Improving assessment and progress monitoring in alcohol use disorder: An implementation evaluation of the instant assessment and personalised feedback system (iAx)
Related Experiment Video
Updated: Sep 2, 2025
The Motivation for Alcohol Reward: Predictors of Progressive-Ratio Intravenous Alcohol Self-Administration in Humans
Published on: April 28, 2022
Chloe Kidd1, Jason P Connor2, Gerald F X Feeney1
1National Centre for Youth Substance Use Research, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD 4072, Australia; Alcohol and Drug Assessment Unit, Division of Medicine, Princess Alexandra Hospital, Brisbane, QLD 4102, Australia.
Background:
When treating patients with alcohol use disorder (AUD), best practice guidelines recommend the use of standardised assessment instruments to obtain reliable information about psychological symptoms and functioning to inform treatment. Due to time constraints and administrative burden, many mental health practitioners do not routinely use standardised assessments. To overcome these barriers, an instant assessment and feedback system (iAx) was developed that electronically administers standardised instruments. Responses are instantly scored and benchmarked against clinical norms for immediate interpretation. This allows for timely assessment and feedback. The aim of this study was to evaluate the implementation of the iAx system at a specialist alcohol and drug outpatient unit in a public hospital.
Methods:
Baseline (pre-iAx implementation; paper-and-pencil assessments) and follow-up (post-iAx implementation) clinical audits collated records from 313 patients with AUD across 2,616 treatment sessions. Multilevel modelling was used to determine if use of standardised instruments increased post-iAx implementation.
Results:
Post-iAx implementation, there was a significant increase in the probability of using standardised assessments during the initial assessment and throughout treatment (ps < 0.001). Specifically, the use of standardised assessments to inform initial assessment of patients increased from 51% to 89%, and progress monitoring of symptoms increased from 28% to 84%. A significant increase in treatment completion rates was also observed post-iAx implementation (from 15.6% to 32.4%). Psychologists and patients also provided feedback on iAx acceptability, appropriateness and feasibility.
Conclusions:
This study found support for the successful implementation of an electronic, theory-driven iAx system to improve assessment practices with patients with AUD in routine clinical settings.
