ArticleJournal of psychoactive drugs
Staff Views of Acceptability and Appropriateness of a Computer-Delivered Brief Intervention for Moderate Drug and Alcohol Use.
Article in Journal of psychoactive drugs. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparing satisfaction, alliance and intervention components in electronically delivered and in-person brief interventions for substance use among childbearing-aged women.Journal of substance abuse treatment · 2019Trial
- Immediate Versus Delayed Computerized Brief Intervention for Illicit Drug Misuse.Journal of addiction medicineTrial
- Initial feasibility and validity of a prospective memory training program in a substance use treatment population.Experimental and clinical psychopharmacology · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The use of computers for identifying and intervening with stigmatized behaviors, such as drug use, offers promise for underserved, rural areas; however, the acceptability and appropriateness of using computerized brief intervention (CBIs) must be taken into consideration. In the present study, 12 staff members representing a range of clinic roles in two rural, federally qualified health centers completed semi-structured interviews in a qualitative investigation of CBI vs. counselor-delivered individual brief intervention (IBI). Thematic content analysis was conducted using a constant comparative method, examining the range of responses within each interview as well as data across interview respondents. Overall, staff found the idea of providing CBIs both acceptable and appropriate for their patient population. Acceptability by clinic staff centered on the ready availability of the CBI. Staff also believed that patients might be more forthcoming in response to a computer program than a personal interview. However, some staff voiced reservations concerning the appropriateness of CBIs for subsets of patients, including older patients, illiterate individuals, or those unfamiliar with computers. Findings support the potential suitability and potential benefits of providing CBIs to patients in rural health centers.
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.