Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31895043›Full record

ArticleJMIR formative research2020

A Web-Based Alcohol Risk Communication Tool: Development and Pretesting Study.

Bridget Kool, Rosie Dobson, Sarah Sharpe, Gayl Humphrey, Robyn Whittaker, Shanthi Ameratunga

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR formative research, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Bridget KoolSchool of Population Health, Faculty of Medical and Health Sciences, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2537-4688
Rosie DobsonNational Institute for Health Innovation, School of Population Health, Faculty of Medical and Health Sciences, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0122-1000
Sarah SharpeCounties Manukau Health, Auckland, New Zealand.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5749-6073
Gayl HumphreyNational Institute for Health Innovation, School of Population Health, Faculty of Medical and Health Sciences, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2837-5707
Robyn WhittakerNational Institute for Health Innovation, School of Population Health, Faculty of Medical and Health Sciences, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0901-9149
Shanthi AmeratungaSection of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, School of Population Health, Faculty of Medical and Health Sciences, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8042-2251

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAlcohol use is a major public health concern associated with an increased risk of morbidity and mortality. Health professionals in primary care commonly see patients with a range of alcohol-related risks and problems, providing an ideal opportunity for screening and brief intervention (BI).

objectiveThis study aimed to develop a prototype for a Web-based tool for use by primary care health professionals (eg, doctors and nurses) to communicate alcohol harm risk to their patients and to engage with them regarding ways this risk could be reduced.

methodsFollowing conceptualization and development of prototype wireframes, formative work and pretesting were undertaken. For the formative work, focus groups and key informant interviews were conducted with potential end users of the risk communication tool, including health professionals and consumers. The focus groups and interviews explored perceptions of alcohol risk communication and obtained feedback on the initial prototype. For pretesting, participants (primary care doctors and nurses) completed a Web-based survey followed by a period of pretesting before completion of a follow-up survey. The study was designed to gain feedback on the tool's performance in real-world settings as well as its relevance, ease of use, and any suggested refinements.

resultsIn the formative work stage, 11 key informants and 7 consumers participated in either focus groups or individual interviews. Participants were very positive about the prototype and believed that it would be useful and acceptable in practice. Key informants identified that the key point of difference with the tool was that it provided all the pieces in 1 place (ie, assessment, interpretation, and resources to support change). Participants provided feedback on how the tool could be improved, and these suggestions were incorporated into the prototype where possible. In the pretesting stage, 7 people (5 doctors and 2 primary care nurses) completed the pretesting. Participants reported that the tool provided a useful framework for an intervention, that it would be acceptable to patients, that it was easy to use, that they would be likely to use it in practice, and that there were no technical issues.

conclusionsThe alcohol risk communication tool was found to be acceptable and has the potential to increase the confidence of health professionals in assessing risk and providing BI.

Indexed as

alcohol drinkingharm minimization, primary carerisk assessmentrisk communication

Identifiers

PMID31895043
PMCPMC6966553

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.