↓ Skip to main content

Standardised alcohol screening in primary health care services targeting Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples in Australia

Overview of attention for article published in Addiction Science & Clinical Practice, March 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (74th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
19 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
69 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
Standardised alcohol screening in primary health care services targeting Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples in Australia
Published in
Addiction Science & Clinical Practice, March 2018
DOI 10.1186/s13722-018-0108-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

M. Mofizul Islam, Helen T. Oni, K. S. Kylie Lee, Noel Hayman, Scott Wilson, Kristie Harrison, Beth Hummerston, Rowena Ivers, Katherine M. Conigrave

Abstract

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Community Controlled Health Services (ACCHSs) around Australia have been asked to standardise screening for unhealthy drinking. Accordingly, screening with the 3-item AUDIT-C (Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test-Consumption) tool has become a national key performance indicator. Here we provide an overview of suitability of AUDIT-C and other brief alcohol screening tools for use in ACCHSs. All peer-reviewed literature providing original data on validity, acceptability or feasibility of alcohol screening tools among Indigenous Australians was reviewed. Narrative synthesis was used to identify themes and integrate results. Three screening tools-full AUDIT, AUDIT-3 (third question of AUDIT) and CAGE (Cut-down, Annoyed, Guilty and Eye-opener) have been validated against other consumption measures, and found to correspond well. Short forms of AUDIT have also been found to compare well with full AUDIT, and were preferred by primary care staff. Help was often required with converting consumption into standard drinks. Researchers commented that AUDIT and its short forms prompted reflection on drinking. Another tool, the Indigenous Risk Impact Screen (IRIS), jointly screens for alcohol, drug and mental health risk, but is relatively long (13 items). IRIS has been validated against dependence scales. AUDIT, IRIS and CAGE have a greater focus on dependence than on hazardous or harmful consumption. Detection of unhealthy drinking before harms occur is a goal of screening, so AUDIT-C offers advantages over tools like IRIS or CAGE which focus on dependence. AUDIT-C's brevity suits integration with general health screening. Further research is needed on facilitating implementation of systematic alcohol screening into Indigenous primary healthcare.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 69 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 69 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 14 20%
Student > Bachelor 8 12%
Researcher 7 10%
Other 4 6%
Student > Postgraduate 3 4%
Other 4 6%
Unknown 29 42%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 14 20%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 12%
Psychology 6 9%
Social Sciences 5 7%
Engineering 2 3%
Other 5 7%
Unknown 29 42%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 05 April 2018.
All research outputs
#4,721,995
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Addiction Science & Clinical Practice
#172
of 487 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#86,317
of 344,233 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Addiction Science & Clinical Practice
#9
of 11 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 81st percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 487 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 17.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% of its peers.
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 344,233 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 74% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 11 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 9th percentile – i.e., 9% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.