A self-efficacy enhancement alcohol reduction intervention for men on-remand in prison: the APPRAISE feasibility pilot RCT

Abstract

Background: As many as 70% of remand prisoners have admitted to being under the influence of alcohol when committing the crime leading to their imprisonment. Providing support and advice regarding alcohol consumption can be effective in some groups of people. There is little evidence regarding this for men on remand in prison. Objective: To pilot the study measures and evaluation methods to assess the feasibility of conducting a future definitive multicentre, pragmatic, parallel group, randomised controlled trial. Design: A two-arm, parallel group, individually randomised pilot study of a self-efficacy-enhancing psychosocial alcohol intervention to reduce levels of alcohol consumption for males on remand in prison and on liberation. Setting: Two purposively selected prisons in Scotland and England. Participants: Adult men on remand in prison with an Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test score of ≥ 8. Intervention: The APPRAISE intervention delivery comprised four steps: Step 1: 1 × 40-minute face-to-face session, delivered by a trained practitioner from Change Grow Live in prison. Steps 2, 3 and 4: 20-minute sessions conducted by phone, on or as close as possible to days 3, 7 and 21 post liberation. Control: assessment, screening and referral onto further alcohol support options. Main outcome measures: Recruitment and retention rates, completion of follow-ups, outcome measures at 12 months and interventions delivered. The primary outcome for the pilot study was alcohol consumed in the 28 days prior to Time Point 2, assessed using the extended Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test-C. Results: Of 182 men on remand approached across two study sites, 132 were randomised (90 in England; 42 in Scotland) with 46 randomised to intervention and 44 to care as usual in England and 22 randomised to intervention and 20 to care as usual in Scotland. A total of 53 in-prison interventions were delivered. One day-3 post-liberation intervention was delivered, no day-7 and one day-21. At 12 months, of 132 randomised, 18 (13%) were followed up, 53 (40%) were not liberated; 47 (36%) were uncontactable and 14 (11%) had been released but could not be located. Data completeness was 96% at baseline and 8% at 12 months. The process evaluation reported good acceptability of the intervention with investment in time, capacity and space to support implementation identified. The economic study produced guidance on how to assess costs associated with implementing the APPRAISE intervention which could be applied more broadly. Harms: No adverse events or side effects were noted. Conclusions: A future definitive trial would be possible, but only if follow-up mechanisms can be addressed as well as full access to recidivism and health data. Collaboration with the probation service in future could offer the opportunity to develop a robust process and system to optimise follow-up post liberation. Dedicated resources to support the intervention delivery both in and out of the prison setting are recommended. Limitations: Coronavirus disease discovered in 2019 impacted recruitment and follow-up, with access to prisons restricted. We were unable to deliver the post-liberation element of the intervention. We did not include probation services or other agencies in the trial.