Cited by 374Health Policy Implementation ScienceSubstance Abuse Treatment and OutcomesAlcohol Consumption and Health Effects

Barriers and facilitators to implementing screening and brief intervention for alcohol misuse: a systematic review of qualitative evidence

Johnson, M., Jackson, R., Guillaume, L., Meier, P., Goyder, E.·2011·Journal of Public Health

Abstract

BACKGROUND: This review aimed to synthesize qualitative evidence for barriers and facilitators to effective implementation of screening and brief intervention for alcohol misuse in adults and children over 10 years. METHODS: A search of medical and social science databases was carried out and augmented by hand-searching of reference lists and contents of key journals. Qualitative evidence was synthesized thematically. RESULTS: A total of 47 papers varying in design and quality were included in the review. Most evaluated implementation in primary care settings. Implementation was reported to be limited by lack of resources, training and support from management, as well as workload. The appropriateness of context in which discussions take place was reported as an acceptability factor for patients and practitioners. Health professionals require sufficient knowledge about alcohol guidelines and risk in order to implement screening and intervention to those most in need. CONCLUSIONS: Whilst brief screening and brief intervention have been shown to be effective in some settings, this review has identified a number of barriers and facilitators to implementation. Adequate resources, training and the identification of those at risk without stereotyping are the main facilitators in primary care. More research is needed to assess implementation in other settings.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/pubmed/fdq095

Cites

52 of 52 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, 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
Johnson, M., Jackson, R., Guillaume, L., Meier, P., & Goyder, E.
Affiliations
University of Sheffield (GB)
Corresponding author
Johnson, M.
Venue
Journal of Public Health
Published
2010-12-17
Volume
33
Issue
3
Pages
412-421
ISSN
  • 0943-1853 (ISSN-L)
  • 1741-3842
  • 1741-3850
OpenAlex
W2142664550
Cited by
374
References
52
Citations by year
2026: 13 · 2025: 23 · 2024: 31 · 2023: 19 · 2022: 27 · 2021: 43 · 2020: 35 · 2019: 28 · 2018: 26 · 2017: 24 · 2016: 26 · 2015: 24 · 2014: 22 · 2013: 17 · 2012: 13
FWCI
1.92
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Public Health (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • ENLIGHTEN (Jurnal Bimbingan dan Konseling Islam) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Policy Implementation Science
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Substance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pathology and Forensic Medicine › Alcohol Consumption and Health Effects
Keywords
screening and brief intervention, alcohol abuse, implementation barriers, implementation facilitators, primary care, health professions education, resource constraints, workload, acceptability, alcohol guidelines, children and adolescents
MeSH terms
Adult, Alcoholism, Child, Health Plan Implementation, Health Services Accessibility, Health Services Research, Humans, Quality Assurance, Health Care

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