Alcohol Use Disorders In Primary Care Research Articles

Prevalence of alcohol use disorders documented in electronic health records in primary care across intersections of race or ethnicity, sex, and socioeconomic status

BackgroundDiagnosis of alcohol use disorder (AUD) in primary care is critical for increasing access to alcohol treatment. However, AUD is underdiagnosed and may be inequitably diagnosed due to societal structures that determine access to resources (e.g., structural racism that limits opportunities for some groups and influences interpersonal interactions in and beyond health care). This study described patterns of provider-documented AUD in primary care across intersections of race, ethnicity, sex, and community-level socioeconomic status (SES).MethodsThis cross-sectional study used EHR data from a regional healthcare system with 35 primary care clinics that included adult patients who completed alcohol screenings between 3/1/2015 and 9/30/2020. The prevalence of provider-documented AUD in primary care based on International Classification of Diseases-9 (ICD-9) and ICD-10 diagnoses was compared across intersections of race, ethnicity, sex, and community-level SES.ResultsAmong 439,375 patients, 6.6% were Latine, 11.0% Asian, 5.4% Black, 1.3% Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander (NH/PI), 1.5% American Indian/Alaska Native (AI/AN), and 74.2% White, and 58.3% women. The overall prevalence of provider-documented AUD was 1.0% and varied across intersecting identities. Among women, the prevalence was highest for AI/AN women with middle SES, 1.5% (95% CI 1.0–2.3), and lowest for Asian women with middle SES, 0.1% (95% CI 0.1–0.2). Among men, the prevalence was highest for AI/AN men with high and middle SES, 2.0% (95% CI 1.1–3.4) and 2.0% (95% CI 1.2–3.2), respectively, and lowest for Asian men with high SES, 0.5% (95% CI 0.3–0.7). Black and Latine patients tended to have a lower prevalence of AUD than White patients, across all intersections of sex and SES except for Black women with high SES. There were no consistent patterns of the prevalence of AUD diagnosis that emerged across SES.ConclusionThe prevalence of provider-documented AUD in primary care was highest in AI/AN men and women and lowest in Asian men and women. Findings of lower prevalence of provider-documented AUD in Black and Hispanic than White patients across most intersections of sex and SES differed from prior studies. Findings may suggest that differences in access to resources, which vary in effects across these identity characteristics and lived experiences, influence the diagnosis of AUD in clinical care.

Prevalence and incidence of alcohol dependence: cross-sectional primary care analysis in Liverpool, UK

ObjectivesLiverpool has high prevalence of alcohol use disorders (AUDs) compared with the rest of the UK. Early identification and referral in primary care would improve treatment for people with AUD....

Approaches for implementing digital interventions for alcohol use disorders in primary care: A qualitative, user-centered design study.

Digital interventions, such as smartphone apps, can be effective in treating alcohol use disorders (AUD). However, efforts to integrate digital interventions into primary care have been challenging. To inform successful implementation, we sought to understand how patients and clinicians preferred to use apps in routine primary care. This study combined user-centered design and qualitative research methods, interviewing 18 primary care patients with AUD and nine primary care clinicians on topics such as prior experiences with digital tools, and design preferences regarding approaches for offering apps for AUD in primary care. Interviews were recorded and transcribed for template analysis whereby a priori codes were based on interview topics and refined through iterative coding. New codes and cross-cutting themes emerged from the data. Patient participants with AUD indicated they would be more likely to engage in treatment if primary care team members were involved in their use of apps. They also preferred to see clinicians "invested" and recommended that clinicians ask about app use and progress during follow-up appointments or check-ins. Clinician participants valued the opportunity to offer apps to their patients but noted that workflows would need to be tailored to individual patient needs. Time pressures, implementation complexity, and lack of appropriate staffing were cited as barriers. Clinicians proposed concrete solutions (e.g., education, tools, and staffing models) that could improve their ability to use apps within the constraints of primary care and suggested that some patients could potentially use apps without clinician support. A user-centered approach to engaging patients in digital alcohol interventions in primary care may require personalized support for both initiation and follow-up. Meeting patients' needs likely require increased staffing and efficient workflows in primary care. Health systems should consider offering multiple pathways for enrolling patients in apps to accommodate individual preferences and contextual barriers. Healthcare systems have begun using app-based treatments to help patients manage their health conditions, including alcohol use disorders. Some apps have been tested in research studies and appear to be effective. However, it is difficult for healthcare teams to offer apps to patients. Clinicians must engage in new activities that they have not done before, such as "teaching" patients to use apps and checking in on their use of the apps. Identifying how to use apps in routine healthcare is critical to their successful implementation. This study interviewed 27 people, including healthcare providers and patients in primary care, to uncover the most optimal ways to offer apps to patients with alcohol use disorders. The interviews combined the use of qualitative research methods and user-centered design. Results suggest that to use to address alcohol use disorders, primary care teams should be prepared to offer personalized support to patients. Both patient and clinician interviewees said that the steps required to use apps must be intuitive and simple. Patients could gain more benefits if clinicians introduced the apps and guided patients to use them, as opposed to making apps available for patients to download and use on their own. However, the exact approach to offering apps would depend on a given patient's preferences and the extent that staffing was available in the clinic to support patients. Health systems should be prepared to offer and support patients in their use of apps, which should accommodate patient preferences and the constraints of the clinic.

The Place of Pharmacotherapy in Alcohol Use Disorder Management in Family Practice - A Systematic Review.

Alcohol use disorders (AUD) are among the most prevalent mental disorders around the world, yet still remain the most undertreated. Many studies report the low rate of treatment uptake, less than 20%, among people with AUD. Among those accessing care, a large majority only approach their GP for help. Therefore, primary care is a strategic setting for the identification and the management of AUD. International recommendations stress AUD pharmacotherapy for withdrawal and craving management, but very few studies have shown interest in the management of AUDs in primary care. The main objective of this study was to analyse pharmacotherapy in AUD management in primary care by means of a systematic literature review. A systematic literature review (PRISMA) was carried out. 5 databases were screened: PUBMED via MEDLINE, LiSSa, the SUDOC catalogue, PASCAL and EMBASE. Search algorithms were used integrating the concepts of pharmacotherapy management, alcohol use disorders and primary care, only in the English language. 296 studies were selected and 10 were included. One was a follow-up study on the national prescription database, while four were cross-sectional studies with an auto-questionnaire survey. Of the 10 studies included, two were conducted in Europe, five in North America, two in Australia and one in South Africa. These pharmacotherapy studies were concerned with the anti-craving treatment, and 3 types of medications were used: Disulfiram, Acamprosate and Naltrexone. Factors identified as limiting or facilitating prescriptions concerned cost, indications, efficacy, training and adjuncts to pharmacotherapy. Knowledge and prescription of pharmacotherapy for AUD, more specifically, anti-craving treatment, is insufficient in primary care. There is a lack of data and studies on the efficacy of anti-craving treatment in primary care. Guidelines for AUD management, including psychological and medical management and pharmacotherapy, do exist but have not been adapted to primary care practice. Barriers and facilitators of pharmacotherapy prescription in AUD in primary care were identified in this study.

Implementing alcohol use disorder pharmacotherapy in primary care settings: a qualitative analysis of provider-identified barriers and impact on implementation outcomes

BackgroundDespite the high prevalence of alcohol use disorders (AUDs), in 2016, only 7.8% of individuals meeting diagnostic criteria received any type of AUD treatment. Developing options for treatment within primary care settings is imperative to increase treatment access. As part of a trial to implement AUD pharmacotherapy in primary care settings, this qualitative study analyzed pre-implementation provider interviews using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) to identify implementation barriers.MethodsThree large Veterans Health Administration facilities participated in the implementation intervention. Local providers were trained to serve as implementation/clinical champions and received external facilitation from the project team. Primary care providers received a dashboard of patients with AUD for case identification, educational materials, and access to consultation from clinical champions. Veterans with AUD diagnoses received educational information in the mail. Prior to the start of implementation activities, 24 primary care providers (5–10 per site) participated in semi-structured interviews. Transcripts were analyzed using common coding techniques for qualitative data using the CFIR codebook Innovation/Intervention Characteristics, Outer Setting, Inner Setting, and Characteristics of Individuals domains. Number and type of barriers identified were compared to quantitative changes in AUD pharmacotherapy prescribing rates.ResultsFour major barriers emerged across all three sites: complexity of providing AUD pharmacotherapy in primary care, the limited compatibility of AUD treatment with existing primary care processes, providers’ limited knowledge and negative beliefs about AUD pharmacotherapy and providers’ negative attitudes toward patients with AUD. Site specific barriers included lack of relative advantage of providing AUD pharmacotherapy in primary care over current practice, complaints about the design quality and packaging of implementation intervention materials, limited priority of addressing AUD in primary care and limited available resources to implement AUD pharmacotherapy in primary care.ConclusionsCFIR constructs were useful for identifying pre-implementation barriers that informed refinements to the implementation intervention. The number and type of pre-implementation barriers identified did not demonstrate a clear relationship to the degree to which sites were able to improve AUD pharmacotherapy prescribing rate. Site-level implementation process factors such as leadership support and provider turn-over likely also interacted with pre-implementation barriers to drive implementation outcomes.

Patient-centered primary care for adults at high risk for AUDs: the Choosing Healthier Drinking Options In primary CarE (CHOICE) trial

BackgroundMost patients with alcohol use disorders (AUDs) never receive alcohol treatment, and experts have recommended management of AUDs in primary care. The Choosing Healthier Drinking Options In primary CarE (CHOICE) trial was a randomized controlled effectiveness trial of a novel intervention for primary care patients at high risk for AUDs. This report describes the conceptual and scientific foundation of the CHOICE model of care, critical elements of the CHOICE trial design consistent with the Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR), results of recruitment, and baseline characteristics of the enrolled sample.MethodsThe CHOICE intervention is a multi-contact, extended counseling intervention, based on the Chronic Care Model, shared decision-making, motivational interviewing, and evidence-based options for managing AUDs, designed to be practical in primary care. Outpatients who received care at 3 Veterans Affairs primary care sites in the Pacific Northwest and reported frequent heavy drinking (≥4 drinks/day for women; ≥5 for men) were recruited (2011–2014) into a trial in which half of the participants would be offered additional alcohol-related care from a nurse. CHOICE nurses offered 12 months of patient-centered care, including proactive outreach and engagement, repeated brief motivational interventions, monitoring with and without alcohol biomarkers, medications for AUDs, and/or specialty alcohol treatment as appropriate and per patient preference. A CHOICE nurse practitioner was available to prescribe medications for AUDs.ResultsA total of 304 patients consented to participate in the CHOICE trial. Among consenting participants, 90% were men, the mean age was 51 (range 22–75), and most met DSM-IV criteria for alcohol abuse (14%) or dependence (59%). Many participants also screened positive for tobacco use (44%), depression (45%), anxiety disorders (30-41%) and non-tobacco drug use disorders (19%). At baseline, participants had a median AUDIT score of 18 [Interquartile range (IQR) 14–24] and a median readiness to change drinking score of 5 (IQR 2.75–6.25) on a 1–10 Likert scale.ConclusionThe CHOICE trial tested a patient-centered intervention for AUDs and recruited primary care patients at high risk for AUDs, with a spectrum of severity, co-morbidity, and readiness to change drinking.Trial registration The trial is registered at clinicaltrial.gov (NCT01400581).

Accuracy of one or two simple questions to identify alcohol-use disorder in primary care: a meta-analysis.

There is much interest in ultra-short alcohol screening in primary care that may support brief alcohol interventions. Brief screening consisting of one or two questions might be used alone or in combination with longer tests as recommended by the Primary Care Service Framework. To investigate whether a simple one and two question screening might prove an accurate and acceptable screening method in primary care. A systematic literature search, critical appraisal and meta-analysis were conducted. A comprehensive search identified 61 analyses of single questions to detect alcohol problems including 17 that took place in primary care, using a robust interview standard. Despite focusing alcohol-use disorder in primary care settings, heterogeneity remained high, therefore random effects and bivariate meta-analyses were used. After adjustments, diagnostic accuracy of a single-question approach was given by a sensitivity of 54.5% (95% CI = 43.0% to 65.5%) and a specificity of 87.3% (95% CI = 81.5% to 91.5%) using meta-analytic weighting. Two questions had a sensitivity of 87.2% (95% CI = 69.9% to 97.7%) and specificity of 79.8% (95% CI = 75.7% to 83.6%). Looking at each question individually, the most successful single question was a modification of the Single Alcohol Screening Question (SASQ) namely, 'How often do you have six or more drinks on one occasion?'. The optimal approach appears to be two questions followed by the CAGE questionnaire, which achieved an overall accuracy of 90.9% and required only 3.3 questions per attendee. Two brief questions can be used as an initial screen for alcohol problems but only when combined with a second-step screen. A brief alcohol intervention should be considered in those individuals who answer positively on both steps.

See My Suffering: Women With Alcohol Use Disorders and Their Primary Care Experiences

Despite global initiatives to improve the primary care of 2.5 million US women meeting criteria for alcohol use disorders (AUD), many women with serious problems are unseen, misunderstood, misdiagnosed, or ignored. This interpretive phenomenological study explored the meaning of the primary care experience for a small group of women with self-identified AUD. Interviews uncovered suffering. Subsuming themes of Presenting My Damaged Self and Being Silenced/Being Heard revealed potential interventions for primary care practitioners. Analyzed alongside extant literature on suffering, these findings complement and enhance recent important research in the area of diagnosis of and intervention for AUD in primary care.

Low identification of alcohol use disorders in general practice in England

The prevalence of alcohol use disorders (AUDs) in the United Kingdom is estimated at 25%, and primary care has been identified as the first line of treatment for this population. However, there is a paucity of evidence regarding the current rates of identification of AUDs in primary care. The aim of the present study was to compare the observed rates of AUDs in general practice with expected rates, which are based on general population prevalence rates of AUDs. Epidemiological data on individuals aged 16-64 years with an AUD was obtained from the General Practice Research Database. General population prevalence rates of AUDs were obtained from the Psychiatric Morbidity Survey. Chi(2) tests and identification ratios were used to analyse the data. There was a significant relationship between type of AUD and identification (chi(2)=1466.89, P<0.001), and general practitioners were poorer at identifying harmful/hazardous drinkers when compared with dependent drinkers. No gender differences in the identification of hazardous/harmful drinking were found, but female dependent drinkers were significantly more likely to be identified than males (identification ratio 0.07; 95% confidence interval 0.06-0.07). The identification of AUDs was significantly lower for the 16-24-year age group compared with all other age groups. Despite attempts at targeting hazardous/harmful drinkers for brief interventions in primary care, the present findings suggest that this group are still under-identified. Furthermore, this under-identification is even more apparent in men and in young people who have high general population prevalence rates for AUDs. In conclusion, increasing identification rates could be incorporated into brief intervention strategies in primary care.

Alcohol use disorders: screening and diagnosis.

The purpose of this article is to provide an overview of empirically supported, primarily self-report methods of screening and diagnosis related to alcohol use disorders (AUDs). The discussion of screening instruments focuses on the primary care setting, and the diagnosis instruments discussion centers on the alcohol (and other drug) treatment setting. The literature shows that the AUDIT and the CAGE are the most widely validated methods of screening for AUDs in primary care and may be applied readily in that context. Similarly, a number of instruments designed to derive DSM-IV (and ICD-10) AUD diagnoses, as well as constructs related to how AUDs are defined, are available and can meet a variety of clinical needs. Future research priorities include further development of brief methods to identify hazardous drinkers or individuals who have an AUD, as well as refinement of diagnosis instruments to increase their application across treatment settings and subpopulations.