Implementing alcohol and other drug interventions effectively: How does location matter?

Berends, Lynda; MacLean, Sarah; Hunter, Bruce; Mugavin, Janette; Carswell, Suzanne

doi:10.1111/j.1440-1584.2011.01212.x

Cited by 8 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The organizational barriers to practice change selected by participants (staff shortages, lack of training and financial/resource limitations) are typical of issues facing clinicians in general, particularly those in rural/remote settings 31,38,39 . The BEWE programme addressed a number of organizational aspects through stakeholder consultation and steering committee establishment prior to implementation.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Improving chronic lung disease management in rural and remote Australia: The Breathe Easy Walk Easy programme

et al. 2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Improving chronic lung disease management in rural and remote Australia: The Breathe Easy Walk Easy programme

et al. 2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Studies have identified impediments to Screening and Brief Intervention (SBI) implementation in health-care settings in a variety of countries, including Finland [8,9], Sweden [10,11], Denmark [12], Norway [13], Australia [14] and Brazil [15]. Challenges to conducting SBI include time constraints, the need to focus upon more medically urgent issues, poor training, negative provider attitudes and perceptions of role incompatibility [8,[16][17][18].…”

Section: Sbirt Implementation Barriers and Facilitatorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Screening, brief intervention and referral to treatment (SBIRT): implementation barriers, facilitators and model migration

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aims To identify barriers and facilitators associated with initial implementation of a US alcohol and other substance use Screening, Brief Intervention, and Referral to Treatment (SBIRT) grant program, and to identify modifications in program design that addressed implementation challenges. Design A mixed-method approach used quantitative and qualitative data, including SBIRT provider ratings of implementation barriers and facilitators, staff interview responses and program documentation. Setting Multiple sites within the first seven programs funded in a national demonstration program in the United States. Participants One hundred and two SBIRT providers were surveyed; 221 SBIRT stakeholders and staff were interviewed. Measurements Mean ratings of barriers and facilitators were calculated using provider survey responses. An inductive content analysis of interview responses identified factors perceived to support and challenge implementation; program modifications that occurred over time were recorded. Findings Providers rated pre-selected implementation facilitators higher than barriers. Content analysis of interview responses revealed six themes: committed leaders; intra-and inter-organizational communication/collaboration; provider buy-in and model acceptance; contextual factors; quality assurance; and grant requirements. Over time, programs tended to: adopt more efficient 'pre-screen' item sets; screen for risk factors in addition to alcohol/substance use; use contracted specialists to deliver SBIRT services; conduct services in high-volume emergency department and trauma center settings; and implement on-site and telephonic treatment delivery. Conclusions Screening, Brief Intervention and Referral to Treatment program implementation in the United States is facilitated by committed leadership and the use of substance use specialists, rather than medical generalists, to deliver services. Many implementation challenges can be addressed by an adequate start-up phase focused on comprehensive education and training, and on the development of intra-and inter-organizational communication and collaboration; opinion leader support; and practitioner and host site buy-in.

show abstract

“…2 Higher rates of substance use in rural communities compared to urban areas have been well-documented. 1,[3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11] Individuals in rural communities have unique barriers to recovery from substance use disorders 1,12 including limited referrals for substance use services, 13,14 limited behavioral health services availability, 6,[15][16][17][18] lower utilization and treatment completion rate, 1,19,20 higher financial burden to pay for services, [21][22][23][24] exacerbated stigma, [24][25][26][27][28] and privacy concerns. 26,29,30 Geographic proximity to substance use services 18,31,32 and transportation to access such services are particularly significant barriers in rural communities.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Barriers and Facilitators to Substance Use Treatment in the Rural South: A Qualitative Study

Browne¹,

Priester²,

Clone³

et al. 2015

The Journal of Rural Health

158

111

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Implementing alcohol and other drug interventions effectively: How does location matter?

Cited by 8 publications

References 13 publications

Improving chronic lung disease management in rural and remote Australia: The Breathe Easy Walk Easy programme

Improving chronic lung disease management in rural and remote Australia: The Breathe Easy Walk Easy programme

Screening, brief intervention and referral to treatment (SBIRT): implementation barriers, facilitators and model migration

Barriers and Facilitators to Substance Use Treatment in the Rural South: A Qualitative Study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About