INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE The ODHIN trial found that training and support and financial reimbursement increased the proportion of patients that were screened and given advice for their heavy drinking in primary health care. However, the impact of these strategies on professional accuracy in delivering screening and brief advice is underresearched and is the focus of this paper. METHOD From 120 primary health care units (24 in each jurisdiction: Catalonia, England, the Netherlands, Poland, and Sweden), 746 providers participated in the baseline and the 12-week implementation periods. Accuracy was measured in 2 ways: correctness in completing and scoring the screening instrument, AUDIT-C; the proportion of screen-negative patients given advice, and the proportion of screen-positive patients not given advice. Odds ratios of accuracy were calculated for type of profession and for intervention group: training and support, financial reimbursement, and internet-based counselling. RESULTS Thirty-two of 36 711 questionnaires were incorrectly completed, and 65 of 29 641 screen-negative patients were falsely classified. At baseline, 27% of screen-negative patients were given advice, and 22.5% screen-positive patients were not given advice. These proportions halved during the 12-week implementation period, unaffected by training. Financial reimbursement reduced the proportion of screen-positive patients not given advice (OR = 0.56; 95% CI, 0.31-0.99; P < .05). CONCLUSION Although the use of AUDIT-C as a screening tool was accurate, a considerable proportion of risky drinkers did not receive advice, which was reduced with financial incentives.

In response to our suggestion to define substance use disorders via 'heavy use over time', theoretical and conceptual issues, measurement problems and implications for stigma and clinical practice were raised. With respect to theoretical and conceptual issues, no other criterion has been shown, which would improve the definition. Moreover, heavy use over time is shown to be highly correlated with number of criteria in current DSM-5. Measurement of heavy use over time is simple and while there will be some underestimation or misrepresentation of actual levels in clinical practice, this is not different from the status quo and measurement of current criteria. As regards to stigma, research has shown that a truly dimensional concept can help reduce stigma. In conclusion, 'heavy use over time' as a tangible common denominator should be seriously considered as definition for substance use disorder.

Defining substance use disorders as heavy use will help to reduce fruitless discussions about labeling, reduce stigma and increase the likelihood of people coming forward for help of whatever level of intensity best matches their needs. Clinicians will still need to assess propensity for withdrawal symptoms and help the heaviest drinkers to work out whether they can successfully maintain a reduced consumption level rather than abstinence.

Without trivialising the complexities or forcing answers where uncertainty exists, the task of this final chapter is to identify how the evidence presented in this book can be brought sharply to focus on policy options. There are findings which can usefully and generally illuminate, as opposed to dictate, policy decisions in diverse settings. Alcohol policies should be based on the best possible interpretation of these findings rather than on misinformation, muddle and rhetoric. Beyond any doubt the evidence in sum demonstrates factually and forcefully that measures are available which can significantly reduce the burden of alcohol-related harm.