HIV-positive patients' discussion of alcohol use with their HIV primary care providers

OBJECTIVES: We investigated the prevalence of HIV-positive patients discussing alcohol use with their HIV primary care providers and factors associated with these discussions. METHODS: We recruited 1225 adult participants from 10 HIV care clinics in three large US cities from May 2004 to 2005. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was used to assess the associations between self-reported rates of discussion of alcohol use with HIV primary care providers in the past 12 months and the CAGE screening measure of problem drinking and sociodemographic variables. RESULTS: Thirty-five percent of participants reported discussion of alcohol use with their primary care providers. The odds of reporting discussion of alcohol were three times greater for problem drinkers than for non-drinkers, but only 52% of problem drinkers reported such a discussion in the prior 12 months. Sociodemographic factors associated with discussion of alcohol use (after controlling for problem drinking) were being younger than 40, male, being non-white Hispanic (compared with being Hispanic), being in poorer health, and having a better patient-provider relationship. CONCLUSIONS: Efforts are needed to increase the focus on alcohol use in the HIV primary care setting, especially with problem drinkers. Interventions addressing provider training or brief interventions that address alcohol use by HIV-positive patients in the HIV primary care setting should be considered as possible approaches to address this issue.     

Evaluation of a telephone-based stepped care intervention for alcohol-related disorders: a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND: Brief interventions for problem drinking in medical settings are effective but rarely conducted, mainly due to insufficient time. A stepped care approach (starting with a very brief intervention and intensifying efforts in case of no success) could save resources and enlarge effectiveness; however, research is lacking. The present study compares a full care brief intervention for patients with at-risk drinking, alcohol abuse or dependence with a stepped care approach in a randomized controlled trial. METHODS: Participants were proactively recruited from general practices in two northern German cities. In total, 10,803 screenings were conducted (refusal rate: 5%). Alcohol use disorders according to DSM-IV were assessed with the Munich-Composite International Diagnostic Interview (M-CIDI). Eligible participants were randomly assigned to one of three conditions: (1) stepped care (SC): a computerized intervention plus up to three 40-min telephone-based interventions depending on the success of the previous intervention; (2) full-care (FC): a computerized intervention plus a fixed number of four 30-min telephone-based interventions that equals the maximum of the stepped care intervention; (3) an untreated control group (CG). Counseling effort in the intervention conditions and quantity/frequency of drinking were assessed at 12-month follow-up. RESULTS: SC participants received roughly half of the amount of intervention in minutes compared to FC participants. Both groups did not differ in drinking outcomes. Compared to CG, intervention showed small to medium effect size for at-risk drinkers. CONCLUSIONS: Study results reveal that a stepped care approach can be expected to increase cost-effectiveness of brief interventions for individuals with at-risk drinking.     

Psychiatric disorders among at-risk consumers of alcohol in the general population

OBJECTIVE: At-risk consumption of alcohol has increasingly become the focus of primary and secondary prevention efforts. Little is known about the co-occurrence of psychiatric disorders with at-risk drinking. We examined patterns of Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition, (DSM-IV) lifetime co-occurrence of psychiatric disorders in individuals in the general population with at-risk consumption of alcohol, alcohol abuse, alcohol dependence and moderate drinking/abstention, considering potential gender differences. METHOD: Cross-sectional data of a representative general population-based study were analyzed. Based on DSM-IV criteria, participants aged 18-64 (N = 4,074; 2,045 men) were diagnosed using a standardized computer-assisted version of the Munich Composite International Diagnostic Interview (M-CIDI). Nonpsychotic Axis-I lifetime diagnoses were examined. At-risk consumption of alcohol was defined as an average of more than 20 g (0.71 oz) pure alcohol consumption per day for women and 30 g (1.06 oz) for men, with alcohol abuse or alcohol dependence excluded. RESULTS: Almost 9% of participants were identified as at-risk drinkers. Prevalence rates for at-risk drinkers were 16.9% for affective, 18.1% for anxiety and 17.8% for somatoform disorders. Compared with moderate drinkers/abstainers, at-risk drinkers showed a twofold increased risk of having a psychiatric disorder. Subjects with alcohol abuse showed a comparable level of risk and individuals with alcohol dependence showed an even greater risk. Female at-risk drinkers were twice as likely to have a psychiatric disorder as their male counterparts. The odds ratios for psychiatric disorders in at-risk drinkers compared with moderate drinkers/abstainers, however, did not differ in men and women. CONCLUSIONS: Rates of psychiatric co-occurrence among at-risk drinkers were considerably elevated when compared with moderate drinkers/abstainers. These findings underline the relevance of at-risk consumption of alcohol and represent an important challenge to public health efforts regarding screening of psychiatric disorders and referral to appropriate treatment services.     

Organizational attributes and screening and brief intervention in primary care

Overconsumption of alcohol is well known to lead to numerous health and social problems. Prevalence studies of United States adults found that 20% of patients meet criteria for an alcohol use disorder. Routine screening for alcohol use is recommended in primary care settings, yet little is known about the organizational factors that are related to successful implementation of screening and brief intervention (SBI) and treatment in these settings. The purpose of this study was to evaluate organizational attributes in primary care practices that were included in a practice-based research network trial to implement alcohol SBI. The Survey of Organizational Attributes in Primary Care (SOAPC) has reliably measured four factors: communication, decision-making, stress/chaos and history of change. This 21-item instrument was administered to 178 practice members at the baseline of this trial, to evaluate for relationship of organizational attributes to the implementation of alcohol SBI and treatment. No significant relationships were found correlating alcohol screening, identification of high-risk drinkers and brief intervention, to the factors measured in the SOAPC instrument. These results highlight the challenges related to the use of organizational survey instruments in explaining or predicting variations in clinical improvement. Comprehensive mixed methods approaches may be more effective in evaluations of the implementation of SBI and treatment.     

Alcohol use screening and intervention by American primary care providers

BackgroundRegular/chronic drinking, defined by five or more drinks in one sitting on each of five or more occasions in the past 30 days, is a significant problem contributing to negative health outcomes, morbidity, and mortality. Regular/chronic and heavy episodic drinking largely goes undetected by primary care providers due to a lack of screening and intervention. The present study explores the extent to which healthcare practitioners screen for alcohol use, provide interventions, and refer to treatment across different types of drinkers.MethodsA retrospective analysis of the 2014 National Survey on Drug Use and Health was analysed in 2016. Respondents who visited primary care settings were asked if healthcare providers queried them about their drinking, amount they drank, frequency of drinking, and if they received interventions. Simple tests among proportions and logistic regression were used to analyse these data.ResultsHealthcare professionals asked 76.5% of patients if they drank alcohol at all in the past year, and only 11.8% were asked if they had a drinking problem. The chance of being asked increased for heavy episodic and regular/chronic drinkers (F_{[1.97, 98.38]} = 44.81, p < 0.001). Healthcare providers infrequently suggested cutting down on drinking (5.5% overall), but the chance of receiving a suggestion increased across heavy episodic and regular/chronic drinkers (F_[1.92,96.02] = 196.22, p < 0.001). Information about alcohol treatment referral was rarely given (7.3% of regular/chronic drinkers). Moreover, minority, older, male, and uninsured patients were queried about alcohol use less often.ConclusionHealthcare practitioners in primary care are screening for alcohol use at moderate rates, yet follow-up questions, brief advice, and treatment referrals are inconsistently targeted. There is a need for consistent screening of all patients and systematic follow-up protocols in primary care delivery.     

Drug use and problem drinking associated with primary care and emergency room utilization in the US general population: data from the 2005 national alcohol survey

BACKGROUND: Substance use problems are overrepresented in probability samples of patients in primary care settings including the emergency room (ER) compared to the general population. While large proportions of those with alcohol or drug use disorders are most likely to obtain services for these problems outside the mental health or substance abuse treatment system, accounting, in part, for this overrepresentation, little is known about the association of alcohol misuse or drug use with health services utilization in the general population. METHODS: The prevalence and predictive value of alcohol misuse and drug use on ER and primary care use was analyzed on 6919 respondents from the 2005 National Alcohol Survey (NAS). RESULTS: Among those reporting an ER visit during the last year, 24% were positive for risky drinking (14+ drinks weekly for men and 7+ for females and/or 5+/4+ in a day in the last 12 months), 8% for problem drinking, 3% for alcohol dependence, and 7% for illicit drug use greater than monthly. Figures for primary care users were, respectively: 24%, 5%, 3%, and 3%. ER users were more likely to be positive for problem drinking and greater than monthly illicit drug use compared to non-ER users, while no significant differences were found in substance use for users and non-users of primary care. In logistic regression controlling for gender, age, and health insurance, problem drinkers were twice as likely as non-problem drinkers (Odds ratio, OR=1.99) (p<0.01), and those reporting greater than monthly drug use were almost twice as likely as those using drugs less frequently or not at all (OR=1.92; p=0.01) to report ER use, while those reporting alcohol dependence were 1.63 times more likely to report primary care use (p<0.05). CONCLUSION: These data support the belief that both the ER and other primary care settings are important sites for identifying those with substance use problems and for initiating a brief intervention.     

Gender, injury status and acculturation differences in performance of screening instruments for alcohol problems among US Hispanic emergency department patients

The sensitivity and specificity of several screening instruments including the CAGE, brief MAST, AUDIT, TWEAK, RAPS, and Trauma Scale, were evaluated against both ICD-10 and DSM-IV criteria for alcohol dependence and for harmful drinking and abuse in a probability sample of 586 Hispanic emergency department patients. Screening instruments were not as sensitive for females as for males, for those in the low acculturation group, or for non-dependent drinkers. Acculturation was positively associated with the likelihood of being a current drinker and among current drinkers, was positively associated with alcohol dependence and with harmful drinking or alcohol abuse.     

Brief interventions for problem drinking and women

Early identification and intervention among problem drinking women may avert the more severe, adverse consequences of alcohol abuse and dependence. Screening and brief interventions, while generally effective, have not been adequately examined among subgroups, such as women. The purpose of this review article is to examine the efficacy of brief interventions for the population of women in need of some alcohol treatment. Representative studies with random assignment to treatment conditions and either substantial numbers of women, or a special focus on women, were included. Findings suggest brief interventions are not consistently helpful to women drinkers.     

Rural at-risk drinkers: correlates and one-year use of alcoholism treatment services

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to identify a community sample of rural and urban at-risk drinkers, to compare them in terms of sociodemographics, access measures and severity of illness, and to study them prospectively to identify rural/urban differences in use of 12-month alcoholism treatment services. METHOD: A brief telephone screening interview of over 12,000 respondents in six southern states identified a sample of at-risk drinkers. A baseline interview was administered to 733 individuals (67% men, 50% rural residents) that obtained information on substance use and psychiatric disorders, psychosocial factors, social support, four dimensions of access to alcoholism treatment services and prior alcoholism service use. Interviews at 6 and 12 months obtained self-reports of subsequent receipt of alcoholism treatment services. RESULTS: We identified modest differences between rural and urban at-risk drinkers. The rural sample was significantly less well-educated and reported significantly less affordability, accessibility and acceptability of some treatment services (p < .05). Rural at-risk drinkers also appeared to possess significantly greater illness characteristics, including more lifetime DSM-IV criteria for alcohol use disorders, more frequent recent alcohol disorders and more chronic medical problems (p < .05). The longitudinal sample comprised 579 participants, of whom 7% reported receiving some form of alcoholism treatment services in the year after the initial interview. In bivariate analysis, rural drinkers in the sample reported greater use of help for their drinking, more use of psychiatrists and more use of inpatient, outpatient and ER treatment settings than did their urban counterparts. However, significant independent predictors of 12-month alcoholism treatment use in multiple logistic regression were female gender (OR = 0.3), greater social support (OR = 2.2) and illness or severity characteristics including recent diagnosis of alcohol dependence (OR = 3.3), social consequences of drinking (OR = 1.7), concurrent medical problems (OR = 2.1) and prior treatment experience (OR = 4.4). CONCLUSIONS: We found modest differences among rural and urban at-risk drinkers and some evidence of greater barriers to treatment and greater illness severity among rural inhabitants. Further research is needed to know whether community interventions with social networks and other interventions to improve social support may help bring at-risk drinkers into treatment in both urban and rural settings as well as provide other support for sobriety.     

Are commonly ordered lab tests useful screens for alcohol disorders in older male veterans receiving primary care?.

Although mean corpuscular volume (MCV), aspartate aminotransferase (AST), alanine aminotransferases (ALT), and the AST/ALT ratio are sometimes used as markers of alcohol disorders, their utility has not been established in older persons. We determined the tests' performance characteristics for (1) at-risk drinking, (2) CAGE positivity, (3) at-risk drinking and CAGE positivity, and (4) a clinician-recorded diagnosis of alcohol abuse/dependence in a study of older male veterans receiving primary care. Participants (n = 587) included patients who had MCV, AST, and/or ALT data collected as part of routine care no more than 12 weeks before or after enrollment. MCV, AST, and ALT test results were obtained from the VA's database. At enrollment, the Timeline Followback and Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT) were used to identify at-risk drinkers (> or = 15 drinks per week or AUDIT score > or = 8), and the CAGE questionnaire was administered to identify participants with a history abuse/dependent drinking (CAGE score > or = 2). Participants' medical records were reviewed to identify subjects with a clinician-recorded diagnosis of alcohol abuse/dependence. The prevalence of abnormal test results for MCV (threshold value = > 98), AST (> 41), ALT (> 41), and the AST/ALT ratio (> 2) was 11%, 4%, 4%, and 5%, respectively. The occurrence of at-risk drinking, CAGE positivity, at-risk drinking and CAGE positivity, and a clinician-recorded diagnosis of alcohol abuse/dependence was 11%, 25%, 5%, and 9%, respectively. Test sensitivity ranged from 3.9% to 25.4% and specificity from 88.5% to 97.1%, whereas positive likelihood ratios varied from 0.72 to 4.01 and negative likelihood ratios from 0.82 to 1.04. Areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve were similar (range = 0.50-0.58) across tests. In conclusion, MCV, AST, ALT, and the AST/ALT ratio are not useful markers of alcohol disorders in older male veterans.     

Screening for drug use disorders in the emergency department: performance of the rapid drug problems screen (RDPS)

Little research is available on brief screening instruments for identify those meeting diagnostic criteria for drug dependence or abuse. A brief, four-item screening instrument, called the rapid drug problems screen (RDPS), was developed from a similar instrument for alcohol use disorders, the rapid alcohol problems screen (RAPS). Performance of the RDPS was evaluated against DSM-IV and ICD-10 criteria for drug dependence and for dependence or abuse in a sample of 703 emergency department patients in Mexico City. Among males, sensitivity and specificity were 91 and 96%, respectively, for dependence and 93 and 96%, respectively, for dependence or abuse. Neither of the two females meeting diagnostic criteria for dependence or abuse were identified by the RDPS. Area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve indicates an optimum cut point of 1. The data suggest that the RDPS may hold promise as a brief screening instrument for substance use among males, but should be tested in larger populations of females meeting diagnostic criteria for drug use disorders, and across ethnic subgroups in other geographic locales.     

Alcohol screening and brief intervention in primary care: Absence of evidence for efficacy in people with dependence or very heavy drinking

Issues. Although screening and brief intervention (BI) in the primary‐care setting reduces unhealthy alcohol use, its efficacy among patients with dependence has not been established. This systematic review sought to determine whether evidence exists for BI efficacy among patients with alcohol dependence identified by screening in primary‐care settings. Approach. We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) extracted from eight systematic reviews and electronic database searches published through September 2009. These RCTs compared outcomes among adults with unhealthy alcohol use identified by screening who received BI in a primary‐care setting with those who received no intervention. Key Findings. Sixteen RCTs, including 6839 patients, met the inclusion criteria. Of these, 14 excluded some or all persons with very heavy alcohol use or dependence; one in which 35% of 175 patients had dependence found no difference in an alcohol severity score between groups; and one in which 58% of 24 female patients had dependence showed no efficacy. Conclusion and Implications. Alcohol screening and BI has efficacy in primary care for patients with unhealthy alcohol use, but there is no evidence for efficacy among those with very heavy use or dependence. As alcohol screening identifies both dependent and non‐dependent unhealthy use, the absence of evidence for the efficacy of BI among primary‐care patients with screening‐identified alcohol dependence raises questions regarding the efficiency of screening and BI, particularly in settings where dependence is common. The finding also highlights the need to develop new approaches to help such patients, particularly if screening and BI are to be disseminated widely.[Saitz R. Alcohol screening and brief intervention in primary care: Absence of evidence for efficacy in people with dependence or very heavy drinking. Drug Alcohol Rev 2010;29;631–640]     

Are Commonly Ordered Lab Tests Useful Screens for Alcohol Disorders in Older Male Veterans Receiving Primary Care?

Abstract

Although mean corpuscular volume (MCV), aspartate aminotransferase (AST), alanine aminotransferases (ALT), and the AST/ALT ratio are sometimes used as markers of alcohol disorders, their utility has not been established in older persons. We determined the tests' performance characteristics for (1) at-risk drinking, (2) CAGE positivity, (3) at-risk drinking and CAGE positivity, and (4) a clinician-recorded diagnosis of alcohol abuse/dependence in a study of older male veterans receiving primary care. Participants (n = 587) included patients who had MCV, AST, and/or ALT data collected as part of routine care no more than 12 weeks before or after enrollment. MCV, AST, and ALT test results were obtained from the VA's database. At enrollment, the Timeline Followback and Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT) were used to identify at-risk drinkers (>15 drinks per week or AUDIT score > 8), and the CAGE questionnaire was administered to identify participants with a history abuse/dependent drinking (CAGE score > 2). Participants' medical records were reviewed to identify subjects with a clinician-recorded diagnosis of alcohol abuse/dependence. The prevalence of abnormal test results for MCV (threshold value = > 98), AST (> 41), ALT (> 41), and the AST/ALT ratio (> 2) was 11%, 4%, 4%, and 5%, respectively. The occurrence of at-risk drinking, CAGE positivity, at-risk drinking and CAGE positivity, and a clinician-recorded diagnosis of alcohol abuse/dependence was 11%, 25%, 5%, and 9%, respectively. Test sensitivity ranged from 3.9% to 25.4% and specificity from 88.5% to 97.1%, whereas positive likelihood ratios varied from 0.72 to 4.01 and negative likelihood ratios from 0.82 to 1.04. Areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve were similar (range = 0.50–0.58) across tests. In conclusion, MCV, AST, ALT, and the AST/ALT ratio are not useful markers of alcohol disorders in older male veterans.     

A brief screening instrument for problem drinking in the emergency room: the RAPS4. Rapid Alcohol Problems Screen

OBJECTIVE: While a number of brief screening instruments for identifying problem drinkers have been tested in clinical settings, instruments have not been found to perform as well for women as for men, or to perform uniformly across ethnic groups. The purpose of this study was to evaluate a shortened version of the RAPS (Rapid Alcohol Problems Screen) in an emergency room (ER) sample (N = 1,429; 51% female) and to determine the most efficient ordering of the items. METHOD: The sensitivity and specificity of each of the RAPS items were examined against current ICD-10 and DSM-IV criteria for alcohol dependence, and separately for harmful drinking or abuse. A four-item version of the RAPS (the RAPS4) was analyzed separately for men and for women, and for blacks, Hispanics and whites/others. RESULTS: Among the five original RAPS items, four items were found to be most efficient, with the single item of feeling guilt or remorse after drinking identifying 83% of those with alcohol dependence and 44% of those meeting criteria for harmful drinking or abuse. A positive response to any one of the four items (RAPS4) gave a sensitivity of 93% and specificity of 87% for alcohol dependence, and sensitivity and specificity were consistently high across gender and ethnic subgroups. Sensitivity and specificity for harmful drinking or abuse were lower (55% and 79%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Because of its brevity and high performance across demographic subgroups, the RAPS4 may hold promise in screening for alcohol use disorders in patient populations, and its utility warrants further evaluation in clinical settings.     

Primary care validation of a single screening question for drinkers

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to conduct a primary care validation study of a single screening question for alcohol misuse ("When was the last time you had more than X drinks in 1 day?," where X was four for women and X was five for men), which was previously validated in a study conducted in emergency departments. METHOD: This cross-sectional study was accomplished by interviewing 625 male and female adult drinkers who presented to five southeastern primary care practices. Patients answered the single question (coded as within 3 months, within 12 months, ever, or never), Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT), and AUDIT consumption questions (AUDIT-C). Alcohol misuse was defined as either at-risk drinking, identified by a 29-day Timeline Followback interview or a current (past-year) alcohol-use disorder by Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition, criteria, or both. RESULTS: Among 625 drinkers interviewed, 25.6% were at-risk drinkers, 21.7% had a current alcohol- use disorder, and 35.2% had either or both conditions. Considering "within the last 3 months" as positive, the sensitivity of the single question was 80% and the specificity was 74%. Chi-square analyses revealed similar sensitivity across ethnic and gender groups; however, specificity was higher in women and whites (p = .0187 and .0421, respectively). Considering "within the last 12 months" as positive increased the question's sensitivity, especially for those with alcohol-use disorders. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of the single alcohol screening question (0.79) was slightly lower than for the AUDIT and AUDIT-C, but sensitivity and specificity were similar. CONCLUSIONS: A single question about the last episode of heavy drinking is a sensitive, time-efficient screening instrument that shows promise for increasing alcohol screening in primary care practices.     

Effects of two types of brief intervention and readiness to change on alcohol use in hazardous drinkers.

OBJECTIVE: Brief interventions for hazardous and low-dependent drinkers in the primary care setting have considerable empirical support. The purpose of this study was to (1) evaluate the effects of brief advice (BA) and motivational enhancement (ME) interventions on alcohol consumption. In addition, a hindsight matching design was used to (2) study the moderator effects of patient readiness to change (alcohol use) on alcohol consumption. METHOD: The subjects (N = 301, 70% men) were patients 21 years of age or older who presented for treatment at one of 12 primary care clinics. After screening for eligibility and providing consent to participate in the study, the patients completed a baseline assessment and were randomly assigned to the BA, ME or standard care (SC) interventions condition. Follow-up assessments were completed at 1-, 3-, 6-, 9- and 12-months postbaseline assessment. RESULTS: Evaluation of the first hypothesis (n = 232 for these analyses) showed that all participants tended to reduce their alcohol use considerably between the baseline and 12-month assessments. In addition, evaluation of the second hypothesis showed a moderator effect of readiness to change in predicting the number of drinks at 12 months, such that the BA intervention seemed more effective for patients relatively low in readiness to change compared to those higher in readiness. Readiness to change did not seem to be related to changes in drinking of participants in the SC or ME conditions. CONCLUSIONS: The results confirm that, among primary care patients, substantial changes in alcohol consumption are possible. They further suggest that matching studies of patient readiness to change their alcohol use, as well as other variables, are warranted.     

Electronic screening and brief intervention for unhealthy alcohol use in primary care waiting rooms – A pilot project

Abstract

Background: In primary care, electronic self-administered screening and brief interventions for unhealthy alcohol may overcome some of the implementation barriers of face-to-face intervention. We developed an anonymous electronic self-administered screening brief intervention device for unhealthy alcohol use and assessed its feasibility and acceptability in primary care practice waiting rooms. Two modes of delivery were compared: with or without the presence of a research assistant (RA) to make patients aware of the device’s presence and help users. Using the device was optional. Methods: The devices were placed in 10 participating primary care practices waiting rooms for 6?weeks, and were accessible on a voluntary basis. Number of appointments by each practice during the course of the study was recorded. Access to the electronic brief intervention was voluntary among those who screened positive. Screening and brief intervention rates and characteristics of users were compared across the modes of delivery. Results: During the study, there were 7270 appointments and 1511 individuals used the device (20.8%). Mean age of users was 45.3 (19.5), and 57.9% screened positive for unhealthy alcohol use. Of them, 53.8% accessed the brief intervention content. The presence of the RA had a major impact on the device’s usage (59.6% vs 17.4% when absent). When the RA was present, participants were less likely to screen positive (49.4% vs 60.7%, P?=?0.0003) but more likely to access the intervention (62.7% vs 51.4%, P?=?0.009). Results from the satisfaction survey indicated that users found the device easy to use (93.5%), questions useful (89–95%) and 77.2% reported that their friends would be willing to use it. Conclusions: This pilot project indicates that the implementation of an electronic screening and brief intervention device for unhealthy alcohol is feasible and acceptable in primary care practices but that, without human support, its use is rather limited.