ArticleFrontiers in public health2024
Investigating the implementation of a novel approach to alcohol screening and brief intervention in Mexico: a mixed-methods study using pseudo-patients.
Article in Frontiers in public health, 2024. 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Low- and middle-income countries bear disproportionate burdens from excessive alcohol consumption, yet have fewer resources to identify and intervene with risky drinkers. Low-cost screening and brief intervention (SBI) models offer a tool for addressing this health problem and reducing disparities. Methods: In this mixed-methods study, trained pseudo-patients visited health clinics in Zacatecas, Mexico, where a novel SBI model was used with trained nonmedical health educators (HEs) conducting SBI in waiting areas. Pseudo-patients, who provided responses to the AUDIT-C screening items designed to trigger a brief intervention (BI), waited for HEs to engage them in an SBI encounter. Data on HEs' behaviors, SBI components provided, and contextual characteristics were coded from audio recordings of the encounters using an SBI checklist and from pseudo-patient interviews. Results: Quantitative analyses examined the consistency in pseudo-patients' targeted AUDIT-C scores and those documented by HEs as well as the frequency of delivery of SBI components. Across 71 interactions, kappas between HEs' scores and the targeted AUDIT-C scores ranged from 0.33 to 0.45 across AUDIT-C items; it was 0.16 for the total AUDIT-C. In 41% of interactions, the HEs recorded total AUDIT-C scores that accurately reflected the targeted scores, 45% were below, and 14% exceeded them. Analyses of checklist items and transcripts showed that HEs demonstrated desired interpersonal skills (attentive, empathetic, professional) and provided general information regarding risks and recommendations about reducing consumption. In contrast, personalized BI components (exploring pseudo-patients' personal challenges and concerns about reducing drinking; making a plan) occurred much less frequently. Pseudo-patient interviews revealed contextual factors (noise, lack of privacy) that may have negatively affected SBI interactions. Discussion: Using trained nonmedical persons to administer SBI holds promise to increase its reach. However, ongoing training and monitoring, prioritizing comprehensive BIs, eliminating contextual barriers, and electronic delivery of screening may help ensure high quality delivery.
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.