A Prospective, Randomized, Controlled Trial to Assess the Efficacy of a Multi-Disciplinary Screening, Brief Intervention and Referral to Treatment Program for Patients with Fractures of the Oral and Maxillofacial Region Because of Alcohol-Related Injuries in the Emergency Department
Purpose: We have implemented a multi-disciplinary Screening, Brief Intervention and Referral to Treatment (SBIRT) protocol to prevent individuals who sustained alcohol- related traumatic injuries. We therefore conducted this single-center, prospective, randomized, controlled trial (RCT) to assess it...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Daehan oe'sang haghoeji 2018-12, Vol.31 (3), p.143-150 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | kor |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
Zusammenfassung: | Purpose: We have implemented a multi-disciplinary Screening, Brief Intervention and Referral to Treatment (SBIRT) protocol to prevent individuals who sustained alcohol- related traumatic injuries. We therefore conducted this single-center, prospective, randomized, controlled trial (RCT) to assess its efficacy.
Methods: All the enrolled patients (n=30) were randomized to either the SBIRT group or the control group. In the current RCT, the proportion of the patients who reduced the amount of alcohol consumption and those who received a specialized treatment served as primary outcome measures. Moreover, changes in a 3-item version of the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test Consumption (AUDIT-C), Severity of Dependence Scale (SDS) and Kessler Psychological Distress Scale (K-6) scores at 3 months from baseline served as secondary outcome measures.
Results: At 3 months, the proportion of the patients who reduced the amount of alcohol consumption was significantly higher in the SBIRT group as compared with the control group (86.7% vs. 57.1%, p=0.02). Moreover, the proportion of the patients who received a specialized treatment was also significantly higher as compared with the control group (26.7% vs. 1.4%, p=0.01). Furthermore, there were significant differences in changes in the AUDIT, SDS and K-6 scores at 3 months from baseline between the two groups (p |
---|---|
ISSN: | 1738-8767 2799-4317 2287-1683 |