Outcome of a “modified brief intervention” program delivered at work place for a population with hazardous alcohol use

• Main Authors: Sojan Baby, Harpreet Singh, Ranveer Singh, Siddharth Dixit, Amit Chail, Amresh Dubey
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Published: Wolters Kluwer Medknow Publications 2019-01-01
• Series: Industrial Psychiatry Journal
• Subjects: assist; brief intervention; hazardous alcohol use; secondary prevention
• Online Access: http://www.industrialpsychiatry.org/article.asp?issn=0972-6748;year=2019;volume=28;issue=2;spage=294;epage=300;aulast=
• ISSN: 0972-6748; 0976-2795

Introduction: At the population level, screening and brief intervention (BI) is the most cost-effective method to reduce the burden of disease due to hazardous alcohol use. In delivering BI at individual level, trained workforce as well as time is a limiting factor. Hence, a study was conducted to assess the outcome of a “modified brief intervention” program delivered at workplace in a group setting for the participants identified with hazardous alcohol use pattern, as a secondary prevention measure. Materials and Methods: Study was a pre- and post-intervention study without a control group. Following an educational lecture, conducted by a mental health team including a psychiatrist, participants were screened using the WHO ASSIST questionnaire, V3.0 version. Those screened positive for hazardous alcohol use were given “modified brief intervention” in a group setting at their workplace which consisted of two semi-structured sessions of 1-h duration each. The sessions were spaced in a month. First session was based on motivation enhancement measures along with gathering of current alcohol use details and second session focused on relapse prevention. Three months later, the outcomes were assessed using a semistructured questionnaire and ASSIST was reapplied. The analysis was done using the R-commander from R-software. Results: No significant difficulty was experienced in conducting the interventions. Fifty (55.6%) participants stayed alcohol abstinent following second session and another 22 (24.44%) had reduced both the quantity and frequency of use. Paired t-tests revealed statistically significant reduction in all secondary outcome parameters (ASSIST scores, usual dose in one sitting, maximum dose, and number of days of use in month). Eighty (88.89%) participants reported the program to be effective. Only 3 months of observation is a limitation. Conclusion: The study provides an efficient secondary prevention model to reduce hazardous drinking at the population level needing less workforce, cost, and time.