Conclusion

There is strong evidence for the superiority of brief alcohol interventions compared to no treatment across multiple settings. Evidence for the effectiveness of brief interventions compared to standard care or active alcohol treatments is limited. While there is evidence of the cost effectiveness of brief alcohol interventions in some settings, their implementation remains remarkably low. The provision of brief interventions across a variety of settings has the potential to provide large numbers of people with access to brief, cost-effective alcohol treatment. While effects are small, at a population level brief interventions could make a significant contribution to the reduction to the impact of alcohol on the burden of disease and injury in Australia.