liu.seSearch for publications in DiVA
Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • oxford
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Improving screening and brief intervention activities in primary health care: Secondary analysis of professional accuracy based on the AUDIT-C
Govt Catalonia, Spain.
Govt Catalonia, Spain.
Newcastle Univ, England; Maastricht Univ, Netherlands.
Kings Coll London, England.
Show others and affiliations
2018 (English)In: Journal of Evaluation In Clinical Practice, ISSN 1356-1294, E-ISSN 1365-2753, Vol. 24, no 2, p. 369-374Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

Introduction and objectiveThe 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. MethodFrom 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. ResultsThirty-two of 36711 questionnaires were incorrectly completed, and 65 of 29641 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; Pamp;lt;.05). ConclusionAlthough 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.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
WILEY , 2018. Vol. 24, no 2, p. 369-374
Keywords [en]
alcohol screening; brief interventions; primary health care
National Category
Health Care Service and Management, Health Policy and Services and Health Economy
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:liu:diva-147383DOI: 10.1111/jep.12854ISI: 000428849300008PubMedID: 29194899OAI: oai:DiVA.org:liu-147383DiVA, id: diva2:1206988
Note

Funding Agencies|Lundbeck; Abbvie; DA Pharm

Available from: 2018-05-18 Created: 2018-05-18 Last updated: 2018-05-18

Open Access in DiVA

No full text in DiVA

Other links

Publisher's full textPubMed

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Bendtsen, Preben
By organisation
Division of Community MedicineFaculty of Medicine and Health SciencesDepartment of Medical Specialist in Motala
In the same journal
Journal of Evaluation In Clinical Practice
Health Care Service and Management, Health Policy and Services and Health Economy

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

doi
pubmed
urn-nbn

Altmetric score

doi
pubmed
urn-nbn
Total: 89 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • oxford
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf