The efficacy-effectiveness distinction in trials of alcohol brief intervention

Addiction Science & Clinical Practice

Nick Heather¹ 

[1] Department of Psychology, Faculty of Health & Social Sciences, Northumberland Building, Northumbria University, Newcastle upon Tyne NE1 8ST, UK

关键词: Meta-analyses;    Effectiveness trials;    Efficacy trials;    Brief interventions;    Alcohol-related harm;   

Others  :  1082109
DOI  :  10.1186/1940-0640-9-13

 received in 2013-12-13, accepted in 2014-07-31,  发布年份 2014

【 摘 要 】

Three recent sets of null findings from trials of alcohol brief intervention (BI) have been disappointing to those who wish to see a reduction in alcohol-related harm through the widespread dissemination of BI. Saitz (7) has suggested that these null findings result from a failure to translate the effects of BI seen in efficacy trials, which are thought to contribute mainly to the beneficial effects of BI shown in meta-analyses, to effectiveness trials conducted in real-world clinical practice. The present article aims to: (i) clarify the meaning of the terms “efficacy” and “effectiveness” and other related concepts; (ii) review the method and findings on efficacy-effectiveness measurement in the 2007 Cochrane Review by Kaner and colleagues; and (iii) make suggestions for further research in this area. Conclusions are: 1) to avoid further confusion, terms such as “efficacy trial”, “effectiveness trial”, “clinical representativeness”, etc. should be clearly defined and carefully used; 2) applications of BI to novel settings should begin with foundational research and developmental studies, followed by efficacy trials, and political pressures for quick results from premature effectiveness trials should be resisted; 3) clear criteria are available in the literature to guide progress from efficacy research, through effectiveness research, to dissemination in practice; 4) to properly interpret null findings from effectiveness studies, it is necessary to ensure that interventions are delivered as intended; 5) in future meta-analyses of alcohol BI trials, more attention should be paid to the development and application of a psychometrically robust scale to measure efficacy-effectiveness or clinical representativeness; 6) the null findings under consideration cannot be firmly attributed to a failure to translate effects from efficacy trials to real-world practice, because it is possible that the majority of trials included in meta-analyses on which the evidence for the beneficial effects of alcohol BI was based tended to be effectiveness rather than efficacy trials; and 7) a hypothesis to explain the null findings in question is that they are due to lack of fidelity in the implementation of BI in large, organizationally complex, cluster randomized trials.

【 授权许可】

   
2014 Heather; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Babor TF, Ritson EB, Hodgson RJ: Alcohol-related problems in the primary health care setting: a review of early intervention strategies. Br J Addict 1986, 81:23-46.
• [2]van Beurden I, Anderson P, Akkermans RP, Grol RP, Wensing M, Laurant MG: Involvement of general practitioners in managing alcohol problems: a randomized controlled trial of a tailored improvement programme. Addiction 2012, 107:1601-1611.
• [3]Butler CC, Simpson SA, Hood K, Cohen D, Pickles T, Spanou C, McCambridge J, Moore L, Randell E, Alam MF, Kinnersley P, Edwards A, Smith C, Rollnick S: Training practitioners to deliver opportunistic multiple behaviour change counselling in primary care: a cluster randomised trial. BMJ 2013, 346:f1191.
• [4]Miller WR, Rollnick S: Motivational Interviewing: Helping People Change. 3rd edition. New York NY: Guilford Press; 2012.
• [5]Kaner E, Bland M, Cassidy P, Coulton S, Dale V, Deluca P, Gilvarry E, Godfrey C, Heather N, Myles J, Newbury-Birch D, Oyefeso A, Parrott S, Perryman K, Phillips T, Shepherd J, Drummond C: Effectiveness of screening and brief alcohol intervention in primary care (SIPS trial): pragmatic cluster randomised controlled trial. BMJ 2013, 346:e8501.
• [6]Saunders JB, Aasland OG, Babor TF, de la Fuente JR, Grant M: Development of the alcohol use disorders identification test (AUDIT): WHO collaborative project on early detection of persons with harmful alcohol consumption–II. Addiction 1993, 88:791-804.
• [7]Saitz R: RE: Effectiveness of screening and brief alcohol intervention in primary care (SIPS trial): pragmatic cluster randomised controlled trial (Letter). BMJ 2013. http://www.bmj.com/content/346/bmj.e8501/rr/625559 webcite
• [8]Kaner E, Beyer F, Dickinson H, Pienaar E, Campbell F, Schlesinger C, Heather N, Saunders J, Burnand B: Effectiveness of brief alcohol interventions in primary care populations. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2007, 2:CD004148. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD004148.pub3
• [9]Kaner E, Drummond C, Coulton S, Bland M, Cassidy P, Dale V, DeLuca P, Gilvarry E, Godfrey C, Heather N, Myles J, Newbury-Birch D, Oyefeso A, Parrott S, Perryman K, Phillips T, Shepherd J: Reply to comments on “Effectiveness of screening and brief alcohol intervention in primary care (SIPS trial): pragmatic cluster randomised controlled trial. BMJ 2013. http://www.bmj.com/content/346/bmj.e8501/rr/629648 webcite
• [10]Schwartz D, Lellouch J: Explanatory and pragmatic attitudes in therapeutic trials. J Chronic Dis 1967, 20:637-648.
• [11]UKATT Research Team: Effectiveness of treatment for alcohol problems: findings of the randomised UK alcohol treatment trial (UKATT). BMJ 2005, 331:541.
• [12]Flay BR: Efficacy and effectiveness trials (and other phases of research) in the development of health promotion programs. Prev Med 1986, 15:451-474.
• [13]Cochrane AL: Effectiveness and Efficiency: Random Reflections on Health Services. London: Nuffield Provincial Hospitals Trust; 1972.
• [14]Moriarty HJ, Stubbe MH, Chen L, Tester RM, Macdonald LM, Dowell AC, Dew KP: Challenges to alcohol and other drug discussions in the general practice consultation. Fam Pract 2012, 29:213-222.
• [15]Heather N: Lessons from a controlled evaluation of a general practice minimal intervention for problem drinking. Austr Drug Alcohol Rev 1988, 7:317-328.
• [16]Holder H, Flay B, Howard J, Boyd G, Voas R, Grossman M: Phases of alcohol problem prevention research. Alcohol Clin Exp Res 1999, 23:183-194.
• [17]Heather N, Campion PD, Neville RG, MacCabe D: Evaluation of a controlled drinking minimal intervention for problem drinkers in general practice (the DRAMS scheme). J R Coll Gen Pract 1987, 37:358-363.
• [18]Wallace P, Cutler S, Haines A: Randomised controlled trial of general practitioner intervention in patients with excessive alcohol consumption. BMJ 1988, 297:663-668.
• [19]Scott E, Anderson P: Randomized controlled trial of general practitioner intervention in women with excessive alcohol consumption. Drug Alcohol Rev 1991, 10:331-321.
• [20]Anderson P, Scott E: The effect of general practitioners’ advice to heavy drinking men. Br J Addict 1992, 87:891-900.
• [21]Fleming MF, Barry KL, Manwell LB, Johnson K, London R: Brief physician advice for problem alcohol drinkers: a randomized controlled trial in community-based primary care practices. JAMA 1997, 277:1039-1045.
• [22]Heather N: A long-standing World Health Organization collaborative project on early identification and brief alcohol intervention in primary health care comes to an end (Editorial). Addiction 2007, 102:679-681.
• [23]Babor TF, de la Fuente JR, Saunders J, Grant M: AUDIT, The Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test: Guidelines for Use in Primary Health Care. Geneva: World Health Organization; 1989.
• [24]Kaner EF, Lock CA, McAvoy BR, Heather N, Gilvarry E: An RCT of three training and support strategies to encourage implementation of screening and brief alcohol intervention by general practitioners. Br J Gen Pract 1999, 49:699-703.
• [25]Heather N: WHO Collaborative Project on Identification and Management of Alcohol-Related Problems in Primary Health Care. Report on Phase IV: Development of Country-Wide Strategies for Implementing Early Identification and Brief Intervention in Primary Health Care. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2006.
• [26]Babor T, Grant M: Project on Identification and Management of Alcohol-Related Problems: Report on Phase II: A Randomized Clinical Trial of Brief Interventions in Primary Health Care. Geneva: World Health Organization; 1992.
• [27]O’Donnell A, Anderson P, Newbury-Birch D, Schulte B, Schmidt C, Reimer J, Kaner E: The impact of brief alcohol interventions in primary healthcare: a systematic review of reviews. Alcohol Alcohol 2014, 49:66-78.
• [28]Flay BR, Biglan A, Boruch RF, Castros FG, Gottfredson D, Kellam S, Moscicki EK, Schinke S, Valentine JC, Ji P: Standards of evidence: criteria for efficacy, effectiveness and dissemination. Prev Sci 2005, 6:151-175.
• [29]Shadish WR, Matt GE, Navarro AM, Phillips G: The effects of psychological therapies under clinically representative conditions: a meta-analysis. Psych Bull 2000, 126:512-529.
• [30]Romelsjö A, Andersson L, Barrner H, Borg S, Granstrand C, Hultman O, Hässler A, Källqvist A, Magnusson P, Morgell R, Nyman K, Olofsson A, Olsson E, Rhedin A, Wikblad O: A randomized study of secondary prevention of early stage problem drinkers in primary health care. Br J Addict 1989, 84:1319-1327.
• [31]Fleming M, Brown R, Brown D: The efficacy of a brief alcohol intervention combined with %CDT feedback in patients being treated for type 2 diabetes and/or hypertension. J Stud Alcohol 2004, 65:631-637.
• [32]Lock CA, Kaner E, Heather N, Doughty J, Crayshaw A, McNamee P, Purdy S, Pearson P: Effectiveness of nurse-led brief alcohol intervention: a cluster randomized controlled trial. J Adv Nurs 2006, 54:426-439.
• [33]Babor TF, Higgins-Biddle JC, Dauser D, Burleson JA, Zarkin GA, Bray J: Brief interventions for at-risk drinking: patient outcomes and cost-effectiveness in managed care organizations. Alcohol Alcohol 2006, 41:624-631.
• [34]Campbell DT, Stanley JC: Experimental and Quasi-experimental Designs for Research. Chicago: Rand McNally; 1966.
• [35]Cook T, Campbell D: Quasi-experimentation: Design and Analysis for Field Settings. Chicago: Rand McNally; 1977.
• [36]Gartlehner G, Hansen RA, Nissman D, Lohr KN, Carey TS: A simple and valid tool distinguished efficacy from effectiveness studies. J Clin Epidemiol 2006, 59:1040-1048.
• [37]Thorpe KE, Zwarenstein M, Oxman AD, Treweek S, Furberg CD, Altman DG, Tunis S, Bergel E, Harvey I, Magid DJ, Chalkidou K: A pragmatic-explanatory continuum indicator summary (PRECIS): a tool to help trial designers. J Clin Epidemiol 2009, 62:464-475.