↓ Skip to main content

Screening and brief interventions for hazardous and harmful alcohol use in primary care: a cluster randomised controlled trial protocol

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Public Health, August 2009
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (56th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
64 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
111 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Screening and brief interventions for hazardous and harmful alcohol use in primary care: a cluster randomised controlled trial protocol
Published in
BMC Public Health, August 2009
DOI 10.1186/1471-2458-9-287
Pubmed ID
Authors

Eileen Kaner, Martin Bland, Paul Cassidy, Simon Coulton, Paolo Deluca, Colin Drummond, Eilish Gilvarry, Christine Godfrey, Nick Heather, Judy Myles, Dorothy Newbury-Birch, Adenekan Oyefeso, Steve Parrott, Katherine Perryman, Tom Phillips, Don Shenker, Jonathan Shepherd

Abstract

There have been many randomized controlled trials of screening and brief alcohol intervention in primary care. Most trials have reported positive effects of brief intervention, in terms of reduced alcohol consumption in excessive drinkers. Despite this considerable evidence-base, key questions remain unanswered including: the applicability of the evidence to routine practice; the most efficient strategy for screening patients; and the required intensity of brief intervention in primary care. This pragmatic factorial trial, with cluster randomization of practices, will evaluate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of different models of screening to identify hazardous and harmful drinkers in primary care and different intensities of brief intervention to reduce excessive drinking in primary care patients.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 111 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 4 4%
United States 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Unknown 105 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 20 18%
Student > Master 14 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 12%
Student > Bachelor 11 10%
Professor 8 7%
Other 34 31%
Unknown 11 10%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 42 38%
Psychology 17 15%
Nursing and Health Professions 12 11%
Social Sciences 12 11%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 2%
Other 6 5%
Unknown 20 18%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 30 January 2013.
All research outputs
#6,106,057
of 11,349,655 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#4,568
of 7,745 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#130,045
of 312,683 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#210
of 342 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 11,349,655 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,745 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.1. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 312,683 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 56% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 342 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.