Conversations about alcohol in healthcare - cross-sectional surveys in the Netherlands and Sweden

Relationship Between Educational Level and Attitudes Towards Alcohol Conversations in Healthcare: A Cross-Sectional Survey Conducted in Four European Countries

Objectives: To examine the association between educational level and attitudes towards alcohol conversations in healthcare using population-based surveys of adults in England, the Netherlands, Norway, and Sweden; and to compare attitudes towards alcohol conversations in healthcare between these four countries. Methods: Cross-sectional surveys were conducted amongst adults in the general population in England (n = 3,499), the Netherlands (n = 2,173), Norway (n = 1,208), and Sweden (n = 3,000). Logistic regression analysis was used to examine associations between attitudes towards alcohol conversations in healthcare and educational level, key demographic variables, alcohol consumption, and country of residence. Results: In all four countries, low educational level (p < 0.001) and male gender (p < 0.001) were associated with holding negative attitudes towards discussing alcohol in healthcare. Risky drinkers had more negative attitudes than low risky drinkers towards discussing alcohol in healthcare (p < 0.001) in all countries except England (p = 0.48), and also reported low levels of perceived honesty and confidence in healthcare (p < 0.001). Conclusion: These findings highlight the importance of considering patients' socio-economic status when developing and implementing alcohol prevention interventions in healthcare.

Public perceptions of how alcohol consumption is dealt with in Swedish and Norwegian health care

Aims:

The aims of this study were to evaluate and compare popular beliefs and attitudes regarding alcohol conversations in healthcare in Sweden and Norway; and to explore which factors were associated with different levels of support for alcohol-prevention work in the two countries.

Methods:

Population-based cross-sectional surveys were conducted in Sweden (n = 3000) and Norway (n = 1208). Logistic regression was used to identify the characteristics of participants who were supportive of routine alcohol screening and brief intervention delivery.

Results:

A higher proportion of Swedish respondents agreed to a large extent that healthcare professionals should routinely ask about alcohol consumption. In addition, a higher proportion of Swedish respondents compared to respondents from Norway agreed that healthcare providers should only ask about patient’s alcohol consumption if this was related to specific symptoms. There were similar correlates of being supportive of routine alcohol screening and brief intervention delivery in both countries. Support was lower in both countries amongst moderate and risky drinkers, and among single adults or those on parental leave, but higher amongst older individuals. Having had an alcohol conversation in healthcare increased the level of support for alcohol prevention in routine healthcare among risky drinkers.

Conclusions:

There is a high level of support for preventative alcohol conversations in routine healthcare in Norway and Sweden, although there was a lower proportion of respondents who were positive to alcohol prevention in routine healthcare in Norway compared to Sweden. Experiencing alcohol conversation may positively affect risky drinkers’ attitudes towards and support for alcohol prevention. Thus, more frequent alcohol conversations in routine healthcare may also result in increased level of support for alcohol prevention among risky drinkers.

Addressing Patients' Alcohol Consumption-A Population-Based Survey of Patient Experiences

Objectives: To identify the proportion of the population that had experienced that alcohol was addressed in health care the previous year, to explore experiences and perceived effects of addressing alcohol, and to investigate the proportion of risky drinkers in the population. Methods: Cross-sectional national web-based survey with 1,208 participants. Socio-demographic data, alcohol consumption (AUDIT-C), and experiences with alcohol conversations were investigated. Results: Approximately four in five respondents had visited health care the past 12 months, and one in six reported having experienced addressing alcohol. Women and older respondents were less likely to report having experienced alcohol conversations compared to other groups. Risky drinkers were not more likely to have experienced an alcohol conversation, but reported longer duration of alcohol conversations and more frequently perceived addressing alcohol as awkward or judgmental. Almost a third of respondents were classified as risky drinkers. Conclusion: The proportion experiencing addressing alcohol in routine health care is low, also among risky drinkers, and risky drinkers more frequently experienced the conversations as judgmental. More sensitive and relevant ways of addressing alcohol in health care is needed.

Financial reimbursement - irrelevant for GPs' readiness to implement brief intervention to reduce alcohol consumption? A cross-sectional vignette study

Background

General Practitioners’ (GPs) readiness to implement screening and brief intervention (SBI) to treat patients with excessive alcohol consumption is low. Several studies identified crucial barriers such as insufficient financial reimbursement. In contrast to the barriers-account, we assume that low implementation readiness of GPs may be less attributed to external barriers but rather more so to inherent characteristics of SBI. To test our assumption, we conducted a vignette study assessing the GPs’ readiness to implement SBI in comparison to a pharmacological intervention also designed for the treatment of excessive drinkers in relation to standard or above-standard financial reimbursement. According to our hypothesis GPs should be less ready to implement SBI regardless of financial reimbursement.

Methods

A convenience sample of GPs was recruited to answer the questionnaire. To assess the GPs’ implementation readiness a 4-item 6-point Likert scale was developed and pretested.

Results

One hundred forty GPs completed the questionnaire. GPs were more ready to implement the pharmacological intervention than SBI, F(1,132) = 27.58, p > .001 (main effect).

We found no effect for financial reimbursement, F(1,132) = 3.60, ns, and no interaction effect, F(1,132) = 2.20, ns.

Conclusions

Further research should investigate more thoroughly the crucial characteristics of SBI to initiate a modification process finally leading to more effective primary care dependency prevention.