In-person and computer-based alcohol interventions at general hospitals: reach and retention

Freyer‐Adam, Jennis; Baumann, Sophie; Haberecht, Katja; Tobschall, Stefanie; Schnuerer, Inga; Bruss, K; Bandelin, Elke; John, Ulrich; Gaertner, Beate

doi:10.1093/eurpub/ckv238

Cited by 29 publications

(63 citation statements)

References 25 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…On the patient level, more than 83% of eligible ambulatory care patients and 90% of hospital care patients could be reached through the proactive screening. These participation rates are comparable with the previous studies in health care settings in Germany using proactive screening approaches (Freyer‐Adam et al, ; Meyer et al, ). However, length of screening may also have affected participation rates as the screening used in Meyer et al () consisted only of one question to identify smoking individuals in ambulatory practices, which resulted in participation of nearly all patients (99.6%).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 90%

“…The second aim of the present study was to analyze reach of participants. Analyses of reach are essential to evaluate the potential public health impact (Glasgow, Vogt, & Boles, 1999) settings (e.g., Freyer-Adam et al, 2016;Guertler et al, 2017;Krist et al, 2014 ;Meyer et al, 2008). The present study allows comparison of reach across different recruitment settings and target populations.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Analyses of reach are essential to evaluate the potential public health impact (Glasgow, Vogt, & Boles, ) as sample composition and intervention effectiveness may vary by recruitment strategy (Boshuizen, Viet, Picavet, Botterweck, & van Loon, ; Winhusen, Winstanley, Somoza, & Brigham, ). So far, there have been only few studies examining reach of proactive strategies in health care settings (e.g., Freyer‐Adam et al, ; Guertler et al, ; Krist et al, ; Meyer et al, ). The present study allows comparison of reach across different recruitment settings and target populations.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, literature about the effect of age on participation is less consistent (Galea & Tracy, 2007 In general, our proactive approach led to relatively high proportions of patients willing to participate in the studies in comparison with reactive approaches (Velicer et al, 2000). However, intervention participation rates were lower compared with other studies using proactive recruitment in health care settings that resulted in participation rates over 80% (Freyer-Adam et al, 2016;Meyer et al, 2008). Differences in participation rates may be a result of progressing proliferation of research studies during the last years (Galea & Tracy, 2007).…”

Section: Screening Levelmentioning

confidence: 91%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Proactive multipurpose health risk screening in health care settings: Methods, design, and reach

Guertler

Moehring

Krause

et al. 2019

Int J Methods Psych Res

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives Real world implementation of proactive screening and brief intervention in health care is threatened by high cost. Using e‐health interventions and screening for multiple health risk factors may provide more efficiency. We describe methodological details of a proactive multipurpose health risk screening in health care settings and report on participation rates, participants' characteristics, and participation factors. Methods Patients between 18 and 64 years from ambulatory practices and hospitals were proactively approached by study assistants at three sites for a computerized screening on harmful alcohol and tobacco consumption, depressive symptoms, insufficient fruit/vegetable consumption, physical inactivity and overweight. On the basis of their health risk pattern, a computerized algorithm allocated patients to one of five studies each of them addressing a psychiatric research question. Results Among all eligible patients, 13,763 (86.5%) were screened. Younger age and being female predicted screening participation. Of those with complete data (n = 12,828), 82.9% reported at least two health risks and 34.0% were eligible for a study. Study participation ranged between 35.2% and 50.8%, and was associated with socio‐demographics and problem severity. Conclusions This study supports the use of systematic proactive screening for multiple health risks in health care settings as it is more resource‐saving than single focused screening.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 90%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Screening Levelmentioning

confidence: 91%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Proactive multipurpose health risk screening in health care settings: Methods, design, and reach

Guertler

Moehring

Krause

et al. 2019

Int J Methods Psych Res

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Data were obtained as part of the screening procedure for the randomized controlled trial "Testing delivery channels of individualized motivationally tailored alcohol interventions among general hospital patients: in-person versus computerbased, PECO" (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01291693). As described in more detail elsewhere [45,46], the trial tested the comparative two-year efficacy of two ways of delivering brief interventions, namely in-person counseling and computergenerated written feedback, targeting the single HRF at-risk alcohol use [38,[47][48][49].…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Behavioral health risk factor profiles in general hospital patients: identifying the need for screening and brief intervention

et al. 2019

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background:Little is known about the clustering of behavioral health risk factors (HRFs), namely the occurrence of 16 specific combinations of tobacco smoking, at-risk alcohol use, overweight and physical inactivity in general hospital patients. Furthermore, social inequalities in HRFs, health and life expectancy are a major concern in public health. In order to establish the need for screening and intervention in general hospital care, the study aimed to determine the co-occurrence of HRFs in patients in four medical departments, and to investigate differences by gender, age and socio-economic characteristics. Methods: Over 17 months, a systematic multiple HRF screening was conducted at one general hospital in northeastern Germany. In total, 6251 18-64 year old patients (92% of eligibles) participated. Proportions and confidence intervals were calculated for all 16 HRF profiles stratified by department, gender, age group, school education, and employment status. Results: In total, 92.2% of the participants (58.6% male) reported ≥1 HRF, and 65.7% ≥2 HRFs. Men (71.2%), patients aged 35-49 (67.9%) and 50-64 years (69.5%), lower educated (79.0%), and unemployed (77.8%) patients had larger proportions of ≥2 HRFs than their counterparts. In all departments, the most common HRF profiles included overweight. HRF profiles that included alcohol and/ or smoking were more common in ear-nose-throat and trauma surgery than in internal medicine and general surgery patients. Men had higher rates concerning almost all HRF profiles including ≥2 HRFs and alcohol; women concerning profiles that included ≤2 HRFs and inactivity. In older patients, profiles with ≥2 HRFs including overweight; and in younger patients, profiles with smoking and/or alcohol were more common. In lower educated patients, profiles with ≥2 HRFs including inactivity; and in higher educated patients profiles with ≤2 HRFs including alcohol were more common. Compared to others, unemployed patients had higher rates of profiles with ≥3 HRFs including smoking. Conclusions: Two in three patients require interventions targeting two or more HRFs. The findings help to develop screening and brief intervention for patients with specific health risk profiles, that can reach most patients, including those most in need and those most hard to reach, with socio-economically disadvantaged people in particular. Registry: clinicaltrials.gov: NCT01291693.

show abstract

Alkoholkonsum – Bedeutung für Prävention und Gesundheitsförderung

John¹,

Meyer²,

Baumann³

et al. 2019

Springer Reference Pflege – Therapie – Gesundheit

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In-person and computer-based alcohol interventions at general hospitals: reach and retention

Cited by 29 publications

References 25 publications

Proactive multipurpose health risk screening in health care settings: Methods, design, and reach

Proactive multipurpose health risk screening in health care settings: Methods, design, and reach

Behavioral health risk factor profiles in general hospital patients: identifying the need for screening and brief intervention

Alkoholkonsum – Bedeutung für Prävention und Gesundheitsförderung

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About