MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4402949417 · doi:10.1186/s12875-024-02598-9

Supporting alcohol brief interventions and pharmacotherapy provision in Australian First Nations primary care: exploratory analysis of a cluster randomised trial

2024· article· en· W4402949417 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Monika Dzidowska, James H. Conigrave, Scott G. Wilson, Noel Hayman, Rowena Ivers, Julia Vnuk, Paul Haber, Katherine M. Conigrave

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Primary Care · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSubstance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMedical Research CouncilNational Health and Medical Research CouncilWellcome Trust
KeywordsPsychological interventionCluster (spacecraft)PharmacotherapyCluster randomised controlled trialExploratory analysisPrimary careMedicineFamily medicineRandomized controlled trialNursingInternal medicineData scienceComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Primary care provides an important opportunity to detect unhealthy alcohol use and offer assistance but many barriers to this exist. In an Australian context, Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Services (ACCHS) are community-led and run health services, which provide holistic primary care to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. A recent cluster randomised trial conducted with ACCHS provided a service support model which showed a small but significant difference in provision of 'any treatment' for unhealthy alcohol use. However, it was not clear which treatment modalities were increased. AIMS: To test the effect of an ACCHS support model for alcohol on: (i) delivery of verbal alcohol intervention (alcohol advice or counselling); (ii) prescription of relapse prevention pharmacotherapies. METHODS: Intervention: 24-month, multi-faceted service support model. DESIGN: cluster randomised trial; equal allocation to early-support ('treatment') and waitlist control arms. PARTICIPANTS: 22 ACCHS. ANALYSIS: Multilevel logistic regression to compare odds of a client receiving treatment in any two-month period as routinely recorded on practice software. RESULTS: Support was associated with a significant increase in the odds of verbal alcohol intervention being recorded (OR = 7.60, [95% CI = 5.54, 10.42], p < 0.001) from a low baseline. The odds of pharmacotherapies being prescribed (OR = 1.61, [95% CI = 0.92, 2.80], p = 0.1) did not increase significantly. There was high heterogeneity in service outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: While a statistically significant increase in verbal alcohol intervention rates was achieved, this was not clinically significant because of the low baseline. Our data likely underestimates rates of treatment provision due to barriers documenting verbal interventions in practice software, and because different software may be used by drug and alcohol teams. The support made little impact on pharmacotherapy prescription. Changes at multiple organisational levels, including within clinical guidelines for primary care, may be needed to meaningfully improve provision of alcohol treatment in ACCHS. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ACTRN12618001892202 (retrospectively registered on 21/11/2018).

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.037
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.050
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.037
Threshold uncertainty score0.196

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0370.050
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0080.011
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.045
GPT teacher head0.362
Teacher spread0.317 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMC Primary CareSame topicSubstance Abuse Treatment and OutcomesFrench-language works237,207