Cited by 7Substance Abuse Treatment and OutcomesInnovations in Medical EducationHealth Policy Implementation Science

Blended-eLearning Improves Alcohol Use Care in Kenya: Pragmatic Randomized Control Trial Results and Parallel Qualitative Study Implications

Open access
Clair, Veronic, Musau, Abednego, Mutiso, Victoria, Tele, Albert, Atkinson, Katlin, Rossa-Roccor, Verena, Bosire, Edna, Ndetei, David +1 more·2022·International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction

Abstract

Alcohol use is the 5th most important risk factor contributing to the global burden of diseases, with stigma and a lack of trained health workers as the main barriers to adequate care. This study assesses the impact of providing blended-eLearning courses teaching the alcohol, smoking, and substance involvement screening test (ASSIST) screening and its linked brief intervention (BI). In public and private facilities, two randomized control trials (RCTs) showed large and similar decreases in alcohol use in those receiving the BI compared to those receiving only the ASSIST feedback. Qualitative findings confirm a meaningful reduction in alcohol consumption; decrease in stigma and significant practice change, suggesting lay health workers and clinicians can learn effective interventions through blended-eLearning; and significantly improve alcohol use care in a low- and middle-income country (LMIC) context. In addition, our study provides insight into why lay health workers feedback led to a similar decrease in alcohol consumption compared to those who also received a BI by clinicians.

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/s11469-022-00841-x

Cites

79 of 79 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?

  • Single-session brief interventions resulted in reduced alcohol use at 6 months.

    “Concerning alcohol use, single session BI resulted in reduced use at month 1 [50,54]; 6 weeks [72], 3 months [50,61–64], and 6 months [50,52,60,72].”

    From A scoping review of substance use brief interventions in Africa (2024) · cites this paper as [50]

    The Discussion (page unavailable) reports that alcohol consumption decreased by more than 235 g/week at six months in all groups, including the brief-intervention group. But the Methods describe an offer of one or two follow-up visits, so this was not necessarily a single-session intervention. Results Table 3 also shows no significant six-month difference between brief intervention plus feedback and feedback alone; the reduction cannot be attributed specifically to the brief intervention. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Single-session brief interventions resulted in reduced alcohol use at month 1.

    “Concerning alcohol use, single session BI resulted in reduced use at month 1 [50,54]; 6 weeks [72], 3 months [50,61–64], and 6 months [50,52,60,72].”

    From A scoping review of substance use brief interventions in Africa (2024) · cites this paper as [50]

    Table 2 in Results > Changes in Alcohol Consumption over Time reports reduced alcohol consumption from baseline to month 1 in the feedback-plus-BI groups at both public and private facilities. But Methods > RCT Design and Procedures says clinicians could offer one or two follow-up visits, so this was not established as a single-session intervention. Table 3 also shows no significant month-1 difference between the BI and feedback-only groups, so the reduction cannot be attributed specifically to BI. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Single-session brief interventions resulted in reduced alcohol use at 3 months.

    “Concerning alcohol use, single session BI resulted in reduced use at month 1 [50,54]; 6 weeks [72], 3 months [50,61–64], and 6 months [50,52,60,72].”

    From A scoping review of substance use brief interventions in Africa (2024) · cites this paper as [50]

    The Results (Changes in Alcohol Consumption over Time; page unavailable) show reduced alcohol consumption by three months in the feedback-plus-BI groups. But the Methods (RCT Design and Procedures; page unavailable) say clinicians could offer one or two brief follow-up visits, so this was not necessarily a single-session intervention. Consumption also fell in the feedback-only groups, and the three-month differences between groups were not statistically significant; the paper does not establish that a single BI session caused the reduction. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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

Research works printed but not linked: 6

  1. Babor T Kaner E Nilsen P Robaina K Li Q Rapid review of current evidence for health promotion actions for hazardous and harmful alcohol use, with specific reference to low-and middle-income countries: WHO mainstreaming health promotion project 2013 World Health Organization
  2. Clair V Mutiso V Musau A Mokaya A Frank E Ndetei DM Decreasing stigma towards alcohol, tobacco and other substance use through online training [Abstract] Journal of Addiction Medicine 2016 10 3 E17 E18 10.1097/adm.0000000000000224 · DOI
  3. Dawson-Saunders, B., & Trapp, R. G. (1994). Basic & Clinical Biostatistics (2nd edn.). Prentice-Hall International.
  4. Krueger, R. A. (1994). Focus groups: A practical guide for applied research (2nd edn.). Sage Publications.
  5. Pope, C., Mays, N., & Popay, J. (2007). Synthesising qualitative and quantitative health research: A guide to methods. Open University Press. http://site.ebrary.com/lib/ubc/docDetail.action?docID=10197069. Accessed 15 April 2020.
  6. World Health Organization. (2010). mhGAP intervention guide for mental, neurological and substance use disorders in non-specialized health settings. World Health Organization 23741783

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Clair, V., Musau, A., Mutiso, V., Tele, A., Atkinson, K., Rossa-Roccor, V., Bosire, E., Ndetei, D., & Frank, E.
Affiliations
  • University of British Columbia (CA)
  • Africa Mental Health Foundation (KE)
  • University of Nairobi (KE)
Corresponding author
Clair, Veronic
Venue
International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction
Published
2022-08-12
Volume
20
Issue
6
Pages
3410-3437
ISSN
  • 1557-1874 (ISSN-L)
  • 1557-1882
OpenAlex
W4290840549
Cited by
7
References
79
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 3
FWCI
0.90
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Greater South Information System
Funders
  • Grand Challenges Canada (9204)
  • Michael Smith Foundation for Health Research (16053)
  • Annenberg Physician Training Program in Addiction Medicine
  • IMPART Addiction Research Training
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Substance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Innovations in Medical Education
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Policy Implementation Science
Keywords
blended e-learning, ASSIST screening, alcohol screening, alcohol stigma, lay health workers, clinician training, smoking screening, substance use screening, low- and middle-income countries, Kenya, practice change

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