| Title |
Assessing the delivery of alcohol screening and brief intervention in sexual health clinics in the north east of England
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Public Health, November 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12889-017-4878-3 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
C. Sullivan, N. Martin, C. White, D. Newbury-Birch |
| Abstract |
Risky drinking is associated with risky sexual experiences, however the relationship between alcohol and sex is complex. The aim of the study was to assess the feasibility of delivering alcohol screening and brief interventions in genitourinary medicine (GUM) clinics. The objectives were to; understand the levels of alcohol use amongst patients; report on the number of alcohol interventions delivered; and to analyse the relationship between alcohol use with demographic data as well as diagnosed sexually transmitted infections (STIs) to see if there were any associations. All new patients attending GUM between April 2012 and March 2013 self-completed the Alcohol Use Disorder Identification Test (AUDIT) prior to their clinical consultation. Where appropriate (scoring 8+ on AUDIT) the clinician would deliver up to 2-3 min of alcohol brief intervention. Descriptive statistics, t-tests, ANOVA and logistic regression were carried out as appropriate. AUDIT scores were available for 90% of all new patients (3058/3390) with an average mean score of 7.75. Of those who drank alcohol, 44% were categorised as being AUDIT positive, including 2% who had a score indicative of probable alcohol dependence (20+). 55 % (n = 638) of patients who screened positive on the AUDIT received a brief intervention whilst 24% (n = 674) of drinkers were diagnosed with a STI. Logistic regression modelling revealed that males, younger age groups and those of 'white' ethnicity were more likely to score positive on AUDIT. Patients classified as non-students, living in deprivation quintiles one to four and categorised as probable alcohol dependence on the AUDIT were more likely to be diagnosed with an STI. It is possible to embed alcohol screening into routine practice within sexual health services however further work is required to embed brief interventions particularly amongst increasing risk drinkers. If resources are limited, services may consider more targeted rather than universal alcohol screening to specific population groups. The study was undertaken in one GUM service in the North East of England and therefore findings may not be generalizable. The study did not assess efficacy of alcohol brief intervention in this setting. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 32 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 15 | 47% |
| United States | 4 | 13% |
| Australia | 2 | 6% |
| Ireland | 2 | 6% |
| Unknown | 9 | 28% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 14 | 44% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 10 | 31% |
| Scientists | 7 | 22% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 3% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 42 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 42 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 8 | 19% |
| Researcher | 5 | 12% |
| Other | 3 | 7% |
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 7% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 3 | 7% |
| Other | 9 | 21% |
| Unknown | 11 | 26% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 10 | 24% |
| Psychology | 6 | 14% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 5 | 12% |
| Unspecified | 2 | 5% |
| Social Sciences | 2 | 5% |
| Other | 4 | 10% |
| Unknown | 13 | 31% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 22. 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 12 January 2018.
All research outputs
#1,686,096
of 25,080,267 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#1,877
of 16,723 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#36,329
of 443,664 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#34
of 164 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,080,267 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 16,723 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% 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 443,664 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 164 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its contemporaries.