4.4 Article

Identification of and guidance for problem drinking by general medical providers - Results from a national survey

期刊

MEDICAL CARE
卷 43, 期 3, 页码 229-236

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/00005650-200503000-00005

关键词

alcohol and drug use; identification; screening; referral; problem drinking

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Heavy alcohol use is associated with health costs and medical problems. There has been a growing consensus that primary care patients should be screened for alcohol problems. Objectives: We examined rates at which patients were asked about alcohol or drug use and problems, extending research in this area by using a standardized problem drinking instrument with a large national sample, examining community level variables, and assessing the extent to which patients who were identified received follow-up. Subjects: A subsample of 7371 persons from the 1998 Healthcare for Communities survey who reported visiting a general medical provider (GMP) in,the past year. Measures: Participants completed questionnaires on demographics, mental and physical health, alcohol, drug use and problems, enrollment in a managed health care plan, whether their medical provider asked about alcohol or drug use, and whether they received advice, counseling, or referral. Results: Being asked about alcohol and drug use was associated with being male, young, highly educated, more health problems, mental health diagnosis, and being classified as a problem drinker. Only 48% of problem drinkers received any follow-up, with most being told to stop drinking by their GMP. Conclusions: Few people are queried about alcohol or drug use when they visit a GMP. When problem use is identified, most patients do not receive appropriate follow-up and aftercare. The quality of primary care could improve if GMPs were educated about providing brief advice/counseling and were given information conceming resources in their community to make appropriate referrals for patients.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据