Abstract
Design Two-arm cluster randomised controlled feasibility trial.
Intervention Twelve NHS dental practices were randomised to the intervention and control arms. Patients consuming alcohol above the recommended levels were eligible to participate in the trial. The intervention was delivered by the dentists in the participating practices and entailed the delivery of a short tailored alcohol-related advice tool and a leaflet, which included information about the effects of alcohol on oral health and the benefits of reducing alcohol intake to both oral and general health. Patients in the control arm were given a mouth cancer prevention leaflet only. The level of alcohol consumption was measured by validated tools (AUDIT: Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test and AUTID-C: Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test for Consumption). The patients were followed-up after six months by a telephone interview.
Outcome Measures The feasibility trial outcomes were the recruitment, retention, eligibility and delivery rate. The primary outcome of the trial was the impact of the intervention in lowering the level of alcohol consumption as captured by the AUDIT tool. Secondary outcomes included health related quality of life and alcohol consumption and abstinence in the last 90 days. The acceptability of the intervention was also assessed.
Results The recruitment and retention rate were high (95.4% and 76.9% respectively). At the follow-up, participants in the intervention arm were significantly more likely to report a longer abstinence period (3.2 vs. 2.3 weeks respectively, P = 0.04). Non-significant differences in AUDIT (44.9% vs. 59.8% AUDIT positive respectively, P = 0.053) and AUDIT-C between baseline and follow-up (−0.67 units vs. −0.29 units respectively, P = 0.058) were observed. Results from the process evaluation indicated that the intervention and study procedures were acceptable to dentists and patients.
Conclusion According to this study, dentists offering screening for alcohol misuse and brief advice in a primary dental care setting is not only feasible but also well-welcomed by both the dental team and patients.
Similar content being viewed by others
Log in or create a free account to read this content
Gain free access to this article, as well as selected content from this journal and more on nature.com
or
References
Room R, Babor T, Rehm J. Alcohol and public health. Lancet 2005. 365: 519-30.
Turati F, Garavello W, Tramacere I et al. A meta-analysis of alcohol drinking and oral and pharyngeal cancers: results from subgroup analyses. Alcohol Alcohol 2013 48: 107-118.
Friman G, Hultin M, Nilsson G H, Wårdh I. Medical screening in dental settings: a qualitative study of the views of authorities and organizations. BMC Res Notes 2015; 8: 580.
Department of Health. Guidance. Delivering better oral health: an evidence-based toolkit for prevention. 2017. Available at https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/605266/Delivering_better_oral_health.pdf (accessed August 2019).
Department of Health. Guidance. Alcohol use screening tests. 2019. Available at https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/alcohol-use-screening-tests (accessed August 2019).
Shepherd, S, Young L, Clarkson J E, Bonetti D, Ogden G R. General dental practitioner views on providing alcohol related health advice; an exploratory study. Br Dent J 2010; 208: DOI: 10.1038/sj.bdj.2010.342.
Plessas A, Nasser M, Hanoch Y, O'Brien T, Bernardes Delgado M, Moles D. Impact of time pressure on dentists' diagnostic performance. J Dent 2019; 82: 38-44.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Plessas, A., Nasser, M. Can we deliver effective alcohol-related brief advice in general dental practice? . Evid Based Dent 20, 77–78 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41432-019-0036-3
Published:
Version of record:
Issue date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41432-019-0036-3
