INTRODUCTION: Excessive alcohol use is associated with car crashes, violence, and multiple disease conditions, including fetal alcohol spectrum disorders. The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommends that primary care providers screen all adults and conduct brief counseling interventions with those who misuse alcohol. The USPSTF prefers use of three screening tools that measure alcohol consumption (Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test, Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test-Consumption, and National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism Single Question) because these tools detect the full spectrum of alcohol misuse in adults. This study estimated the prevalence of primary care provider screening practices for alcohol misuse and examined factors associated with using a USPSTF-preferred screening tool. METHODS: In 2016, a cross-sectional analysis was conducted on self-reported 2016 DocStyles data to estimate the prevalence of different screening tools used by 1,506 primary care providers-family practitioners, internists, obstetrician/gynecologists, and nurse practitioners. Adjusted prevalence ratios were calculated using logistic regression to examine the association between provider attributes and use of USPSTF-preferred screening tools. RESULTS: In this study, 96% of providers reported screening patients for alcohol misuse. Among those that screened, 38% used a USPSTF-preferred screening tool. Provider specialty, awareness of USPSTF guidelines, and mode of administering screening tool were associated with using a preferred screening tool. CONCLUSIONS: Although most primary care providers reported screening for alcohol misuse, about two thirds did not use a tool capable of detecting the full spectrum of alcohol misuse. Using suitable screening tools will better identify patients who misuse alcohol and increase the opportunity for appropriate intervention, ultimately helping to reduce the burden from the many conditions associated with excessive alcohol consumption.

Excessive or risky alcohol use is a preventable cause of significant morbidity and mortality in the U.S. and worldwide. Alcohol use is a common preventable cancer risk factor among young adults; it is associated with increased risk of developing at least six types of cancer. Alcohol consumed during early adulthood may pose a higher risk of female breast cancer than alcohol consumed later in life. Reducing alcohol use may help prevent cancer. Alcohol misuse screening and brief counseling or intervention (also called alcohol screening and brief intervention among other designations) is known to reduce excessive alcohol use, and the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommends that it be implemented for all adults aged ≥18 years in primary healthcare settings. Because the prevalence of excessive alcohol use, particularly binge drinking, peaks among young adults, this time of life may present a unique window of opportunity to talk about the cancer risk associated with alcohol use and how to reduce that risk by reducing excessive drinking or misuse. This article briefly describes alcohol screening and brief intervention, including the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's recommended approach, and suggests a role for it in the context of cancer prevention. The article also briefly discusses how the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is working to make alcohol screening and brief intervention a routine element of health care in all primary care settings to identify and help young adults who drink too much.

CONTEXT: Excessive drinking is responsible for one in ten deaths among working-age adults in the U.S. annually. Alcohol screening and brief intervention is an effective but underutilized intervention for reducing excessive drinking among adults. Electronic screening and brief intervention (e-SBI) uses electronic devices to deliver key elements of alcohol screening and brief intervention, with the potential to expand population reach. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: Using Community Guide methods, a systematic review of the scientific literature on the effectiveness of e-SBI for reducing excessive alcohol consumption and related harms was conducted. The search covered studies published from 1967 to October 2011. A total of 31 studies with 36 study arms met quality criteria and were included in the review. Analyses were conducted in 2012. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Twenty-four studies (28 study arms) provided results for excessive drinkers only and seven studies (eight study arms) reported results for all drinkers. Nearly all studies found that e-SBI reduced excessive alcohol consumption and related harms: nine study arms reported a median 23.9% reduction in binge-drinking intensity (maximum drinks/binge episode) and nine study arms reported a median 16.5% reduction in binge-drinking frequency. Reductions in drinking measures were sustained for up to 12 months. CONCLUSIONS: According to Community Guide rules of evidence, e-SBI is an effective method for reducing excessive alcohol consumption and related harms among intervention participants. Implementation of e-SBI could complement population-level strategies previously recommended by the Community Preventive Services Task Force for reducing excessive drinking (e.g., increasing alcohol taxes and regulating alcohol outlet density).

INTRODUCTION: The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommends for adults alcohol screening and brief behavioral counseling interventions in primary care settings. However, there is a paucity of population-based data on the prevalence of alcohol screening. This study examines adherence to this U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation by estimating the prevalence of alcohol screening by demographic characteristics and binge drinking. METHODS: A cross-sectional analysis was conducted in 2013 and 2014 on data from the 2013 fall wave of the ConsumerStyles survey. ConsumerStyles is drawn from an Internet panel randomly recruited by probability-based sampling to be representative of the U.S. POPULATION: Data from 2,592 adult respondents who visited primary care physicians in the last year were analyzed to determine the prevalence of alcohol screening. RESULTS: Only 24.7% of respondents reported receiving alcohol screening. The prevalence of screening was similar among women (24.9%) and men (24.5%). Black non-Hispanics reported a significantly lower prevalence of screening than white non-Hispanics (16.2% vs 26.9%, prevalence ratio=0.60, 95% CI=0.40, 0.90). College graduates reported a significantly higher prevalence of screening than respondents with a high school degree or less (28.1% vs 20.8%, prevalence ratio=1.35, 95% CI=1.08, 1.69). CONCLUSIONS: Only about one in four respondents who visited a primary care physician in the last year reported being screened for alcohol misuse. Therefore, many men and women who misuse alcohol are unlikely to be identified. Increased screening may help reduce alcohol misuse and related negative health outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Research on screening and brief interventions (SBI) for substance misuse has demonstrated efficacy in a variety of medical settings including emergency departments and trauma centers. However, SBI has not yet been evaluated for persons who incur traumatic brain injury (TBI)-a substantial patient subpopulation for whom substance-related problems are frequent. To examine whether research on SBI efficacy and effectiveness can be generalized to persons with TBI, a systematic review of the literature was conducted to analyze how TBI populations were included in previous studies and whether there was evidence of differential outcomes. METHODS: Peer-reviewed studies that investigated SBI for misuse of alcohol or other drugs, that were implemented in emergency departments or trauma centers, and that were published in English since 1985 were examined. From 174 articles initially identified, 28 studies were determined to meet inclusion criteria. RESULTS: The review revealed that research conducted on SBI for injury populations systematically neglected patients with more severe TBI and those who presented with sufficient confusion that they could not provide informed consent. CONCLUSIONS: Future effectiveness studies should examine barriers to routine clinical use of SBI and evaluate the generalizability of expected benefits to the full spectrum of injured patients. Researchers should also develop and evaluate systematic accommodations for persons with neurobehavioral impairments who would benefit from brief interventions for substance misuse.

INTRODUCTION: Alcohol consumption is a significant risk factor for injuries. Further, level I trauma centres are mandated to screen and provide a brief intervention for identified problem drinkers. However, a valid population-based estimate of the magnitude of the problem is unknown. Therefore, the goal of this study is to evaluate the extent to which the present literature provides a valid estimate of the prevalence of alcohol-related visits to U.S. trauma centres. METHODS: A Medline search for all articles from 1966 to 2007 that might provide prevalence estimates of alcohol-related visits to U.S. trauma centres yielded 836 articles in English language journals. This review included only papers whose main or secondary goal was to estimate the prevalence of positive blood alcohol concentration (BAC) or acute intoxication. Both a crude aggregate estimate and sample size adjusted estimate were calculated from the included papers and the coverage and comparability of methods were evaluated. RESULTS: Of the 15 studies that met inclusion criteria, incidence estimates of alcohol-related visits ranged from 26.2% to 62.5% and yielded an aggregate, weighted estimate of 32.5%. Target population, capture rate, and threshold for a positive screening result varied considerably across studies. No study provided a comprehensive estimate, i.e., of all trauma patients hospitalised, treated and released, or who died. CONCLUSIONS: Although the incidence of alcohol-related visits to U.S. trauma centres appears very high perhaps higher than any other medical setting, the validity of our aggregate estimate is threatened by crucial methodological considerations. The lack of a methodologically valid prevalence estimate hinders efforts to devise appropriate policies for trauma centres and across medical settings.

This article summarizes the work and discussions of the funding and sustainability work group at the 2009 Academic Emergency Medicine consensus conference "Public Health in the ED: Surveillance, Screening, and Intervention." The funding and sustainability session participants were asked to address the following overarching question: "What are the opportunities and what is needed to encourage academic emergency medicine (EM) to take advantage of the opportunities for funding available for public health research initiatives and build stronger academic programs focusing on public health within EM?" Prior to the session, members of the group reviewed research funding for EM in public health, as well as the priorities of federal agencies and foundations. Recommendations for actions by EM summarize the findings of workshop.

In the United States, excessive alcohol consumption is responsible for more than $180 billion in economic costs per year and is the third leading preventable cause of death (Harwood, 2000, Mokdad et al., 2005). The single greatest contributor to alcohol-related mortality in the United States is unintentional injury, accounting for approximately 26,000 deaths per year (CDC, 2004) and placing a substantial burden on emergency departments (EDs). In this study we analyzed 2001 data from a nationally representative sample of hospital EDs to examine characteristics of ED visits for alcohol-related unintentional traumatic injuries and compared them with visits for unintentional traumatic injuries for which alcohol use was not noted in the ED medical chart.