Feasibility of alcohol interventions in cardiology: a mixed methods study of clinician perspectives in sweden
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: This study aimed to explore clinicians' perspectives on the feasibility of implementing alcohol screening and brief interventions (SBI) in cardiology services. METHODS AND RESULTS: We conducted a multi-site, exploratory-sequential mixed methods study. Themes from qualitative interviews were integrated with the Capability, Opportunity, Motivation (COM-B) framework during the design and analysis of a cross-sectional survey of cardiology clinicians across Sweden. We assessed perceived capability, opportunities, motivation, and overall perceived feasibility for SBI, and explored associations using ordinal logistic regression. Among 638 participants (mean age = 43 years, 75% women), median perceived feasibility was 66.7%; motivation for SBI was the highest (68.8%), followed by perceived opportunities (66.6%) and capability (62.5%). Perceived feasibility was higher among doctors [OR = 2.67, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.38-5.13] compared to assistant nurses and among outpatient clinicians (OR = 1.75, 95% CI = 1.14-2.70) compared to inpatient staff. Participants with specialist experience in arrhythmia (OR = 1.82, 95% CI = 1.01-3.28) and heart failure (OR = 1.95, 95% CI = 1.14-3.33) perceived SBI as particularly feasible. Integrated analysis indicated that clinicians perceive universal alcohol screening as important and that opportunities for SBI exist in cardiology. Implementation barriers may include low competence with brief interventions and doubts about the reliability of self-reported alcohol use. CONCLUSION: Findings suggest that the perceived feasibility of SBI varies according to clinicians' professional backgrounds and the clinical context. Doctors, outpatient staff, and those with specialist experience tended to perceive SBI as feasible and may be important stakeholders for implementation in cardiology. Effective strategies may include task sharing with assistant nurses and adapting training to clinical competencies and professional independence. REGISTRATION: OSF (osf.io/x62be).
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 | 0.007 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".