Search

Brief alcohol advice offered to patients was shown to be a clinically- and cost-effective intervention to prevent and manage alcohol-related health harm. However, this intervention is not yet optimally implemented in practice. A suggested strategy to improve the implementation of brief alcohol advice is through community actions which would enhance the environment in which primary healthcare providers must deliver the intervention. However, there has been scarce research conducted to date regarding which community actions have most influence on the adoption and implementation of brief alcohol advice. The current protocol presents the development of a package of community actions to be implemented in three Latin American municipalities, in Colombia, Mexico and Peru. The community actions were based on the Institute for Health Care Improvement's framework for going to full scale, and include: (i) involvement of a Community Advisory Board, (ii) involvement of a project champion, (iii) adoption mechanisms, (iv) support systems and (v) a communication campaign. By presenting a protocol for developing community actions with input from local stakeholders, this article contributes to advancing the public health field of alcohol prevention by potentially stimulating the sustainable adoption and implementation of brief alcohol advice in routine practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Effective interventions exist for heavy drinking and depression but to date there has been limited translation into routine practice in global health systems. This evidence-to-practice gap is particularly evident in low- and middle-income countries. The international SCALA project (Scale-up of Prevention and Management of Alcohol Use Disorders and Comorbid Depression in Latin America) sought to test the impact of multilevel implementation strategies on rates of primary health care-based measurement of alcohol consumption and identification of depression in Colombia, Mexico, and Peru. To describe the process of development and cultural adaptation of the clinical intervention and training package. We drew on Barrero and Castro's four-stage cultural adaption model: 1) information gathering, 2) preliminary adaption, 3) preliminary adaption tests, and 4) adaption refinement. The Tailored Implementation in Chronic Diseases checklist helped us identify potential factors that could affect implementation, with local stakeholder groups established to support the tailoring process, as per the Institute for Healthcare Improvement's Going to Scale Framework. In Stage 1, international best practice guidelines for preventing heavy drinking and depression, and intelligence on the local implementation context, were synthesised to provide an outline clinical intervention and training package. In Stage 2, feedback was gathered from local stakeholders and materials refined accordingly. These materials were piloted with local trainers in Stage 3, leading to further refinements including developing additional tools to support delivery in busy primary care settings. Stage 4 comprised further adaptions in response to real-world implementation, a period that coincided with the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, including translating the intervention and training package for online delivery, and higher priority for depression screening in the clinical pathway. Our experience highlights the importance of meaningful engagement with local communities, alongside the need for continuous tailoring and adaptation, and collaborative decision-making. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Implementation of evidence-based care for heavy drinking and depression remains low in global health systems. We tested the impact of providing community support, training, and clinical packages of varied intensity on depression screening and management for heavy drinking patients in Latin American primary healthcare. Materials and methods: Quasi-experimental study involving 58 primary healthcare units in Colombia, Mexico and Peru randomized to receive: (1) usual care (control); (2) training using a brief clinical package; (3) community support plus training using a brief clinical package; (4) community support plus training using a standard clinical package. Outcomes were proportion of: (1) heavy drinking patients screened for depression; (2) screen-positive patients receiving appropriate support; (3) all consulting patients screened for depression, irrespective of drinking status. Results: 550/615 identified heavy drinkers were screened for depression (89.4%). 147/230 patients screening positive for depression received appropriate support (64%). Amongst identified heavy drinkers, adjusting for country, sex, age and provider profession, provision of community support and training had no impact on depression activity rates. Intensity of clinical package also did not affect delivery rates, with comparable performance for brief and standard versions. However, amongst all consulting patients, training providers resulted in significantly higher rates of alcohol measurement and in turn higher depression screening rates; 2.7 times higher compared to those not trained. Conclusions: Training using a brief clinical package increased depression screening rates in Latin American primary healthcare. It is not possible to determine the effectiveness of community support on depression activity rates due to the impact of COVID-19. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Providing alcohol screening and brief advice (SBA) in primary health care (PHC) can be an effective measure to reduce alcohol consumption. To aid successful implementation in an upper middle-income country context, this study investigates the perceived appropriateness of the programme and the perceived barriers to its implementation in PHC settings in three Latin American countries: Colombia, Mexico and Peru, as part of larger implementation study (SCALA)., Methods: An online survey based on the Tailored Implementation for Chronic Diseases (TICD) implementation framework was disseminated in the three countries to key stakeholders with experience in the topic and/or setting (both health professionals and other roles, for example regional health administrators and national experts). In total, 55 respondents participated (66% response rate). For responses to both appropriateness and barriers questions, frequencies were computed, and country comparisons were made using Chi square and Kruskal-Wallis non-parametric tests., Results: Alcohol SBA was seen as an appropriate programme to reduce heavy alcohol use in PHC and a range of providers were considered suitable for its delivery, such as general practitioners, nurses, psychologists and social workers. Contextual factors such as patients' normalised perception of their heavy drinking, lack of on-going support for providers, difficulty of accessing referral services and lenient alcohol control laws were the highest rated barriers. Country differences were found for two barriers: Peruvian respondents rated SBA guidelines as less clear than Mexican (Mann-Whitney U = -18.10, P = 0.001), and more strongly indicated lack of available screening instruments than Colombian (Mann-Whitney U = -12.82, P = 0.035) and Mexican respondents (Mann-Whitney U = -13.56, P = 0.018)., Conclusions: The study shows the need to address contextual factors for successful implementation of SBA in practice. General congruence between the countries suggests that similar approaches can be used to encourage widespread implementation of SBA in all three studied countries, with minor tailoring based on the few country-specific barriers.

Background: Screening for unhealthy alcohol use in routine consultations can aid primary health care (PHC) providers in detecting patients with hazardous or harmful consumption and providing them with appropriate care. As part of larger trial testing strategies to improve implementation of alcohol screening in PHC, this study investigated the motivational (role security, therapeutic commitment, self-efficacy) and organizational context (leadership, work culture, resources, monitoring, community engagement) factors that were associated with the proportion of adult patients screened with AUDIT-C by PHC providers in Colombia, Mexico and Peru. Additionally, the study investigated whether the effect of the factors interacted with implementation strategies and the country. Methods: Pen-and-paper questionnaires were completed by 386 providers at the start of their study participation (79% female, M age = 39.5, 37.6% doctors, 15.0% nurses, 9.6% psychologists, 37.8% other professional roles). They were allocated to one of four intervention arms: control group; short training only; short training in presence of municipal support; and standard (long) training in presence of municipal support. Providers documented their screening practice during the five-month implementation period. Data were collected between April 2019 and March 2020. Results: Negative binomial regression analysis found an inverse relationship of role security with the proportion of screened patients. Self-efficacy was associated with an increase in the proportion of screened patients only amongst Mexican providers. Support from leadership (formal leader in organization) was the only significant organizational context factor, but only in non-control arms. Conclusion: Higher self-efficacy is a relevant factor in settings where screening practice is already ongoing. Leadership support can enhance effects of implementation strategies.