↓ Skip to main content

Implementing referral to an electronic alcohol brief advice website in primary healthcare: results from the ODHIN implementation trial

Overview of attention for article published in BMJ Open, June 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
15 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
81 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
Implementing referral to an electronic alcohol brief advice website in primary healthcare: results from the ODHIN implementation trial
Published in
BMJ Open, June 2016
DOI 10.1136/bmjopen-2015-010271
Pubmed ID
Authors

Preben Bendtsen, Ulrika Müssener, Nadine Karlsson, Hugo López-Pelayo, Jorge Palacio-Vieira, Joan Colom, Antoni Gual, Jillian Reynolds, Paul Wallace, Lidia Segura, Peter Anderson

Abstract

The objective of the present study was to explore whether the possibility of offering facilitated access to an alcohol electronic brief intervention (eBI) instead of delivering brief face-to-face advice increased the proportion of consulting adults who were screened and given brief advice. The study was a 12-week implementation study. Sixty primary healthcare units (PHCUs) in 5 jurisdictions (Catalonia, England, the Netherlands, Poland and Sweden) were asked to screen adults who attended the PHCU for risky drinking. A total of 120 primary healthcare centres from 5 jurisdictions in Europe. 746 individual providers (general practitioners, nurses or other professionals) participated in the study. Change in the proportion of patients screened and referred to eBI comparing a baseline 4-week preimplementation period with a 12-week implementation period. The possibility of referring patients to the eBI was not found to be associated with any increase in the proportion of patients screened. However, it was associated with an increase in the proportion of screen-positive patients receiving brief advice from 70% to 80% for the screen-positive sample as a whole (p<0.05), mainly driven by a significant increase in brief intervention rates in England from 87% to 96% (p<0.01). The study indicated that staff displayed a low level of engagement in this new technology. Staff continued to offer face-to-face advice to a larger proportion of patients (54%) than referral to eBI (38%). In addition, low engagement was seen among the referred patients; on average, 18% of the patients logged on to the website with a mean log-on rate across the different countries between 0.58% and 36.95%. Referral to eBI takes nearly as much time as brief oral advice and might require more introduction and training before staff are comfortable with referring to eBI. NCT01501552; Post-results.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 81 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 81 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 14%
Researcher 11 14%
Student > Bachelor 10 12%
Student > Master 9 11%
Professor > Associate Professor 4 5%
Other 8 10%
Unknown 28 35%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 24 30%
Nursing and Health Professions 11 14%
Psychology 10 12%
Social Sciences 3 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 2%
Other 4 5%
Unknown 27 33%
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 18 June 2016.
All research outputs
#15,739,529
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from BMJ Open
#16,957
of 25,587 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#201,813
of 353,557 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMJ Open
#271
of 377 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 25,587 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 18.2. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% 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 353,557 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 377 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.