Cited by 58Substance Abuse Treatment and OutcomesPatient-Provider Communication in HealthcareAlcohol Consumption and Health Effects

Seeing through the glass darkly? A qualitative exploration of GPs' drinking and their alcohol intervention practices

Open access
Kaner, E.·2006·Family Practice

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Brief alcohol intervention is influenced by patients' personal characteristics as well as their clinical risk. Risk-drinkers from higher social-status groups are less likely to receive brief intervention from GPs than those from lower social-status groups. Thus GPs' perception of social similarity or distance may influence brief intervention. OBJECTIVE: To explore the role that GPs' drinking behaviour plays in their recognition of alcohol-related risk in patients. METHOD: A qualitative interview study with 29 GPs recruited according to maximum variation sampling. All interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. Analysis was inductive with constant comparison within and between themes plus deviant case analysis. Analysis developed until category saturation was reached. RESULTS: GPs described a range of personal drinking practices that broadly mirrored population drinking patterns. Many saw themselves as part of mainstream society, sharing in culturally sanctioned behaviour. For some GPs, shared drinking practices could increase empathy for patients who drank, and facilitate discussion about alcohol. However, several GPs regarded themselves as distinct from 'others', separating their own drinking from that of patients. Several GPs described a form of bench-marking, wherein only patients who drank more, or differently, to themselves were felt to be 'at risk'. CONCLUSION: Alcohol is clearly a complex and emotive health and social issue and GPs are not immune to its effects. For some GPs' shared drinking behaviour can act as a window of opportunity enabling insight on alcohol issues and facilitating discussion. However, other GPs may see through the glass more darkly and selectively recognize risk only in those patients who are least like them.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/fampra/cml015

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Kaner, E.
Affiliations
Newcastle University (GB)
Corresponding author
Kaner, E.
Venue
Family Practice
Published
2006-06-23
Volume
23
Issue
4
Pages
481-487
ISSN
  • 0263-2136 (ISSN-L)
  • 1460-2229
OpenAlex
W2095939319
Cited by
58
References
4
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 1 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 5 · 2012: 11
FWCI
0.97
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Family Practice (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • ePrints Soton (University of Southampton) (submittedVersion)
  • HighWire Press Open Archive (submittedVersion)
  • Newcastle University ePrints (Newcastle Univesity)
Funders
Economic and Social Research Council (RES-000-27-0084)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Substance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Patient-Provider Communication in Healthcare
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pathology and Forensic Medicine › Alcohol Consumption and Health Effects
Keywords
brief alcohol intervention, social status, social similarity
MeSH terms
Adult, Alcohol Drinking, Alcoholism, Family Practice, Female, Humans, Male, Physician Impairment, Physician-Patient Relations, Practice Patterns, Physicians', Risk-Taking, Risk Assessment, Alcohol-Related Disorders, Qualitative Research

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