• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

社区药剂师简短酒精干预效果试验的定性过程研究:研究参与效应能否解释无显著结果?

Qualitative process study of community pharmacist brief alcohol intervention effectiveness trial: Can research participation effects explain a null finding?

作者信息

Quirk Alan, MacNeil Virginia, Dhital Ranjita, Whittlesea Cate, Norman Ian, McCambridge Jim

机构信息

Centre for Quality Improvement, Royal College of Psychiatrists, London, UK.

Department of Social and Environmental Health Research, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK.

出版信息

Drug Alcohol Depend. 2016 Apr 1;161:36-41. doi: 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2016.01.023. Epub 2016 Feb 2.

DOI:10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2016.01.023
PMID:26875673
Abstract

AIMS

This qualitative process study, nested within a randomised controlled trial evaluating community pharmacist brief alcohol intervention delivery, aims to explore participants' engagement with the trial, so as to identify whether research participation effects may explain why the brief intervention was not found to be effective.

METHOD

Qualitative interviews were conducted with 24 randomly selected participants approximately one month after the end of the trial. Semi structured Interviews were conducted by telephone in which participants were asked to give a chronological account of their trial participation, leading to a discussion of possible impacts. These were digitally recorded, transcribed verbatim, and analysed using the Framework method.

RESULTS

A range of motivations for taking part in the trial were identified, including pharmacy visitors wanting to obtain an assessment of their drinking. Participants in both arms of the trial spoke of the potent effect that screening had on them. All participants were exposed to discussions about alcohol with empathic pharmacists and, as this is an integral intervention component, this constitutes contamination. Participants' pre-existing ideas about the nature of alcohol problems had an important bearing on how relevant they thought the intervention was to them.

CONCLUSION

A detailed appreciation of participant engagement with the trial can provide a strong basis for interpretation of trial outcome data, and in this instance does help explain the null finding. Other findings also indicate the need for dedicated studies of public understanding of the nature of alcohol problems, and their implications for receptivity to brief interventions.

摘要

目的

本定性过程研究嵌套于一项评估社区药剂师简短酒精干预实施效果的随机对照试验中,旨在探究参与者对该试验的参与情况,以确定研究参与效应是否可以解释为何未发现简短干预有效。

方法

在试验结束约一个月后,对24名随机选取的参与者进行了定性访谈。通过电话进行半结构化访谈,要求参与者按时间顺序讲述他们参与试验的情况,进而讨论可能产生的影响。访谈内容进行了数字录音、逐字转录,并采用框架法进行分析。

结果

确定了一系列参与试验的动机,包括药房访客希望对自己的饮酒情况进行评估。试验两组的参与者都谈到了筛查对他们产生的强烈影响。所有参与者都与富有同理心的药剂师进行了关于酒精的讨论,而这是干预的一个重要组成部分,这构成了污染。参与者对酒精问题本质的既有观念对他们认为该干预与自身的相关性有重要影响。

结论

对参与者参与试验情况的详细了解可为解释试验结果数据提供有力依据,在这种情况下确实有助于解释零结果。其他研究结果还表明,需要专门研究公众对酒精问题本质的理解及其对接受简短干预的影响。

相似文献

1
Qualitative process study of community pharmacist brief alcohol intervention effectiveness trial: Can research participation effects explain a null finding?社区药剂师简短酒精干预效果试验的定性过程研究:研究参与效应能否解释无显著结果?
Drug Alcohol Depend. 2016 Apr 1;161:36-41. doi: 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2016.01.023. Epub 2016 Feb 2.
2
Involving the public and other stakeholders in development and evaluation of a community pharmacy alcohol screening and brief advice service.让公众和其他利益相关者参与到社区药店酒精筛查和简短咨询服务的开发和评估中。
Public Health. 2014 Apr;128(4):309-16. doi: 10.1016/j.puhe.2013.11.001. Epub 2014 Apr 6.
3
Effectiveness of alcohol brief intervention delivered by community pharmacists: study protocol of a two-arm randomised controlled trial.社区药剂师提供的酒精简短干预措施的效果:一项双臂随机对照试验的研究方案。
BMC Public Health. 2013 Feb 18;13:152. doi: 10.1186/1471-2458-13-152.
4
"I assumed that one was a placebo": exploring the consent process in a sham controlled acupressure trial.“我以为其中一种是安慰剂”:探索假对照指压试验中的知情同意过程
Complement Ther Med. 2014 Oct;22(5):903-8. doi: 10.1016/j.ctim.2014.07.005. Epub 2014 Jul 19.
5
Adolescent perspectives about their participation in alcohol intervention research in emergency care: A qualitative exploration using ethical principles as an analytical framework.青少年对其参与急诊酒精干预研究的看法:以伦理原则为分析框架的定性探讨。
PLoS One. 2019 Jun 12;14(6):e0217855. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0217855. eCollection 2019.
6
Patients or research subjects? A qualitative study of participation in a randomised controlled trial of a complex intervention.患者还是研究对象?一项关于参与复杂干预随机对照试验的定性研究。
Patient Educ Couns. 2006 Aug;62(2):260-70. doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2005.07.013. Epub 2005 Sep 21.
7
Shedding light on research participation effects in behaviour change trials: a qualitative study examining research participant experiences.揭示行为改变试验中研究参与的影响:一项审视研究参与者经历的定性研究
BMC Public Health. 2016 Jan 29;16:91. doi: 10.1186/s12889-016-2741-6.
8
Patient perspectives on discussing alcohol as part of medicines review in community pharmacies.患者对在社区药店的药物审查中讨论酒精问题的看法。
Res Social Adm Pharm. 2020 Jan;16(1):96-101. doi: 10.1016/j.sapharm.2019.03.145. Epub 2019 Apr 5.
9
Women's reasons for participation in a clinical trial for menstrual pain: a qualitative study.女性参与痛经临床试验的原因:一项定性研究
BMJ Open. 2016 Dec 13;6(12):e012592. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2016-012592.
10
Qualitative insights into implementation, processes, and outcomes of a randomized trial on peer support and HIV care engagement in Rakai, Uganda.对乌干达拉凯一项关于同伴支持与艾滋病毒护理参与的随机试验的实施、过程和结果的定性见解。
BMC Infect Dis. 2017 Jan 10;17(1):54. doi: 10.1186/s12879-016-2156-0.

引用本文的文献

1
'Really putting a different slant on my use of a glass of wine': patient perspectives on integrating alcohol into Structured Medication Reviews in general practice.“真的让我对一杯酒的饮用有了不同的看法”:患者对在全科医疗中将饮酒纳入结构化药物审查的看法
Addict Res Theory. 2023 Apr 28;31(6):459-467. doi: 10.1080/16066359.2023.2207017.
2
Alcohol, the overlooked drug: clinical pharmacist perspectives on addressing alcohol in primary care.酒精,被忽视的药物:临床药师在初级保健中解决酒精问题的观点。
Addict Sci Clin Pract. 2023 Mar 30;18(1):22. doi: 10.1186/s13722-023-00378-x.
3
Service Users' Views and Experiences of Alcohol Relapse Prevention Treatment and Adherence: New Role for Pharmacists?
服务使用者对酒精复发预防治疗及依从性的看法和体验:药剂师的新角色?
Alcohol Alcohol. 2022 Sep 10;57(5):602-608. doi: 10.1093/alcalc/agac011.
4
Addressing complex pharmacy consultations: methods used to develop a person-centred intervention to highlight alcohol within pharmacist reviews of medications.解决复杂的药学咨询问题:用于开发以人为本的干预措施的方法,以突出药剂师在药物审查中对酒精的关注。
Addict Sci Clin Pract. 2021 Oct 16;16(1):63. doi: 10.1186/s13722-021-00271-5.
5
Alcohol marketing versus public health: David and Goliath?酒精营销与公共卫生:大卫与歌利亚?
Global Health. 2021 Apr 12;17(1):45. doi: 10.1186/s12992-021-00696-2.
6
Pharmacist and patient perspectives on recruitment strategies for randomized controlled trials: a qualitative analysis.药剂师和患者对随机对照试验招募策略的看法:定性分析。
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2020 Oct 31;20(1):270. doi: 10.1186/s12874-020-01140-6.
7
A pilot cluster randomised trial of the medicines and alcohol consultation (MAC): an intervention to discuss alcohol use in community pharmacy medicine review services.一项关于药物和酒精咨询(MAC)的试点群组随机试验:一项在社区药剂师药物审查服务中讨论酒精使用问题的干预措施。
BMC Health Serv Res. 2020 Oct 12;20(1):943. doi: 10.1186/s12913-020-05797-z.
8
Producing co-production: Reflections on the development of a complex intervention.协同生产:对复杂干预措施发展的反思。
Health Expect. 2020 Jun;23(3):659-669. doi: 10.1111/hex.13046. Epub 2020 Mar 31.
9
Community pharmacy interventions for health promotion: effects on professional practice and health outcomes.社区药房促进健康干预措施:对专业实践和健康结果的影响。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2019 Dec 6;12(12):CD011207. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD011207.pub2.
10
Conceptualising alcohol consumption in relation to long-term health conditions: Exploring risk in interviewee accounts of drinking and taking medications.概念化与长期健康状况相关的饮酒行为:探索受访者饮酒和服用药物的叙述中存在的风险。
PLoS One. 2019 Nov 7;14(11):e0224706. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0224706. eCollection 2019.