BMJ open · 2018
Providing routine chronic disease preventive care in community substance use services: a pilot study of a multistrategic clinical practice change intervention.
Клиническое исследованиеСтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Tremain Danika, Freund Megan, Wye Paula, Bowman Jenny, Wolfenden Luke, Dunlop Adrian, Bartlem Kate, Lecathelinais Christophe, Wiggers John
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the potential effectiveness of a practice change intervention in increasing preventive care provision in community-based substance use treatment services. In addition, client and clinician acceptability of care were examined.
DESIGN: A pre-post trial conducted from May 2012 to May 2014.
SETTING: Public community-based substance use treatment services (n=15) in one health district in New South Wales (NSW), Australia.
PARTICIPANTS: Surveys were completed by 226 clients and 54 clinicians at baseline and 189 clients and 46 clinicians at follow-up.
INTERVENTIONS: A 12-month multistrategic clinician practice change intervention that aimed to increase the provision of preventive care for smoking, insufficient fruit and/or vegetable consumption and insufficient physical activity.
PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Client and clinician reported provision of assessment, brief advice and referral for three modifiable health risk behaviours: smoking, insufficient fruit and/or vegetable consumption and insufficient physical activity. Clinician-reported optimal care was defined as providing care to 80% of clients or more. Client acceptability and clinician attitudes towards preventive care were assessed at follow-up.
RESULTS: Increases in client reported care were observed for insufficient fruit and/or vegetable consumption including: assessment (24% vs 54%, p<0.001), brief advice (26% vs 46%, p<0.001), and clinicians speaking about (10% vs 31%, p<0.001) and arranging a referral (1% vs 8%, p=0.006) to telephone helplines. Clinician reported optimal care delivery increased for: assessment of insufficient fruit and/or vegetable consumption (22% vs 63%, p<0.001) and speaking about telephone helplines for each of the three health risk behaviours. Overall, clients and clinicians held favourable views regarding preventive care.
CONCLUSION: This study reported increases in preventive care for insufficient fruit and/or vegetable consumption; however, minimal increases were observed for smoking or insufficient physical activity. Further investigation of the barriers to preventive care delivery in community substance use settings is needed.
TRIALREGISTRATION NUMBER: ACTRN12614000469617.
DESIGN: A pre-post trial conducted from May 2012 to May 2014.
SETTING: Public community-based substance use treatment services (n=15) in one health district in New South Wales (NSW), Australia.
PARTICIPANTS: Surveys were completed by 226 clients and 54 clinicians at baseline and 189 clients and 46 clinicians at follow-up.
INTERVENTIONS: A 12-month multistrategic clinician practice change intervention that aimed to increase the provision of preventive care for smoking, insufficient fruit and/or vegetable consumption and insufficient physical activity.
PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Client and clinician reported provision of assessment, brief advice and referral for three modifiable health risk behaviours: smoking, insufficient fruit and/or vegetable consumption and insufficient physical activity. Clinician-reported optimal care was defined as providing care to 80% of clients or more. Client acceptability and clinician attitudes towards preventive care were assessed at follow-up.
RESULTS: Increases in client reported care were observed for insufficient fruit and/or vegetable consumption including: assessment (24% vs 54%, p<0.001), brief advice (26% vs 46%, p<0.001), and clinicians speaking about (10% vs 31%, p<0.001) and arranging a referral (1% vs 8%, p=0.006) to telephone helplines. Clinician reported optimal care delivery increased for: assessment of insufficient fruit and/or vegetable consumption (22% vs 63%, p<0.001) and speaking about telephone helplines for each of the three health risk behaviours. Overall, clients and clinicians held favourable views regarding preventive care.
CONCLUSION: This study reported increases in preventive care for insufficient fruit and/or vegetable consumption; however, minimal increases were observed for smoking or insufficient physical activity. Further investigation of the barriers to preventive care delivery in community substance use settings is needed.
TRIALREGISTRATION NUMBER: ACTRN12614000469617.
Предметные рубрики MeSH
AdolescentAdultAttitude of Health PersonnelChronic DiseaseCommunity Health ServicesDietExerciseFemaleFruitHealth BehaviorHumansMaleMiddle AgedNew South WalesPilot ProjectsPreventive Health ServicesReferral and ConsultationSmoking PreventionSubstance-Related DisordersSurveys and QuestionnairesVegetablesYoung Adult