Cedric Gerbracht, Andreas Staudt, Jennis Freyer-Adam, Gallus Bischof, Christian Meyer, Ulrich John, Sophie Baumann
{"title":"The Moderating Effect of Tobacco Smoking on the Efficacy of a Computer-Based Brief Alcohol Intervention: Results from a Randomized Controlled Trial.","authors":"Cedric Gerbracht, Andreas Staudt, Jennis Freyer-Adam, Gallus Bischof, Christian Meyer, Ulrich John, Sophie Baumann","doi":"10.1159/000545866","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Alcohol consumption and tobacco smoking may have synergistic harmful effects when present in combination. This combination is highly prevalent and associated with a multitude of diseases. Brief alcohol intervention (BAI) may be less effective among persons who drink alcohol and smoke tobacco than among persons who drink alcohol and do not smoke. The aim of this study was to find out whether BAI is more effective among adults who do not smoke than among those who smoke.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This study reports secondary outcome analyses of the randomized controlled trial \"Testing a proactive expert system intervention to prevent and to quit at-risk alcohol use.\" Among municipal office clients, 1,646 who were aged 18-64 and consumed alcohol in the last year participated. Using latent growth curve models, the impact of BAI was compared by incidence rate ratios (IRRs) of self-reported heavy drinking days and the moderating effect of smoking was investigated.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>There was no significant difference between intervention and control in reducing heavy drinking days in persons who never smoked (IRR 1.01, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.92-1.10, p = 0.847), formerly smoked (IRR 0.91, CI 0.77-1.07, p = 0.234), currently smoked less than daily (IRR 0.98, CI 0.86-1.12, p = 0.782) and persons who currently smoked daily (IRR 1.09, CI 0.98-1.22, p = 0.125).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The effect of BAI did not differ among study participants who currently smoked as among participants who did not. Although not statistically significant, persons who formerly smoked tended to benefit. Persons who currently smoked did not benefit.</p>","PeriodicalId":11902,"journal":{"name":"European Addiction Research","volume":" ","pages":"1-11"},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Addiction Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1159/000545866","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHIATRY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Introduction: Alcohol consumption and tobacco smoking may have synergistic harmful effects when present in combination. This combination is highly prevalent and associated with a multitude of diseases. Brief alcohol intervention (BAI) may be less effective among persons who drink alcohol and smoke tobacco than among persons who drink alcohol and do not smoke. The aim of this study was to find out whether BAI is more effective among adults who do not smoke than among those who smoke.
Methods: This study reports secondary outcome analyses of the randomized controlled trial "Testing a proactive expert system intervention to prevent and to quit at-risk alcohol use." Among municipal office clients, 1,646 who were aged 18-64 and consumed alcohol in the last year participated. Using latent growth curve models, the impact of BAI was compared by incidence rate ratios (IRRs) of self-reported heavy drinking days and the moderating effect of smoking was investigated.
Results: There was no significant difference between intervention and control in reducing heavy drinking days in persons who never smoked (IRR 1.01, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.92-1.10, p = 0.847), formerly smoked (IRR 0.91, CI 0.77-1.07, p = 0.234), currently smoked less than daily (IRR 0.98, CI 0.86-1.12, p = 0.782) and persons who currently smoked daily (IRR 1.09, CI 0.98-1.22, p = 0.125).
Conclusion: The effect of BAI did not differ among study participants who currently smoked as among participants who did not. Although not statistically significant, persons who formerly smoked tended to benefit. Persons who currently smoked did not benefit.
目的：当饮酒和吸烟同时存在时，可能会产生协同有害影响。这种组合非常普遍，并与多种疾病有关。短暂酒精干预（BAI）对饮酒和吸烟的人的效果可能不如对饮酒但不吸烟的人。这项研究的目的是找出BAI在不吸烟的成年人中是否比在吸烟的成年人中更有效。方法：本研究报告了随机对照试验“测试主动专家系统干预以预防和戒烟高危酒精使用”的次要结局分析。在市政办公室的客户中，有1646名年龄在18岁至64岁之间、在过去一年中饮酒的人参与了调查。采用潜在增长曲线模型，通过自述重度饮酒天数的发病率比（IRRs）比较BAI的影响，并研究吸烟的调节作用。结果：在从不吸烟（IRR 1.01, 95%可信区间（CI） 0.92-1.10, P = 0.847）、以前吸烟（IRR 0.91, CI 0.77-1.07, P = 0.234）、目前每天吸烟少于一天（IRR 0.98, CI 0.86-1.12, P = 0.782）和目前每天吸烟（IRR 1.09, CI 0.98-1.22, P = 0.125）的人群中，干预与对照组在减少重度饮酒时间方面无显著差异。结论：目前吸烟的研究参与者与不吸烟的研究参与者之间，BAI的效果没有差异。虽然没有统计学意义，但以前吸烟的人往往受益。目前吸烟的人没有受益。
期刊介绍：
''European Addiction Research'' is a unique international scientific journal for the rapid publication of innovative research covering all aspects of addiction and related disorders. Representing an interdisciplinary forum for the exchange of recent data and expert opinion, it reflects the importance of a comprehensive approach to resolve the problems of substance abuse and addiction in Europe. Coverage ranges from clinical and research advances in the fields of psychiatry, biology, pharmacology and epidemiology to social, and legal implications of policy decisions. The goal is to facilitate open discussion among those interested in the scientific and clinical aspects of prevention, diagnosis and therapy as well as dealing with legal issues. An excellent range of original papers makes ‘European Addiction Research’ the forum of choice for all.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
