ReviewBMC primary care2024
The feasibility of integrating an alcohol screening clinical decision support tool into primary care clinical software: a review and Australian key stakeholder study.
Review in BMC primary care, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
backgroundThis study explored the feasibility of integrating a clinical decision support tool into general practice clinical management software in Australia to prompt for alcohol screening among patients who are pregnant or planning a pregnancy. The study aimed to increase understanding of what is an appropriate and acceptable clinical decision support tool, the circumstances when a prompt to use such a screening tool should occur, and the barriers and enablers of successful implementation.
methodsThis feasibility study employed a mixed methods approach and purposive sampling to identify key stakeholders to interview. Participants included vendors of clinical software used in Australian general practice, clinicians in general practice, and relevant others. Data from a literature review and 23 interviews were analysed leading to recommendations which were 'sense-tested' by an additional 22 stakeholders.
resultsAlthough there are at least 18 clinical software packages used in Australian general practice, it is feasible to integrate an alcohol screening tool for pregnancy into software for the majority of general practices in Australia. The AUDIT-C alcohol screening tool for pregnancy was widely accepted as suitable for such a purpose. Clinicians suggested the greatest barriers to screening were lack of time within antenatal consultations and insufficient remuneration for longer consultations. Many clinicians saw opportunity for introducing a multifunctional antenatal tool that could incorporate screening and clinical decision support for alcohol, tobacco and other substance use, mental health, domestic and family violence and potentially other areas informing healthy pregnancy. It could also be used opportunistically for preconception screening and counselling. Deployment of the tool could be supported by an education campaign from professional associations.
conclusionThe integration of a tool for screening for alcohol use among women who are pregnant or planning pregnancy into general practice clinical software is feasible; however, a multifunctional antenatal screening tool, incorporating other psychosocial elements, was considered more useful than a stand-alone alcohol screening tool. Codesign is needed with vendors and end-users to develop an acceptable tool that can be widely implemented. Issues with GP renumeration need also to be addressed to encourage alcohol screening pre-pregnancy and in the early months of pregnancy.
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.