ArticleAddiction science & clinical practice2025
Determinants of implementing the 15-method in Danish general practice using the consolidated framework for implementation science.
Article in Addiction science & clinical practice, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Adjusting the 15-method to Danish general practice: a participatory design approach.Scandinavian journal of primary health care · 2026Article
- Adaptations and modifications to the 15-method in Danish general practice classified using the framework for reporting adaptations and modifications to evidence-based interventions (FRAME).Addiction science & clinical practice · 2025Article
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
backgroundExcessive alcohol consumption is a significant global health issue, often unaddressed in primary care. The 15-method, a three-step opportunistic screening and treatment tool premised on Motivational Interviewing and integrated within the Screening, Brief Intervention and Referral to Treatment framework, offers a structured approach for healthcare professionals to identify and treat alcohol-related problems. The present study aimed to assess healthcare professionals' perceptions of determinants for early-stage implementation of the 15-method in Danish general practice and to classify these determinants using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR).
methodsThis qualitative study involved individual interviews and group interviews with general practitioners and nurses (N = 28) from 12 general practices participating in the Identification and Treatment of Alcohol Problems in Primary Care (iTAPP) study, a stepped-wedge cluster randomized controlled trial evaluating the effectiveness of the 15-method in Danish general practice. Interviews were semi-structured, guided by the CFIR framework, and analyzed using directed content analysis. Determinants were rated for their influence on implementation.
resultsKey facilitators included the 15-method's adaptability, strong evidence base, relative advantage, and compatibility with existing practices. Barriers included structural characteristics in the practices and local conditions. A central finding revealed a tension between patients' motivation and healthcare professionals' opportunities and capabilities to deliver the 15-method. Mixed determinants highlighted the complexity of implementing the 15-method across diverse practices.
conclusionImplementing the 15-method in Danish general practice is feasible but requires addressing specific barriers and leveraging facilitators. A multifaceted implementation strategy tailored to individual practices may be necessary to address the variations in contexts and resources across different practices with an emphasis on increasing healthcare professionals' capabilities and opportunities to deliver the intervention.
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.