ArticleDrug and alcohol review2020
The acceptability of alcohol intoxication management services to users: A mixed methods study.
Article in Drug and alcohol review, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION AND
aimsAlcohol Intoxication Management Services (AIMS) provide basic care for intoxication and minor injuries, have been increasingly implemented in urban areas characterised by a large number of premises licensed for the sale and on-site consumption of alcohol, with the goal of reducing alcohol's burden on emergency services, including referrals into hospital emergency departments. The acceptability of new health services to users is a key effectiveness outcome. The aim was to describe patient experiences when attending an AIMS and document the acceptability of AIMS to users. DESIGN AND
methodsA sequential mixed methods study was undertaken involving semi-structured interviews with participants from four AIMS followed by a survey of users recruited from six AIMS.
resultsInterviewees (N = 19) were positive about the care they received in AIMS and appreciated the friendly, non-judgemental atmosphere. Survey respondents rated their experience in AIMS positively (on a 0 to 10 Likert scale, mean = 9.34, SD = 1.38, n = 188). Frequently given reasons for attendance included drinking alcohol (57%) and minor injury (42%); 24% said they would have attended the emergency department had the AIMS not been available and 6% said they would have preferred to go to the emergency department; 31% indicated they would have felt unsafe without the AIMS. DISCUSSION AND
conclusionsAIMS are acceptable to users. AIMS are likely to address previously unmet demand for a safe space within the night-time environment.
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.