Jennis Freyer-Adam1,2, Sophie Baumann3,2, Katja Haberecht3,2, Stefanie Tobschall3, Inga Schnuerer3,2,4, Kornelia Bruss3, Elke Bandelin3, Ulrich John3,2, Beate Gaertner5. 1. Institute of Social Medicine and Prevention, University Medicine Greifswald, Greifswald, Germany freyer@uni-greifswald.de. 2. German Center for Cardiovascular Research, Partner site Greifswald, Greifswald, Germany. 3. Institute of Social Medicine and Prevention, University Medicine Greifswald, Greifswald, Germany. 4. Translational Neuromodeling Unit, Institute for Biomedical Engineering, University of Zurich and ETH Zurich, Switzerland. 5. Department of Epidemiology and Health Monitoring, Robert Koch Institute, Berlin, Germany.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: High reach of target populations is relevant for public health impact of interventions. Concerning intervention programs requiring multiple contacts, little is known about how many persons may be kept in the intervention program over multiple time points. The aim of this study was to investigate (i) the reach of general hospital inpatients with at-risk alcohol use through screening and brief intervention and (ii) whether their continued intervention participation after hospital discharge differs by in-person vs. computer-based intervention (CO) delivery. METHODS: As part of a randomized controlled trial, general hospital inpatients aged 18-64 years were screened for at-risk alcohol use on 13 wards. Participants were allocated to in-person intervention (PE), CO and assessment only. Both interventions were provided on site, and 1 and 3 months after baseline. RESULTS:Ninety-two percent of all eligible inpatients ( N: = 6251) completed the screening. Eighty-one percent ( N: = 961) of the screening-positives participated in the trial and received their allocated intervention. At months 1 and 3, interventions were delivered to 83 and 79% of the CO participants and to 74 and 64% of the PE participants. The delivery of CO and PE required an average of 5.2 and 7.7 contact attempts per delivered intervention, respectively. CONCLUSION:General hospital inpatients with at-risk alcohol use were well reached through proactive interventions. COs may result in higher retention rates over 1 and 3 months and may require less contact attempts than PEs. Public health efforts that aim to achieve high intervention retention should consider proactive COs.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: High reach of target populations is relevant for public health impact of interventions. Concerning intervention programs requiring multiple contacts, little is known about how many persons may be kept in the intervention program over multiple time points. The aim of this study was to investigate (i) the reach of general hospital inpatients with at-risk alcohol use through screening and brief intervention and (ii) whether their continued intervention participation after hospital discharge differs by in-person vs. computer-based intervention (CO) delivery. METHODS: As part of a randomized controlled trial, general hospital inpatients aged 18-64 years were screened for at-risk alcohol use on 13 wards. Participants were allocated to in-person intervention (PE), CO and assessment only. Both interventions were provided on site, and 1 and 3 months after baseline. RESULTS: Ninety-two percent of all eligible inpatients ( N: = 6251) completed the screening. Eighty-one percent ( N: = 961) of the screening-positives participated in the trial and received their allocated intervention. At months 1 and 3, interventions were delivered to 83 and 79% of the CO participants and to 74 and 64% of the PE participants. The delivery of CO and PE required an average of 5.2 and 7.7 contact attempts per delivered intervention, respectively. CONCLUSION: General hospital inpatients with at-risk alcohol use were well reached through proactive interventions. COs may result in higher retention rates over 1 and 3 months and may require less contact attempts than PEs. Public health efforts that aim to achieve high intervention retention should consider proactive COs.
Authors: Filipa Krolo; Sophie Baumann; Anika Tiede; Gallus Bischof; Kristian Krause; Christian Meyer; Ulrich John; Beate Gaertner; Jennis Freyer-Adam Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-05-11 Impact factor: 4.614
Authors: Jennis Freyer-Adam; Sophie Baumann; Gallus Bischof; Andreas Staudt; Christian Goeze; Beate Gaertner; Ulrich John Journal: JMIR Ment Health Date: 2022-01-28
Authors: Andreas Staudt; Jennis Freyer-Adam; Christian Meyer; Gallus Bischof; Ulrich John; Sophie Baumann Journal: JMIR Public Health Surveill Date: 2022-06-30
Authors: Jennis Freyer-Adam; Filipa Krolo; Anika Tiede; Christian Goeze; Kornelia Sadewasser; Marie Spielmann; Kristian Krause; Ulrich John Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2022-09-19 Impact factor: 3.006
Authors: Mikkel Magnus Thørrisen; Tore Bonsaksen; Jens Christoffer Skogen; Lisebet Skeie Skarpaas; Aleksandra Sevic; Willem van Mechelen; Randi Wågø Aas Journal: Front Public Health Date: 2021-06-25
Authors: Jennis Freyer-Adam; Florian Noetzel; Sophie Baumann; Ali Alexander Aghdassi; Ulrike Siewert-Markus; Beate Gaertner; Ulrich John Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2019-11-29 Impact factor: 3.295