Text Messaging Interventions for Unhealthy Alcohol Use in Emergency Departments: Mixed Methods Assessment of Implementation Barriers and Facilitators
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Many patients with unhealthy alcohol use (UAU) access health care in emergency departments (EDs). Scalable supports, such as SMS text messaging interventions, are acceptable and feasible to enhance care delivery for many health issues, including substance use. Further, SMS text messaging interventions have been shown to improve patient outcomes related to alcohol consumption (eg, reduced consumption compared to no intervention, basic health information, or drink tracking), but they are rarely offered in clinical settings. Objective: This paper describes a mixed methods study using the Integrated Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services (i-PARIHS) framework. The goal of this study was to use a stakeholder-engaged mixed methods design to assess barriers and facilitators to the implementation of SMS text messaging interventions for UAU in EDs with a focus on the recipient's characteristics, the innovation's degree of fit within the existing practice, and the unique nature of the inner and outer context. Methods: This study was conducted in a large health system in the northeastern United States. We examined electronic health record data on alcohol screening in 17 EDs; surveyed 26 ED physician chairpersons on implementation feasibility, acceptability, and appropriateness; and interviewed 18 ED staff and 21 patients to understand barriers and facilitators to implementation. Interviews were analyzed according to the i-PARIHS framework to assess recipient characteristics, innovation degree of fit, and inner and outer context. Results: Electronic health record data revealed high variability in alcohol screening completion (mean 73%, range 35%-93%), indicating potential issues in identifying patients eligible to offer the intervention. The 26 ED chair surveys revealed a relatively high level of implementation confidence (mean 4, SD 0.81), acceptability (mean 4, SD 0.71), and appropriateness (mean 3.75, SD 0.69) regarding the UAU SMS text messaging intervention; feasibility (mean 3.5, SD 0.55) had the lowest mean, indicating concerns about integrating the text intervention in the busy ED workflow. Staff were concerned about staff buy-in and adding additional discussion points to already overwhelmed patients during their ED visit but saw the need for additional low-threshold services for UAU. Patients were interested in the intervention to address drinking and health-related goals. Conclusions: ED visits involving UAU have increased in the United States. The results of this formative study on barriers and facilitators to the implementation of UAU SMS text messaging interventions in EDs indicate both promise and caution. In general, we found that staff viewed offering such interventions as appropriate and acceptable; however, there were concerns with feasibility (eg, low alcohol risk screening rates). Patients also generally viewed the SMS text messaging intervention positively, with limited drawbacks (eg, slight concerns about having time to read messages). The results provide information that can be used to develop implementation strategies that can be tested in future studies.
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 | 0.057 | 0.048 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".