↓ Skip to main content

Mechanisms of Action of Brief Alcohol Interventions Remain Largely Unknown – A Narrative Review

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychiatry, August 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (83rd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (66th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
10 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
70 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
133 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
Mechanisms of Action of Brief Alcohol Interventions Remain Largely Unknown – A Narrative Review
Published in
Frontiers in Psychiatry, August 2014
DOI 10.3389/fpsyt.2014.00108
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jacques Gaume, Jim McCambridge, Nicolas Bertholet, Jean-Bernard Daeppen

Abstract

A growing body of evidence has shown the efficacy of brief intervention (BI) for hazardous and harmful alcohol use in primary health care settings. Evidence for efficacy in other settings and effectiveness when implemented at larger scale are disappointing. Indeed, BI comprises varying content; exploring BI content and mechanisms of action may be a promising way to enhance efficacy and effectiveness. Medline and PsychInfo, as well as references of retrieved publications were searched for original research or review on active ingredients (components or mechanisms) of face-to-face BIs [and its subtypes, including brief advice and brief motivational interviewing (BMI)] for alcohol. Overall, BI active ingredients have been scarcely investigated, almost only within BMI, and mostly among patients in the emergency room, young adults, and US college students. This body of research has shown that personalized feedback may be an effective component; specific MI techniques showed mixed findings; decisional balance findings tended to suggest a potential detrimental effect; while change plan exercises, advice to reduce or stop drinking, presenting alternative change options, and moderation strategies are promising but need further study. Client change talk is a potential mediator of BMI effects; change in norm perceptions and enhanced discrepancy between current behavior and broader life goals and values have received preliminary support; readiness to change was only partially supported as a mediator; while enhanced awareness of drinking, perceived risks/benefits of alcohol use, alcohol treatment seeking, and self-efficacy were seldom studied and have as yet found no significant support as such. Research is obviously limited and has provided no clear and consistent evidence on the mechanisms of alcohol BI. How BI achieves the effects seen in randomized trials remains mostly unknown and should be investigated to inform the development of more effective interventions.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 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 133 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Unknown 132 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 28 21%
Researcher 27 20%
Student > Master 17 13%
Student > Bachelor 12 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 9 7%
Other 19 14%
Unknown 21 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 43 32%
Medicine and Dentistry 20 15%
Social Sciences 19 14%
Nursing and Health Professions 14 11%
Sports and Recreations 3 2%
Other 7 5%
Unknown 27 20%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 08 October 2021.
All research outputs
#3,983,776
of 24,036,420 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychiatry
#2,146
of 11,270 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#39,443
of 240,416 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychiatry
#21
of 60 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,036,420 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 83rd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,270 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% 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 240,416 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 60 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% of its contemporaries.