↓ Skip to main content

Implementation of computerized alcohol screening and advice in an emergency department – a nursing staff perspective

Overview of attention for article published in International Emergency Nursing, November 2006
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source

Citations

dimensions_citation
28 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
60 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Implementation of computerized alcohol screening and advice in an emergency department – a nursing staff perspective
Published in
International Emergency Nursing, November 2006
DOI 10.1016/j.aaen.2006.09.004
Pubmed ID
Authors

Preben Bendtsen, Marika Holmqvist, Kjell Johansson

Abstract

Changes in attitudes towards alcohol prevention among nursing staff are evaluated after implementing an opportunistic computerized alcohol screening and intervention (e-SBI) at an emergency department. After having assessed the patients in the triage room the nurses asked patients to perform the e-SBI on a touch screen computer. Before the start of the project more than 60% of the nurses expected the patients to react negatively when asked about their alcohol habits. After one year of screening only 10% reported experience of negative reactions from the patients. More than 50% of the nurses found it easy or very easy to ask the patients to perform the e-SBI and more than 75% of the nurses agreed that the e-SBI did not affect their workload. The proportion of nurses who considered alcohol prevention to be part of their duties at the emergency department did not change (40%) after implementing the e-SBI. During the two-year study period, 1982 patients completed the e-SBI which constituted 10-20% of all patients between 16 and 70 years of age attending the department for a sub critical condition. The e-SBI seems to have better potential than ordinary alcohol screening and intervention for implementation into routine emergency departments due to its simplicity and low time consumption.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 60 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 2%
Brazil 1 2%
Unknown 58 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 11 18%
Student > Master 9 15%
Student > Doctoral Student 9 15%
Student > Bachelor 7 12%
Student > Postgraduate 7 12%
Other 9 15%
Unknown 8 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 28 47%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 12%
Social Sciences 5 8%
Psychology 5 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 2%
Other 4 7%
Unknown 10 17%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 17 June 2012.
All research outputs
#8,535,472
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from International Emergency Nursing
#200
of 671 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#44,357
of 166,971 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Emergency Nursing
#2
of 5 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 671 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 61% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 166,971 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 5 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 3 of them.