Format

Send to

Choose Destination
Alcohol Alcohol. 2015 Jul;50(4):430-7. doi: 10.1093/alcalc/agv020. Epub 2015 Mar 18.

Professional's Attitudes Do Not Influence Screening and Brief Interventions Rates for Hazardous and Harmful Drinkers: Results from ODHIN Study.

Author information

1
Department of Medical Specialist and Department of Medicine and Health Sciences, Linköping University, Motala, Sweden preben.bendtsen@liu.se.
2
Institute of Health and Society, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK Department of Family Medicine, Maastricht University, School CAPHRI, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
3
Department of Psychiatry, Medical University of Warsaw, Warsaw, Poland Department of Psychiatry, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.
4
Institute of Health and Society, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.
5
Department of Medicine and Health Sciences, Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden.
6
Program on Substance Abuse, Public Health Agency, Government of Catalonia, Barcelona, Spain.
7
State Agency for Prevention of Alcohol-Related Problems, Warsaw, Poland.
8
Department of Social Medicine, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden.
9
National Addiction Centre, Institute of Psychiatry, King's College London, London, UK.
10
Independent Laboratory of Family Physician Education, Pomeranian Medical University, Szczecin, Poland.
11
Addictions Unit, Hospital Clínic de Barcelona, IDIBAPS, Barcelona, Spain.
12
Department of Family Medicine, Maastricht University, School CAPHRI, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
13
Department of Primary Care and Population Health, University College London, London, UK.
14
Radboud University Medical Center, Scientific Institute for Quality of Healthcare (IQ Healthcare), Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
15
Radboud University Medical Center, Scientific Institute for Quality of Healthcare (IQ Healthcare), Nijmegen, The Netherlands Faculty of Health and Social Studies, HAN University of Applied Sciences, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.

Abstract

AIMS:

To determine the relation between existing levels of alcohol screening and brief intervention rates in five European jurisdictions and role security and therapeutic commitment by the participating primary healthcare professionals.

METHODS:

Health care professionals consisting of, 409 GPs, 282 nurses and 55 other staff including psychologists, social workers and nurse aids from 120 primary health care centres participated in a cross-sectional 4-week survey. The participants registered all screening and brief intervention activities as part of their normal routine. The participants also completed the Shortened Alcohol and Alcohol Problems Perception Questionnaire (SAAPPQ), which measure role security and therapeutic commitment.

RESULTS:

The only significant but small relationship was found between role security and screening rate in a multilevel logistic regression analysis adjusted for occupation of the provider, number of eligible patients and the random effects of jurisdictions and primary health care units (PHCU). No significant relationship was found between role security and brief intervention rate nor between therapeutic commitment and screening rate/brief intervention rate. The proportion of patients screened varied across jurisdictions between 2 and 10%.

CONCLUSION:

The findings show that the studied factors (role security and therapeutic commitment) are not of great importance for alcohol screening and BI rates. Given the fact that screening and brief intervention implementation rate has not changed much in the last decade in spite of increased policy emphasis, training initiatives and more research being published, this raises a question about what else is needed to enhance implementation.

PMID:
25787012
DOI:
10.1093/alcalc/agv020
[Indexed for MEDLINE]

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for Silverchair Information Systems
Loading ...
Support Center