Development of community strategies supporting brief alcohol advice in three Latin American countries: a protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Brief alcohol advice offered to patients was shown to be a clinically- and cost-effective intervention to prevent and manage alcohol-related health harm. However, this intervention is not yet optimally implemented in practice. A suggested strategy to improve the implementation of brief alcohol advice is through community actions which would enhance the environment in which primary healthcare providers must deliver the intervention. However, there has been scarce research conducted to date regarding which community actions have most influence on the adoption and implementation of brief alcohol advice. The current protocol presents the development of a package of community actions to be implemented in three Latin American municipalities, in Colombia, Mexico and Peru. The community actions were based on the Institute for Health Care Improvement's framework for going to full scale, and include: (i) involvement of a Community Advisory Board, (ii) involvement of a project champion, (iii) adoption mechanisms, (iv) support systems and (v) a communication campaign. By presenting a protocol for developing community actions with input from local stakeholders, this article contributes to advancing the public health field of alcohol prevention by potentially stimulating the sustainable adoption and implementation of brief alcohol advice in routine practice.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".