» Articles » PMID: 31048422

Socioeconomic Inequalities in the Delivery of Brief Interventions for Smoking and Excessive Drinking: Findings from a Cross-sectional Household Survey in England

Overview
Journal BMJ Open
Specialty General Medicine
Date 2019 May 4
PMID 31048422
Citations 11
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Objectives: Brief interventions (BI) for smoking and risky drinking are effective and cost-effective policy approaches to reducing alcohol harm currently used in primary care in England; however, little is known about their contribution to health inequalities. This paper aims to investigate whether self-reported receipt of BI is associated with socioeconomic position (SEP) and whether this differs for smoking or alcohol.

Design: Population survey of 8978 smokers or risky drinkers in England aged 16+ taking part in the Alcohol and Smoking Toolkit Studies.

Measures: Survey participants answered questions regarding whether they had received advice and support to cut down their drinking or smoking from a primary healthcare professional in the past 12 months as well as their SEP, demographic details, whether they smoke and their motivation to cut down their smoking and/or drinking. Respondents also completed the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT). Smokers were defined as those reporting any smoking in the past year. Risky drinkers were defined as those scoring eight or more on the AUDIT.

Results: After adjusting for demographic factors and patterns in smoking and drinking, BI delivery was highest in lower socioeconomic groups. Smokers in the lowest social grade had 30% (95% CI 5% to 61%) greater odds of reporting receipt of a BI than those in the highest grade. The relationship for risky drinking appeared stronger, with those in the lowest social grade having 111% (95% CI 27% to 252%) greater odds of reporting BI receipt than the highest grade. Rates of BI delivery were eight times greater among smokers than risky drinkers (48.3% vs 6.1%).

Conclusions: Current delivery of BI for smoking and drinking in primary care in England may be contributing to a reduction in socioeconomic inequalities in health. This effect could be increased if intervention rates, particularly for drinking, were raised.

Citing Articles

Brief interventions for smoking and alcohol associated with the COVID-19 pandemic: a population survey in England.

Kock L, Shahab L, Garnett C, Oldham M, Tattan-Birch H, Angus C BMC Public Health. 2024; 24(1):76.

PMID: 38172788 PMC: 10763226. DOI: 10.1186/s12889-023-17559-7.


Alcohol and smoking brief interventions by socioeconomic position: a population-based, cross-sectional study in Great Britain.

Buss V, Cox S, Moore G, Angus C, Shahab L, Bauld L BJGP Open. 2023; 7(4).

PMID: 37549977 PMC: 11176676. DOI: 10.3399/BJGPO.2023.0087.


Who benefits from alcohol screening and brief intervention? A mini-review on socioeconomic inequalities with a focus on evidence from the United States.

Kilian C, Lemp J, Probst C Addict Behav. 2023; 145:107765.

PMID: 37315509 PMC: 10330915. DOI: 10.1016/j.addbeh.2023.107765.


Impact of the cost-of-living crisis on the nature of attempts to stop smoking and to reduce alcohol consumption in Great Britain: A representative population survey, 2021-2022.

Jackson S, Cox S, Shahab L, Brown J PLoS One. 2023; 18(5):e0286183.

PMID: 37220140 PMC: 10204963. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0286183.


Relationship Between Educational Level and Attitudes Towards Alcohol Conversations in Healthcare: A Cross-Sectional Survey Conducted in Four European Countries.

Karlsson N, Skagerstrom J, ODonnell A, Abidi L, Thomas K, Nilsen P Int J Public Health. 2023; 68:1605634.

PMID: 37035102 PMC: 10079867. DOI: 10.3389/ijph.2023.1605634.


References
1.
Lock C, Kaner E . Implementation of brief alcohol interventions by nurses in primary care: do non-clinical factors influence practice?. Fam Pract. 2004; 21(3):270-5. DOI: 10.1093/fampra/cmh310. View

2.
McLean G, Sutton M, Guthrie B . Deprivation and quality of primary care services: evidence for persistence of the inverse care law from the UK Quality and Outcomes Framework. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2006; 60(11):917-22. PMC: 2465488. DOI: 10.1136/jech.2005.044628. View

3.
Mackenbach J, Stirbu I, Roskam A, Schaap M, Menvielle G, Leinsalu M . Socioeconomic inequalities in health in 22 European countries. N Engl J Med. 2008; 358(23):2468-81. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMsa0707519. View

4.
Denny C, Serdula M, Holtzman D, Nelson D . Physician advice about smoking and drinking: are U.S. adults being informed?. Am J Prev Med. 2003; 24(1):71-4. DOI: 10.1016/s0749-3797(02)00568-8. View

5.
Kaner E, Beyer F, Muirhead C, Campbell F, Pienaar E, Bertholet N . Effectiveness of brief alcohol interventions in primary care populations. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018; 2:CD004148. PMC: 6491186. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004148.pub4. View