The role of brief interventions and motivational interviewing in alcohol reduction for adult women in primary care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Alcohol use is a widely accepted part of Canadian society, however the prevalence of use among Canadian women is increasing. Evidence supports that long-term alcohol related risk and harms escalate more dramatically and at lower doses than that of men, yet research is limited on appropriate interventions for adult women not otherwise captured within obstetric care. Although adult women are frequent users of primary care, screening, and early intervention for problematic drinking is lacking. The purpose of this integrative review is to appraise the existing evidence to determine the role of brief interventions and motivational interviewing in reducing alcohol consumption for adult women in the primary care setting. Recent guideline updates in Canada’s Guidance on Alcohol and Health (Paradis, 2023) to reduce health impacts of alcohol on women, as well as the sex and gender related factors that contribute to health effects of alcohol on women demonstrate the importance of prevention and early intervention. Brief interventions and motivational interviewing have shown limited effectiveness for improving awareness of health effects of alcohol on women and reducing alcohol intake in a patient centered care model. Further research is recommended to improve the quality of evidence and generalizability of practice standards of alcohol use health care related to adult women for primary care providers such as nurse practitioners, family physicians and other allied health professionals.,
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".