Cited by 29Substance Abuse Treatment and OutcomesPatient-Provider Communication in HealthcareHealth Policy Implementation Science

When general practitioners talk about Alcohol: Exploring facilitating and hampering factors for pragmatic case finding

lid, Torgeir Gilje, Nesvåg, Sverre, Meland, Eivind·2015·Scandinavian Journal of Public Health

Abstract

Background: The aim was to explore individual and system factors facilitating or hampering pragmatic case finding, an identification strategy based on clinical signs and targeted screening. Study design: Two focus groups with general practitioners were interviewed twice, in the context of a four-session seminar on alcohol and complex drug problems, and an additional focus group interview with general practitioners not attending the seminar. Interviews focused mainly on conditions for talking about alcohol, views on collaboration with colleagues, how they deal with complex issues, and strategies for learning and quality improvement. Results: The participants presented many deliberate strategies for quality improvement and learning together, but there was a tendency to avoid discussing complex case stories or potentially controversial topics with colleagues. Possible barriers to change were presented. The majority of their stories on talking about alcohol coincided well with the concept of pragmatic case finding. The duality between shame and normality, time constraints and a need for structure were the most important individual barriers to an open and respectful conversation about alcohol with patients. Conclusions: Our study supports pragmatic case finding as a relevant and viable strategy for talking about alcohol in general practice, and as an alternative to screening and brief intervention. Quality improvement in practice is strengthened when it is adapted to the clinical setting, and builds on and stimulates the GPs’ and staff’s own strategies for learning and quality work.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/1403494814565129

Cites

0 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
lid, T. G., Nesvåg, S., & Meland, E.
Affiliations
  • Stavanger University Hospital (NO)
  • University of Bergen (NO)
Venue
Scandinavian Journal of Public Health
Published
2015-01-06
Volume
43
Issue
2
Pages
153-158
ISSN
  • 1403-4948 (ISSN-L)
  • 1651-1905
OpenAlex
W2098187936
Cited by
29
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 2 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 1 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 3
FWCI
2.10
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Scandinavian Journal of Public Health (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Substance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Patient-Provider Communication in Healthcare
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Policy Implementation Science
Keywords
alcohol consumption, general practitioners, time constraints, quality improvement, learning together, collaboration with colleagues, screening and brief intervention
MeSH terms
Adult, Aged, Alcohol Drinking, Communication, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Physician-Patient Relations, Focus Groups, Alcohol-Related Disorders, Qualitative Research, General Practitioners, General Practice, Quality Improvement

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