↓ 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

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
63 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
124 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.

X Demographics

X Demographics

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

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 124 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 4 3%
United States 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Unknown 118 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 20 16%
Student > Master 16 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 10%
Student > Bachelor 12 10%
Professor 9 7%
Other 35 28%
Unknown 19 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 44 35%
Psychology 17 14%
Nursing and Health Professions 13 10%
Social Sciences 12 10%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 2%
Other 8 6%
Unknown 28 23%
Attention Score in Context

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
#13,376,862
of 22,694,633 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#9,475
of 14,767 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#91,505
of 111,396 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#45
of 63 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,694,633 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 14,767 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.9. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% 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 111,396 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 63 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.