Brief alcohol intervention and health-related quality of life among primary health care patients in Estonia

0Citations
Citations of this article
6Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Background. The effectiveness of brief interventions (BI) in reducing hazardous or harmful drinking among primary health care (PHC) patients has been confirmed by a number of studies; however, there is a lack of evidence regarding the effect of BI on health-related quality of life (HRQoL). Objectives. This study aimed to find out whether the changes in alcohol consumption (AC) are associated with changes in HRQoL scores among PHC patients with hazardous and harmful drinking habits. Material and methods. 93 adult PHC patients with an alcohol disorder underwent BI, with the outcomes assessed after a follow-up period of 12 months. The main outcomes measures were the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT) score and physical (PCS) and mental (MCS) component scores of HRQoL (using SF-36). Linear regression analysis was used to explain the follow-up value of PCS and MCS in association with the change of the AUDIT score during the follow-up period. Results. 12 months post-BI, 82% of the study participants had a significantly lower average AUDIT score (from 12.3 ± 0.5 to 7.5 ± 0.5, p <0.001) and higher HRQoL PCS (68.3 ± 2.5 to 76.1 ± 2.0, p <0.05). The regression analysis showed that the decrease of AUDIT scores during the follow-up period was positively associated with PCS in patients aged 18–44 but did not have a significant effect in patients aged 45 and older. The MCS was not associated with a decrease in the AUDIT score. Conclusions. A reduced AUDIT score post-BI leads to improved physical HRQoL for younger PHC patients with formerly hazardous and harmful drinking habits.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Põlluste, K., & Lember, M. (2018). Brief alcohol intervention and health-related quality of life among primary health care patients in Estonia. Family Medicine and Primary Care Review, 20(2), 154–158. https://doi.org/10.5114/fmpcr.2018.73848

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free