Cited by 47Health Policy Implementation ScienceSubstance Abuse Treatment and OutcomesHealth Sciences Research and Education

Strategies to Overcome Barriers to Implementation of Alcohol Screening and Brief Intervention in General Practice: a Delphi Study Among Healthcare Professionals and Addiction Prevention Experts

Open access
Abidi, L., Oenema, A., Nilsen, P., Anderson, P., van de Mheen, D.·2016·Prevention Science

Abstract

Despite the evidence base, alcohol screening and brief intervention (ASBI) have rarely been integrated into routine clinical practice. The aim of this study is to identify strategies that could tackle barriers to ASBI implementation in general practice by involving primary healthcare professionals and addiction prevention experts. A three-round online Delphi study was carried out in the Netherlands. The first-round questionnaire consisted of open-ended questions to generate ideas about strategies to overcome barriers. In the second round, participants were asked to indicate how applicable they found each strategy. Items without consensus were systematically fed back with group median ratings and interquartile range (IQR) scores in the third-round questionnaire. In total, 39 out of 69 (57 %) invited participants enrolled in the first round, 214 participants completed the second round, and 144 of these (67 %) completed the third-round questionnaire. Results show that participants reached consensus on 59 of 81 strategies, such as the following: (1) use of E-learning technology, (2) symptom-specific screening by general practitioners (GPs) and/or universal screening by practice nurses, (3) reimbursement incentives, (4) supportive materials, (5) clear guidelines, (6) service provision of addiction care centers, and (7) more publicity in the media. This exploratory study identified a broad set of strategies that could potentially be used for overcoming barriers to ASBI implementation in general practice and paves the way for future research to experimentally test the identified implementation strategies using multifaceted approaches.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s11121-016-0653-4

Cites

34 of 34 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 35 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Burgering, E., & Willems, H. (2013). Doctor doesn’t ask enough about alcohol use [in Dutch: Arts vraagt te weinig naar drankgebruik]. Dokter Patient, 68, 795–797.
  2. Van Dijck, D., & Knibbe, R. A. (2005). The prevalance of problematic alcohol use in the Netherlands [in Dutch: De Prevalentie van Probleemdrinken in Nederland]. Maastricht: Universiteit Maastricht.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Abidi, L., Oenema, A., Nilsen, P., Anderson, P., & van de Mheen, D.
Affiliations
Maastricht University (NL)
Corresponding author
Abidi, L.
Venue
Prevention Science
Published
2016-05-11
Volume
17
Issue
6
Pages
689-699
ISSN
  • 1389-4986 (ISSN-L)
  • 1573-6695
OpenAlex
W2352373792
Cited by
47
References
35
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 2
FWCI
8.69
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Prevention Science (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • EUR Research Repository (Erasmus University Rotterdam) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • EUR Research Repository (Erasmus University Rotterdam) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • RePub (Erasmus University Rotterdam) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • KTH Publication Database DiVA (KTH Royal Institute of Technology) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Research Publications (Maastricht University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • RePub (Erasmus University Rotterdam) (submittedVersion)
  • Research Publications (Maastricht University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Newcastle University ePrints (Newcastle Univesity) (cc-by)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Policy Implementation Science
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Substance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Sciences Research and Education
Keywords
alcohol screening and brief intervention, implementation barriers, general practice, primary care, implementation strategies, addiction prevention, online learning, reimbursement incentives, practice nurses, clinical guidelines, media publicity, healthcare workers
MeSH terms
Alcoholism, Alcohols, Delivery of Health Care, Delphi Technique, Diffusion of Innovation, Humans, Netherlands, Surveys and Questionnaires, General Practice

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review