Implementation of alcohol screening and brief interventions in cardiology: a cross-sectional study of practice in Sweden
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aims To investigate rates of alcohol screening and brief interventions in cardiology, and to examine associations between patient characteristics and the implementation of screening and brief interventions.Methods Cross-sectional survey of cardiology patients (aged ≥18 years) in three towns/cities in Sweden (Falun, Gävle, Stockholm). Self-reported study outcomes included: a) being screened for alcohol use, and b) receiving a brief intervention. Covariates included sociodemographic characteristics and clinical factors. We examined associations between covariates and study outcomes using logistic regression models.Results From a total 1051 participants (median age = 73 years, 66% men), 54% were screened for alcohol use, mostly by doctors (48%) and nurses (40%). Odds ratios for being screened were lower among participants aged ≥80 years (OR = 0.57, 95%CI = 0.41–0.79), relative to those aged 65–79 years, and higher among participants with overweight (OR = 1.84, 95%CI = 1.38–2.44). Of those screened, 12% received brief interventions. Odds ratios for receiving brief interventions were higher among: men (OR = 3.04, 95%CI = 1.41–6.56), current smokers (OR = 10.88, 95%CI = 3.86–30.69), and participants with hazardous drinking (OR = 5.66, 95%CI = 2.59–12.36).Conclusions Just over half cardiology patients were screened for alcohol use. Almost two thirds of those identified with hazardous drinking did not receive brief interventions. Screening and brief intervention practices varied according to individual participant characteristics, and there was a shortfall in screening among the elderly. Findings indicate inconsistent implementation of European cardiology guidelines, which recommend universal screening, and highlight a need for improved implementation strategies.
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 | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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".