↓ Skip to main content

Tailoring a brief intervention for illicit drug use and alcohol use in Irish methadone maintained opiate dependent patients: a qualitative process

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Psychiatry, November 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
7 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
5 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
101 Mendeley
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
Tailoring a brief intervention for illicit drug use and alcohol use in Irish methadone maintained opiate dependent patients: a qualitative process
Published in
BMC Psychiatry, November 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12888-016-1082-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Catherine Darker, Brion Sweeney, Eamon Keenan, Lucy Whiston, Rolande Anderson, Joe Barry

Abstract

The World Health Organization (WHO) recommend the tailoring of a brief intervention (BI) programme of research to ensure that it is both culturally and contextually appropriate for the country and the environment in which it is being tested. The majority of BI research has been conducted with non-opioid dependent participants. The current study developed a tailored BI for illicit drug use and alcohol use to a methadone maintained opioid dependent polydrug using cohort of patients. Focus groups with staff and one-to-one qualitative interviews with patients guided the tailoring of all intervention materials for use in a subsequent cluster randomised controlled trial (RCT). This was done to make them contextually appropriate to an opioid dependent cohort and culturally appropriate to Ireland. Thematic analyses were utilised. The BI was modified to ensure its compatibility with the culture of an Irish drug using population, with elements of motivational interviewing (MI) and personalised feedback incorporated. Example scripts of a screening and BI were included, as was an algorithm to facilitate clinicians during a session. Modifications to the 'Substance Use Risk' cards included weighting the severity of the problems, writing the language in the first person to personalise the feedback and including tick boxes so as to further highlight the relevant risk factors for individual patients. Photographs of key risk factors were included to display pictorially risks for illiterate or semi-literate patients. Examples of the interaction of particular substances with methadone were of particular importance to this group. Modifications of the 'Pros and Cons of Substance Use/Reasons to Quit or Cut Down' included additional categories such as addiction, crime and money that were salient to this cohort. The manual was used to standardise training across trial sites. The research team was faithful to WHO recommendations to tailor BI programmes that are culturally and contextually appropriate to the treatment cohort and clinical environment. Outcome data from the cluster RCT have demonstrated that the tailored intervention was effective.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 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 101 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 101 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 18 18%
Student > Master 12 12%
Other 7 7%
Researcher 6 6%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 5%
Other 17 17%
Unknown 36 36%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 21 21%
Psychology 16 16%
Social Sciences 9 9%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 7%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 3%
Other 8 8%
Unknown 37 37%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 25 January 2017.
All research outputs
#12,777,062
of 22,899,952 outputs
Outputs from BMC Psychiatry
#2,615
of 4,711 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#151,475
of 311,569 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Psychiatry
#53
of 97 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,899,952 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,711 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.9. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% 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 311,569 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 50% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 97 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.