Effectiveness of treatment for alcohol problems: findings of the randomised UK alcohol treatment trial (UKATT)
BMJ 2005; 331 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.331.7516.541 (Published 08 September 2005) Cite this as: BMJ 2005;331:541
This article has a correction. Please see:
- UKATT Research Team (j.f.orford{at}bham.ac.uk)
- Correspondence to: Jim Orford, professor of clinical and community psychology, School of Psychology, University of Birmingham, Birmingham B15 2TT
- Accepted 27 June 2005
Abstract
Objective To compare the effectiveness of social behaviour and network therapy, a new treatment for alcohol problems, with that of the proved motivational enhancement therapy.
Design Pragmatic randomised trial.
Setting Seven treatment sites around Birmingham, Cardiff, and Leeds.
Participants 742 clients with alcohol problems; 689 (93.0%) were interviewed at three months and 617 (83.2%) at 12 months.
Interventions Social behaviour and network therapy and motivational enhancement therapy.
Main outcome measures Changes in alcohol consumption, alcohol dependence, and alcohol related problems over 12 months.
Results Both groups reported substantial reductions in alcohol consumption, dependence, and problems, and better mental health related quality of life over 12 months. Between groups we found only one significant difference in outcome, probably due to chance: the social network group showed significantly better physical health at three months. Non-significant differences at 12 months in the motivational group relative to the social network group included: the number of drinks consumed per drinking day had decreased by an extra 1.1 (95% confidence interval −1.0 to 3.2); scores on the Leeds dependence questionnaire had improved by an extra 0.6 (−0.7 to 2.0); scores on the alcohol problems questionnaire had improved by an extra 0.5 (−0.4 to 1.4); but the number of days abstinent from drinking had increased by 1.2% less (−4.5% to 6.9%).
Conclusion The novel social behaviour and network therapy for alcohol problems did not differ significantly in effectiveness from the proved motivational enhancement therapy.
Footnotes
Full authorship details and collaborators are on bmj.com-
Contributors AC was responsible for research and clinical management in the West Midlands. He contributed to the original grant application, the design, implementation, and management of the trial, analysing and interpreting data, and writing the paper. SC was responsible for designing and implementing the data management plan, and scanning, verifying, and validating data. He contributed to implementing the trial design, developing and implementing randomisation procedures, developing questionnaires and data collection instruments, analysing and interpreting data, and redrafting the paper. AF was responsible for designing and implementing the analysis plan, and validating data statistically. She contributed to implementing the trial design, developing and implementing randomisation procedures, developing data collection instruments, analysing and interpreting data, and redrafting the paper. CG was responsible for health economics. She contributed to the original grant application, the design, management, and implementation of the trial, analysing and interpreting data, and writing the paper. NH was responsible for research coordination. He contributed to the original grant application and participated in the design, implementation, and management of the trial, managing, analysing, and interpreting data, and writing the paper. RH was responsible for research and clinical management in South Wales. He contributed to the original grant application, the design, implementation and management of the trial, analysing and interpreting data, and writing the paper. VM contributed to validating, analysing, and interpreting data, and writing the paper. JO was responsible for trial coordination. He contributed to the original grant application, the design, implementation, and management of the trial, managing, analysing, and interpreting data, and writing the paper. SP was responsible for designing and implementing the health economic assessment. He contributed to implementing the trial design, developing procedures, questionnaires, and other instruments, analysing and interpreting data, and writing the paper. DR was responsible for research and clinical management in Leeds. He contributed to the original grant application, the design, implementation and management of the trial, analysing and interpreting data, and writing the paper. IR was responsible for trial methods. He contributed to the original grant application, the design, implementation, and management of the trial, managing, analysing, and interpreting data, and writing the paper. DR and IR act as guarantors. GS was responsible for designing and implementing trial management and quality assurance procedures, and coordinating the work of the treatment sites. He contributed to the implementation and management of the trial, developing procedures, questionnaires, and other instruments, designing and implementing the data management plan, verifying, validating, analysing, and interpreting data, and redrafting the paper. G Tober was responsible for therapist training and supervision. She contributed to the original grant application, the design, implementation, and management of the trial, the management and analysis of video recordings of therapy within the trial, analysing and interpreting data, and writing the paper. The local research coordinators responsible for implementing and managing the trial were: G Thistlethwaite in the integrated treatment site in Leeds; TA across four treatment sites in South Wales; and CK across two treatment sites in the West Midlands. The main follow-up interviewers were: LH and AW in Leeds; RB and BJ in South Wales; and KF and MS in the West Midlands. RB and BJ later became local research coordinators in succession to TA, and MS in succession to CK. At the trial training centre in Leeds, OF and WM analysed the video recordings of therapy. These fieldworkers also contributed to developing procedures, questionnaires, and other instruments. Together with other authors they commented on successive drafts of the paper.
-
Funding Medical Research Council, NHS Executive in England, Wales Office for Research and Development in Health and Social Care, and the Alcohol and Education Research Council.
-
Competing interests None declared.
-
Ethical approval All relevant local research ethics committees.
See web extra for full authorship details.
- Accepted 27 June 2005