H. A., and S. Holt. 1987. The Alcohol Clinical Index: Strategies for Identifying Patients with Alcohol Problems. Toronto: Addiction Research Foundation. Skinner, H. A., S. Holt, and Y. Israel. 1981. Early identification of alcohol abuse. I. Critical issues and psychosocial indicators for a composite index. Canadian Medical Association Journal 124:1141-1152.
THE COMMUNITY ROLE: IDENTIFICATION, BRIEF INTERVENTION, & REFERRAL 241 Skinner, H. A., S. Holt, R. Schuller, J. Roy, and Y. Israel. 1984. Identification of alcohol abuse using laboratory tests and a history of trauma. Annals of Internal Medicine 101:847-51. Skinner, H. A., B. A. Allen, M. C. McIntosh, and W. H. Palmer. 1985a. Lifestyle assessment: Applying microcomputers in family practice. British Medical Journal 290:212-214. Skinner, H. A., B. A. Allen, M. C. McIntosh, and W. H. Palmer. 1985b. Lifestyle assessment: Just asking makes a difference. British Medical Journal 290:214-16. Skinner, H. A., S. Halt, W.-J. Sheu, and Y. Israel. 1986. Clinical versus laboratory detection of alcohol abuse: The alcohol clinical index. British Medical Journal 2:1703-1708. Smart, R. G., M. Gillies, G. Brown, and N. L. Blair. 1980. A survey of alcohol-related problems and their treatment. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry 25:220-227. Sokol, R. J., S. I. Miller, and G. Reed. 1980. Alcohol abuse in pregnancy: An epidemiological study. Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research 4:135-145. Sparks, R. D. 1976. Attitudes in medicine toward alcoholism. Man and Medicine 1:173-180. Speiglman, R., and M. Smith. 1985. California's Services for Public Inebriates: An Inventory and Report to the Department of Alcohol and Drug Programs. Berkeley, Calif.: Alcohol Research Group. Spitzer, W. O., D. L. Sackett, J. C. Sibley, R. S. Roberts, M. Gent, D. J. Kergin, B. C. Hackett, and A. Olynich. 1974. The Burlington randomized trial of the nurse practitioner. New England Journal of Medicine 290:251-256. State of Connecticut Drug and Alcohol Abuse Criminal Justice Commission. 1988. The Drug and Alcohol Abuse Crisis within the Connecticut Criminal Justice System. State of Connecticut Drug and Alcohol Abuse Criminal Justice Commission, Hartford, Conn. Streissguth, A. P., S. Landesman-Dwyer, J. C. Martin, and D. W. Smith. 1980. Teratogenic effects of alcohol in humans and laboratory animals. Science 209:353-361. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (USDHHS). 1987. Sixth Special Report to the U.S. Congress on Alcohol and Health. Rockville, Md.: National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism. U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. 1989. Section 47: Screening for alcohol and other drug abuse. Pp. 182-189 in Guide to Clinical Preventive Services (prepublication copy). U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Washington, D.C. Vingilis, E. 1983. Drinking drivers and alcoholics: Are they from the same population? Pp. 299-342 in Research Advances in Alcohol and Drug Problems, vol. 7, R. G. Smart, F. B. Glaser, Y. Israel, H. Kalant, R. E. Popham, and W. Schmidt, eds. New York: Plenum Press. Wallace, P., S. Cutler, and A. Haines. 1988. Randomized controlled trial of general practitioner intervention in patients with excessive alcohol consumption. British Medical Journal 297:633-638. Ward, R. E., T. C. F~lynn, P. W. Miller, and W. F. Blaisdell. 1982. Effects of ethanol ingestion on the severity and outcome of trauma. American Journal of Surgery 144:153-157. Williams, C. N., D. C. Lewis, J. Femino, L. Hall, K Blackburn-Kilduff, R. Rosen, and C. Samella. 1985. Overcoming barriers to identification and referral of alcoholics in a general hospital setting: One approach. Rhode Island Medical Journal 68:131-138. Wilson, J., and B. Jonah. 1985. Identifying impaired drivers among the general driving population. Journal of Studies on Alcohol 46:531-536. Wolf, A. S. 1980. Homicide and blackout in Alaskan natives: a report and reproduction of five cases. Journal of Studies on Alcohol 41:456-462.
