Trial reportAnnals of family medicine
Comfortably engaging: which approach to alcohol screening should we use?
Trial report in Annals of family medicine. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
12 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 41 citations in OpenAlex.
- Factors influencing the implementation of screening and brief interventions for alcohol use in primary care practices: a systematic review using the COM-B system and Theoretical Domains Framework.Implementation science : IS · 2021Pooled it
- Accuracy of one or two simple questions to identify alcohol-use disorder in primary care: a meta-analysis.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2014Pooled it
- Depression and diabetes among low-income Hispanics: design elements of a socioculturally adapted collaborative care model randomized controlled trial.International journal of psychiatry in medicine · 2009Trial
- Randomized controlled trial of collaborative care management of depression among low-income patients with cancer.Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology · 2008Trial
- Screening gender minority people for harmful alcohol use.PloS one · 2020Article
- Office-Based Tools and Primary Care Visit Communication, Length, and Preventive Service Delivery.Health services research · 2016Article
- Article
- Episodic heavy drinking, problem drinking and injuries - results of the WHO/NIAAA collaborative emergency room study in South Korea.Alcohol (Fayetteville, N.Y.) · 2012Article
- Prioritization of evidence-based preventive health services during periodic health examinations.American journal of preventive medicine · 2012Article
- Collaborative depression treatment in older and younger adults with physical illness: pooled comparative analysis of three randomized clinical trials.The American journal of geriatric psychiatry : official journal of the American Association for Geriatric Psychiatry · 2010Article
- A novel protocol for streamlined IRB review of Practice-based Research Network (PBRN) card studies.Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine : JABFMArticle
- Card studies for observational research in practice.Annals of family medicineArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeWe wanted to compare 2 screening instruments for problem drinking, the CAGE and a single question, assessing frequency of use, patient and clinician comfort, and patient engagement in change.
methodsThe study was a crossover, cluster-randomized clinical trial with 31 clinicians in Missouri and 13 in the American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP) National Network for Family Practice and Primary Care Research; 2,800 patients provided data. The clinician was the unit of randomization. Clinicians decided whether to screen each patient; if they chose to screen, they used the screening approach assigned for that block of patients. The clinician and patient separately completed questionnaires immediately after the office visit to assess each one's comfort with screening (and any ensuing discussion) and the patient's engagement in change.
resultsMissouri clinicians screened more patients when assigned the single question (81%) than the CAGE (69%, P = .001 in weighted analysis). There was no difference among AAFP network clinicians (96% of patients screened with the CAGE, 97% with the single question). Eighty percent to 90% of clinicians and 70% of patients reported being comfortable with screening and the ensuing discussion, with no difference between approaches in either network. About one third of patients who were identified as problem drinkers reported thinking about or planning to change their drinking behavior, with no difference in engagement between screening approaches.
conclusionsClinicians and patients reported similar comfort with the CAGE questions and the single-question screening tools for problem drinking, and the 2 instruments were equal in their ability to engage the patient. In Missouri, the single question was more likely to be used.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.