Freyer-Adam Jennis, Baumann Sophie, Haberecht Katja, Tobschall Stefanie, Schnuerer Inga, Bruss Kornelia, Bandelin Elke, John Ulrich, Gaertner Beate
Institute of Social Medicine and Prevention, University Medicine Greifswald, Greifswald, Germany
German Center for Cardiovascular Research, Partner site Greifswald, Greifswald, Germany.
Eur J Public Health. 2016 Oct;26(5):844-849. doi: 10.1093/eurpub/ckv238. Epub 2016 Jan 8.
High reach of target populations is relevant for public health impact of interventions. Concerning intervention programs requiring multiple contacts, little is known about how many persons may be kept in the intervention program over multiple time points. The aim of this study was to investigate (i) the reach of general hospital inpatients with at-risk alcohol use through screening and brief intervention and (ii) whether their continued intervention participation after hospital discharge differs by in-person vs. computer-based intervention (CO) delivery.
As part of a randomized controlled trial, general hospital inpatients aged 18-64 years were screened for at-risk alcohol use on 13 wards. Participants were allocated to in-person intervention (PE), CO and assessment only. Both interventions were provided on site, and 1 and 3 months after baseline.
Ninety-two percent of all eligible inpatients ( N: = 6251) completed the screening. Eighty-one percent ( N: = 961) of the screening-positives participated in the trial and received their allocated intervention. At months 1 and 3, interventions were delivered to 83 and 79% of the CO participants and to 74 and 64% of the PE participants. The delivery of CO and PE required an average of 5.2 and 7.7 contact attempts per delivered intervention, respectively.
General hospital inpatients with at-risk alcohol use were well reached through proactive interventions. COs may result in higher retention rates over 1 and 3 months and may require less contact attempts than PEs. Public health efforts that aim to achieve high intervention retention should consider proactive COs.
目标人群的高覆盖率对于干预措施的公共卫生影响至关重要。对于需要多次接触的干预项目,关于在多个时间点有多少人能够持续参与干预项目,我们知之甚少。本研究的目的是调查:(i)通过筛查和简短干预,综合医院有酒精使用风险的住院患者的覆盖率;(ii)出院后,亲身干预与基于计算机的干预(CO)方式下,他们持续参与干预的情况是否存在差异。
作为一项随机对照试验的一部分,对13个病房中年龄在18 - 64岁的综合医院住院患者进行酒精使用风险筛查。参与者被分配到亲身干预组(PE)、CO组和仅接受评估组。两种干预均在现场进行,且在基线后的1个月和3个月进行。
所有符合条件的住院患者中有92%(N = 6251)完成了筛查。筛查呈阳性的患者中有81%(N = 961)参与了试验并接受了分配的干预。在第1个月和第3个月,CO组参与者中有83%和79%接受了干预,PE组参与者中有74%和64%接受了干预。每次成功实施干预,CO组和PE组平均分别需要进行5.2次和7.7次接触尝试。
通过积极干预,综合医院有酒精使用风险的住院患者得到了良好的覆盖。在1个月和3个月期间,基于计算机的干预方式可能导致更高的留存率,且所需的接触尝试次数可能比亲身干预方式更少。旨在实现高干预留存率的公共卫生工作应考虑采用积极的基于计算机的干预方式。