↓ Skip to main content

Evaluation of an intervention for patients with alcohol‐related injuries: results of a mixed methods study

Overview of attention for article published in Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health, June 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
5 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
66 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
Evaluation of an intervention for patients with alcohol‐related injuries: results of a mixed methods study
Published in
Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health, June 2015
DOI 10.1111/1753-6405.12375
Pubmed ID
Authors

Megan Whitty, Tricia Nagel, Linda Ward, Rama Jayaraj, David Kavanagh

Abstract

To explore the effect of education and training on the delivery of alcohol screening and brief intervention and referral to high-risk patients in a hospital setting. Main outcome measures included; delivery of training; practice change in relation to staff performing alcohol screening, brief intervention and referrals. Observational study design using mixed methods set in a tertiary referral hospital. Pre-post assessment of medical records and semi-structured interviews with key informants. Routine screening for substance misuse (9% pre / 71.4% post) and wellbeing concerns (6.6% pre / 15 % post) was more frequent following the introduction of resources and staff participation in educational workshops. There was no evidence of a concomitant increase in delivery of brief intervention or referrals to services. Implementation challenges, including time constraints and staff attitudes, and enablers such as collaboration and visible pathways, were identified. Rates of patient screening increased, however barriers to delivery of brief intervention and referrals remained. Implementation strategies targeting specific barriers and enablers to introducing interventions are both required to improve the application of secondary prevention for patients in acute settings. Educational training, formalised liaison between services, systematised early intervention protocols, and continuous quality improvement processes will progress service delivery in this area.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 66 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 1 2%
Unknown 65 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 7 11%
Student > Master 7 11%
Student > Bachelor 5 8%
Other 4 6%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 5%
Other 12 18%
Unknown 28 42%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 12 18%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 12%
Psychology 6 9%
Social Sciences 5 8%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 2%
Other 3 5%
Unknown 31 47%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 26 March 2019.
All research outputs
#16,047,334
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health
#1,606
of 1,909 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#149,472
of 281,411 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health
#25
of 32 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,909 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 16.3. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 281,411 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 32 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.