Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32321440›Full record

ArticleBMC family practice2020

Patients' experiences of alcohol screening and advice in primary care: a qualitative study.

Amy O'Donnell, Barbara Hanratty, Bernd Schulte, Eileen Kaner

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC family practice, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed
2.8field-weighted citation impact, top 9% of its field
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

17 citing papers in PubMed, 30 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
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

4 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Amy O'DonnellPopulation Health Sciences Institute, Newcastle University, Baddiley-Clark Buiding, Richardson Road, Newcastle, NE2 4AX, UK. amy.odonnell@newcastle.ac.uk.
Barbara HanrattyPopulation Health Sciences Institute, Newcastle University, Baddiley-Clark Buiding, Richardson Road, Newcastle, NE2 4AX, UK.
Bernd SchulteCentre of Interdisciplinary Addiction Research (ZIS), Department of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany.
Eileen KanerPopulation Health Sciences Institute, Newcastle University, Baddiley-Clark Buiding, Richardson Road, Newcastle, NE2 4AX, UK.
Newcastle University · GBUniversity Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf · DE

Funding

Medical Research Council MR/K02325X/1NIHR School for Primary Care Research Fellowship
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDespite evidence supporting the effectiveness of alcohol screening and brief advice to reduce heavy drinking, implementation in primary healthcare remains limited. The challenges that clinicians experience when delivering such interventions are well-known, but we have little understanding of the patient perspective. We used Normalization Process Theory (NPT) informed interviews to explore patients' views on alcohol screening and brief advice in routine primary healthcare.

methodsSemi-structured qualitative interviews with 22 primary care patients who had been screened for heavy drinking and/or received brief alcohol advice were analysed thematically, informed by Normalisation Process Theory constructs (coherence, cognitive participation, collective action, reflexive monitoring).

resultsWe found mixed understanding of the adverse health consequences of heavy drinking, particularly longer-term risks. There was some awareness of current alcohol guidelines but these were viewed flexibly, depending on the individual drinker and drinking context. Most described alcohol screening as routine, with clinicians viewed as trustworthy and objective. Patients enacted a range of self-regulatory techniques to limit their drinking but perceived such strategies as learned through experience rather than based on clinical advice. However, most saw alcohol advice as a valuable component of preventative healthcare, especially those experiencing co-occurring health conditions.

conclusionsDespite strong acceptance of the screening role played by primary care clinicians, patients have less confidence in the effectiveness of alcohol advice. Primary care-based alcohol brief advice needs to reflect how individuals actually drink, and harness strategies that patients already commonly employ, such as self-regulation, to boost its relevance.

Indexed as

Alcohol DrinkingAttitude to HealthPatient Education as TopicPrimary Health CareAdultAgedAlcoholismCounselingFemaleHumansInterviews as TopicMaleMiddle AgedQualitative ResearchAlcohol preventionNormalisation process theoryPatientsPrimary health careQualitative research

Identifiers

PMID32321440
PMCPMC7178930
OpenAlexW3019944951

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.