Use of AUDIT-C alcohol screening tool in NHS general dental practices in North London.

Background The numerous health risks of excessive alcohol consumption are well documented. Individuals at risk of harm from alcohol consumption can be identified through alcohol screening tools; however, there is limited research regarding their use in general dental practices.Methods Data were collected as part of a feasibility trial evaluating delivery of brief alcohol advice in general dental practices in North London. Patient demographics and health-related behaviours were collected, and the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test-Consumption (AUDIT-C) tool was used to assess alcohol consumption patterns.Results The analytical sample comprised 552 dental patients, of whom approximately half (46%) were drinking alcohol at hazardous levels. Males, younger adults, those who consumed red meat weekly and smokers all had significantly increased risks of excessive alcohol consumption. Smokers were more likely to consume excessive levels of alcohol irrespective of smoking frequency. Notable sex differences in alcohol consumption were identified, with males being more likely to consume alcohol frequently and in larger quantities than females.Conclusion The AUDIT-C tool can be used in general dental practice to screen for harmful levels of alcohol consumption. Clear associations exist between patient demographics, health behaviours and excessive alcohol consumption.

Alcohol Screening and Brief Advice in NHS General Dental Practices: A Cluster Randomized Controlled Feasibility Trial.

AIM: To assess the feasibility and acceptability of screening for alcohol misuse and delivering brief advice to eligible patients attending NHS dental practices in London. METHODS: A two-arm cluster randomized controlled feasibility trial was conducted. Twelve dental practices were recruited and randomized to intervention and control arms. Participants attending for a dental check were recruited into the study and were eligible if they consumed alcohol above recommended levels assessed by the AUDIT-C screening tool. All eligible participants were asked to complete a baseline socio-demographic questionnaire. Six months after the completion of baseline measures, participants were contacted via telephone by a researcher masked to their allocation status. The full AUDIT tool was then administered. Alcohol consumption in the last 90 days was also assessed using the Form 90. A process evaluation assessed the acceptability of the intervention. RESULTS: Over a 7-month period, 229 participants were recruited (95.4% recruitment rate) and at the 6 months follow-up, 176 participants were assessed (76.9% retention rate). At the follow-up, participants in the intervention arm were significantly more likely to report a longer abstinence period (3.2 vs. 2.3 weeks respectively, P = 0.04) and non-significant differences in AUDIT (44.9% vs. 59.8% AUDIT positive respectively, P = 0.053) and AUDIT C difference between baseline and follow-up (-0.67 units vs. -0.29 units respectively, P = 0.058). Results from the process evaluation indicated that the intervention and study procedures were acceptable to dentists and patients. CONCLUSIONS: This study has demonstrated the feasibility and acceptability of dentists screening for alcohol misuse and providing brief advice.

Assessing the feasibility of screening and providing brief advice for alcohol misuse in general dental practice: a clustered randomised control trial protocol for the DART study.

INTRODUCTION: Alcohol misuse is a significant public health problem with major health, social and economic consequences. Systematic reviews have reported that brief advice interventions delivered in various health service settings can reduce harmful drinking. Although the links between alcohol and oral health are well established and dentists come into contact with large numbers of otherwise healthy patients regularly, no studies have been conducted in the UK to test the feasibility of delivering brief advice about alcohol in general dental settings. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The Dental Alcohol Reduction Trial (DART) aims to assess the feasibility and acceptability of screening for alcohol misuse and delivering brief advice in patients attending National Health Service (NHS) general dental practices in North London. DART is a cluster randomised control feasibility trial and uses a mixed methods approach throughout the development, design, delivery and evaluation of the intervention. It will be conducted in 12 NHS general dental practices across North London and will include dental patients who drink above the recommended guidance, as measured by the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT-C) screening tool. The intervention involves 5 min of tailored brief advice delivered by dental practitioners during the patient's appointment. Feasibility and acceptability measures as well as suitability of proposed primary outcomes of alcohol consumption will be assessed. Initial economic evaluation will be undertaken. Recruitment and retention rates as well as acceptability of the study procedures from screening to follow-up will be measured. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval was obtained from the Camden and Islington Research Ethics Committee. Study outputs will be disseminated via scientific publications, newsletters, reports and conference presentations to a range of professional and patient groups and stakeholders. Based on the results of the trial, recommendations will be made on the conduct of a definitive randomised controlled trial. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN81193263.

The use of herbal medicines by people with cancer: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Between 7% and 48% of cancer patients report taking herbal medicines after diagnosis. Because of the possibility of unwanted side effects or interactions with conventional treatments, people with cancer are generally advised to tell the professionals treating them if they are taking any form of medication, including herbal medicines and supplements. Studies suggest that only about half do so and that the professionals themselves have at best very limited knowledge and feel unable to give informed advice. This study is intended to inform the future development of information resources for cancer patients, survivors and healthcare professionals including tools for use before or during consultation to make it easier for patients to mention, and for healthcare professionals to ask about, use of herbal medications. METHODS/DESIGN: This is a three-phase study. In phase 1, a systematic review of the literature on self-medication with herbal medicines among UK populations living with cancer will establish the current evidence base on use of herbal medicine, sources of information, characteristics and motivations. This will allow us to better understand what aspects need further investigation and inform the topic guide for a qualitative study (phase 2). Six focus groups of six to eight cancer patients who have used at least one herbal preparation since diagnosis will explore behaviour, beliefs, knowledge, information sources and needs in an informal conversational setting.Informed by the findings of the systematic review and qualitative study, in phase 3 we will construct and pilot a questionnaire for a future large-scale survey to quantify and prioritise people's beliefs, needs and information preferences. DISCUSSION: Despite known interactions with conventional cancer treatments and contraindications for some herbal remedies with specific cancers, reliable information resources for patients are very limited. Identifying cancer patients' information needs and preferences is the first step in creating a suitable resource for both the public and the professionals advising them.

Will the NHS continue to function in an influenza pandemic? A survey of healthcare workers in the West Midlands, UK.

BACKGROUND: If UK healthcare services are to respond effectively to pandemic influenza, levels of absenteeism amongst healthcare workers (HCWs) must be minimised. Current estimates of the likelihood that HCWs will continue to attend work during a pandemic are subject to scientific and predictive uncertainty, yet an informed evidence base is needed if contingency plans addressing the issues of HCW absenteeism are to be prepared. METHODS: This paper reports the findings of a self-completed survey of randomly selected HCWs across three purposively sampled healthcare trusts in the West Midlands. The survey aimed to identify the factors positively or negatively associated with willingness to work during an influenza pandemic, and to evaluate the acceptability of potential interventions or changes to working practice to promote the continued presence at work of those otherwise unwilling or unable to attend. 'Likelihood' and 'persuadability' scores were calculated for each respondent according to indications of whether or not they were likely to work under different circumstances. Binary logistic regression was used to compute bivariate and multivariate odds ratios to evaluate the association of demographic variables and other respondent characteristics with the self-described likelihood of reporting to work. RESULTS: The survey response rate was 34.4% (n = 1032). Results suggest absenteeism may be as high as 85% at any point during a pandemic, with potential absence particularly concentrated amongst nursing and ancillary workers (OR 0.3; 95% CI 0.1 to 0.7 and 0.5; 95% CI 0.2 to 0.9 respectively). CONCLUSION: Levels of absenteeism amongst HCWs may be considerably higher than official estimates, with potential absence concentrated amongst certain groups of employees. Although interventions designed to minimise absenteeism should target HCWs with a low stated likelihood of working, members of these groups may also be the least receptive to such interventions. Changes to working conditions which reduce barriers to the ability to work may not address barriers linked to willingness to work, and may fail to overcome HCWs' reluctance to work in the face of what may still be deemed unacceptable risk to self and/or family.

Healthcare workers' attitudes to working during pandemic influenza: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Healthcare workers (HCWs) will play a key role in any response to pandemic influenza, and the UK healthcare system's ability to cope during an influenza pandemic will depend, to a large extent, on the number of HCWs who are able and willing to work through the crisis. UK emergency planning will be improved if planners have a better understanding of the reasons UK HCWs may have for their absenteeism, and what might motivate them to work during an influenza pandemic.This paper reports the results of a qualitative study that explored UK HCWs' views (n = 64) about working during an influenza pandemic, in order to identify factors that might influence their willingness and ability to work and to identify potential sources of any perceived duty on HCWs to work. METHODS: A qualitative study, using focus groups (n = 9) and interviews (n = 5). RESULTS: HCWs across a range of roles and grades tended to feel motivated by a sense of obligation to work through an influenza pandemic. A number of significant barriers that may prevent them from doing so were also identified. Perceived barriers to the ability to work included being ill oneself, transport difficulties, and childcare responsibilities. Perceived barriers to the willingness to work included: prioritising the wellbeing of family members; a lack of trust in, and goodwill towards, the NHS; a lack of information about the risks and what is expected of them during the crisis; fear of litigation; and the feeling that employers do not take the needs of staff seriously. Barriers to ability and barriers to willingness, however, are difficult to separate out. CONCLUSION: Although our participants tended to feel a general obligation to work during an influenza pandemic, there are barriers to working, which, if generalisable, may significantly reduce the NHS workforce during a pandemic. The barriers identified are both barriers to willingness and to ability. This suggests that pandemic planning needs to take into account the possibility that staff may be absent for reasons beyond those currently anticipated in UK planning documents. In particular, staff who are physically able to attend work may nonetheless be unwilling to do so. Although there are some barriers that cannot be mitigated by employers (such as illness, transport infrastructure etc.), there are a number of remedial steps that can be taken to lesson the impact of others (providing accommodation, building reciprocity, provision of information and guidance etc). We suggest that barriers to working lie along an ability/willingness continuum, and that absenteeism may be reduced by taking steps to prevent barriers to willingness becoming perceived barriers to ability.

Healthcare workers' attitudes towards working during pandemic influenza: a multi method study.

BACKGROUND: Healthcare workers (HCWs) will be key players in any response to pandemic influenza, and will be in the front line of exposure to infection. Responding effectively to a pandemic relies on the majority of medical, nursing, laboratory and hotel services staff continuing to work normally. Planning assumes that during a pandemic normal healthcare service levels will be provided, although it anticipates that as caseloads increase only essential care will be provided. The ability of the NHS to provide expected service levels is entirely dependent upon HCWs continuing to work as normal. METHODS/DESIGN: This study is designed as a two-phase multi-method study, incorporating focus groups and a questionnaire survey. In phase one, qualitative methods will be used to collect the views of a purposive sample of HCWs, to determine the range of factors associated with their responses to the prospect of working through pandemic influenza. In phase two, the findings from the focus groups, combined with the available literature, will be used to inform the design of a survey to determine the generalisability of these factors, enabling the estimation of the likely proportion of HCWs affected by each factor, and how likely it is that they would be willing and/or able to continue to work during an influenza pandemic. DISCUSSION: There are potentially greater than normal health risks for some healthcare workers working during a pandemic, and these workers may be concerned about infecting family members/friends. HCWs will be as liable as other workers to care for sick family members and friends. It is vital to have information about how motivated HCWs will be to continue to work during such a crisis, and what factors might influence their decision to work/not to work. Through the identification and subsequent management of these factors it may be possible to implement strategies that will alleviate the concerns and fears of HCWs and remove potential barriers to working.