Skip Navigation


Alcohol and Alcoholism Advance Access originally published online on July 19, 2006
Alcohol and Alcoholism 2006 41(5):540-545; doi:10.1093/alcalc/agl053
This Article
Right arrow Full Text Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
41/5/540    most recent
agl053v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (1)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by LITTLEJOHN, C.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by LITTLEJOHN, C.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?


© The Author 2006. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Medical Council on Alcohol. All rights reserved

DOES SOCIO-ECONOMIC STATUS INFLUENCE THE ACCEPTABILITY OF, ATTENDANCE FOR, AND OUTCOME OF, SCREENING AND BRIEF INTERVENTIONS FOR ALCOHOL MISUSE: A REVIEW

CHRISTOPHER LITTLEJOHN*

Primary Care Facilitator, Alcohol Liaison Service, Tayside Alcohol Problems Service, Constitution House, 55 Constitution Road, Dundee DD1 1LB, UK

* Author to whom correspondence should be addressed: Tel.: +44 1382 424 509; E-mail: chris.littlejohn{at}nhs.uk

(Received 16 January 2006; first review notified 12 June 2006; in revised form 13 June 2006; accepted 13 June 2006)

Aims: To determine whether socio-economic status (SES) influences (i) willingness to participate in brief intervention (BI) research, (ii) attendance to receive BI once allocated, and (iii) treatment outcome. Methods: Systematic review of published, randomised controlled trials of BI for non-dependent alcohol misuse in primary health care settings. Results: Eighteen papers met inclusion criteria. There is evidence that once recruited, and following attendance for intervention, participants' SES does not influence treatment outcome. However, the effect of choosing to participate remains unclear, and the generalizability of results to the whole primary care population remains equivocal. Socio-economic status may influence willingness to participate in BI treatment research, and may influence attendance to receive such interventions where allocated. Conclusion: Brief interventions should remain available to all non-dependent hazardous and harmful drinkers in primary care. However, fidelity to research design is suggested to allow for any participation effects to occur. Benefits of such an approach exist for both clinicians and patients. The characteristics of those who participate in BI trials, compared to those who do not, should be studied in detail. Socio-economic variables should be included as potentially important characteristics. The impact of BI on drinking style as well as consumption needs further attention.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?




Disclaimer:
Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.