Improving screening and brief intervention activities in primary health care: Secondary analysis of professional accuracy based on the AUDIT-C.

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE: The ODHIN trial found that training and support and financial reimbursement increased the proportion of patients that were screened and given advice for their heavy drinking in primary health care. However, the impact of these strategies on professional accuracy in delivering screening and brief advice is underresearched and is the focus of this paper. METHOD: From 120 primary health care units (24 in each jurisdiction: Catalonia, England, the Netherlands, Poland, and Sweden), 746 providers participated in the baseline and the 12-week implementation periods. Accuracy was measured in 2 ways: correctness in completing and scoring the screening instrument, AUDIT-C; the proportion of screen-negative patients given advice, and the proportion of screen-positive patients not given advice. Odds ratios of accuracy were calculated for type of profession and for intervention group: training and support, financial reimbursement, and internet-based counselling. RESULTS: Thirty-two of 36 711 questionnaires were incorrectly completed, and 65 of 29 641 screen-negative patients were falsely classified. At baseline, 27% of screen-negative patients were given advice, and 22.5% screen-positive patients were not given advice. These proportions halved during the 12-week implementation period, unaffected by training. Financial reimbursement reduced the proportion of screen-positive patients not given advice (OR = 0.56; 95% CI, 0.31-0.99; P < .05). CONCLUSION: Although the use of AUDIT-C as a screening tool was accurate, a considerable proportion of risky drinkers did not receive advice, which was reduced with financial incentives.

Impact of primary healthcare providers' initial role security and therapeutic commitment on implementing brief interventions in managing risky alcohol consumption: a cluster randomised factorial trial.

BACKGROUND: Brief interventions in primary healthcare are cost-effective in reducing drinking problems but poorly implemented in routine practice. Although evidence about implementing brief interventions is growing, knowledge is limited with regard to impact of initial role security and therapeutic commitment on brief intervention implementation. METHODS: In a cluster randomised factorial trial, 120 primary healthcare units (PHCUs) were randomised to eight groups: care as usual, training and support, financial reimbursement, and the opportunity to refer patients to an internet-based brief intervention (e-BI); paired combinations of these three strategies, and all three strategies combined. To explore the impact of initial role security and therapeutic commitment on implementing brief interventions, we performed multilevel linear regression analyses adapted to the factorial design. RESULTS: Data from 746 providers from 120 PHCUs were included in the analyses. Baseline role security and therapeutic commitment were found not to influence implementation of brief interventions. Furthermore, there were no significant interactions between these characteristics and allocated implementation groups. CONCLUSIONS: The extent to which providers changed their brief intervention delivery following experience of different implementation strategies was not determined by their initial attitudes towards alcohol problems. In future research, more attention is needed to unravel the causal relation between practitioners' attitudes, their actual behaviour and care improvement strategies to enhance implementation science. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01501552.

Strategies in primary healthcare to implement early identification of risky alcohol consumption: why do they work or not? A qualitative evaluation of the ODHIN study.

BACKGROUND: Screening and brief interventions (SBI) in primary healthcare are cost-effective in risky drinkers, yet they are not offered to all eligible patients. This qualitative study aimed to provide more insight into the factors and mechanisms of why, how, for whom and under what circumstances implementation strategies work or do not work in increasing SBI. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were conducted between February and July 2014 with 40 GPs and 28 nurses in Catalonia, the Netherlands, Poland, and Sweden. Participants were purposefully selected from the European Optimising Delivery of Healthcare Interventions (ODHIN) trial. This randomised controlled trial evaluated the influence of training and support, financial reimbursement and an internet-based method of delivering advice on SBI. Amongst them were 38 providers with a high screening performance and 30 with a low screening performance from different allocation groups. Realist evaluation was combined with the Tailored Implementation for Chronic Diseases framework for identification of implementation determinants to guide the interviews and analysis. Transcripts were analysed thematically with the diagram affinity method. RESULTS: Training and support motivated SBI by improved knowledge, skills and prioritisation. Continuous provision, sufficient time to learn intervention techniques and to tailor to individual experienced barriers, seemed important T&S conditions. Catalan and Polish professionals perceived financial reimbursement to be an additional stimulating factor as well, as effects on SBI were smoothened by personnel levels and salary levels. Structural payment for preventive services rather than a temporary project based payment, might have increased the effects of financial reimbursement. Implementing e-BI seem to require more guidance than was delivered in ODHIN. Despite the allocation, important preconditions for SBI routine seemed frequent exposure of this topic in media and guidelines, SBI facilitating information systems, and having SBI in protocol-led care. Hence, the second order analysis revealed that the applied implementation strategies have high potential on the micro professional level and meso-organisational level, however due to influences from the macro- level such as societal and political culture the effects risks to get nullified. CONCLUSIONS: Essential determinants perceived for the implementation of SBI routines were identified, in particular for training and support and financial reimbursement. However, focusing only on the primary healthcare setting seems insufficient and a more integrated SBI culture, together with meso- and macro-focused implementation process is requested. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov. Trial identifier: NCT01501552 .