Effect of using different modes to administer the AUDIT-C on identification of hazardous drinking and acquiescence to trial participation among injured patients
Effect of using different modes to administer the AUDIT-C on identification of hazardous drinking and acquiescence to trial participation among injured patients
复制标题
DOI：
10.1093/alcalc/agl123
复制
发表时间：
2007-09-01
影响因子：
2.8
通讯作者：
Diguiseppi, Carolyn
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Graham, Allan;Goss, Cynthia;Diguiseppi, Carolyn
目的：我们比较了三种不同的问卷管理模式对筛查危险饮酒和默许试验参与的影响。研究方法：一项在急性护理诊所就诊的受伤患者中进行的准随机对照试验比较了自我管理的纸笔、自我管理的电子和口头管理的访谈问卷。结果包括积极的AUDIT-C筛查危险饮酒，愿意参加（假设的）生活方式干预试验，以及招募成功。差异进行了分析，非线性混合模型，控制年龄，性别和设施。与工作人员进行的结构化访谈探讨了筛选的杠杆和障碍。结果：在370名参与者中，22.7%的人在AUDIT-C上得分>= 4，7.8%的人得分>= 6。电子问卷比纸质问卷更可能识别AUDIT-C >= 6（OR=1.96; 95%CI 1.10-3.48），但不>= 4（OR=0.83; 95%CI 0.43-1.62）。口头问卷与纸质问卷一样可能识别AUDIT-C >= 4（OR=1.00; 95% CI 0.40-2.51）或>= 6（OR=1.94; 95% CI 0.83-4.50）。电子问卷和口头问卷更可能引起对试验参与的默许（OR=1.59; 95% CI 1.23-2.07和OR=1.66; 95% CI 1.22-2.26）。口头问卷调查产生了保密性、隐私性和中断患者流动的问题，并降低了招募成功率（OR=0.51; 95%CI 0.42-0.62）。结论：在同意接受筛查的诊所急性损伤患者中，近四分之一报告了危险饮酒。与纸质问卷相比，电子筛选产生较少的社会期望偏差和更大的默许试验参与。口头调查问卷产生了更大的默许，但使用障碍对招聘产生了不利影响。电子问卷可能是更可取的筛查危险饮酒和招募到干预试验在急性护理诊所。
Aims: We compared the effect of three different modes of questionnaire administration on screening for hazardous drinking and acquiescence to trial participation. Methods: A quasi-randomized controlled trial among injured patients seen in acute care clinics compared self-administered paper-and-pencil, self-administered electronic, and orally-administered interview questionnaires. Outcomes included positive AUDIT-C screens for hazardous drinking, willingness to participate in a (hypothetical) lifestyle intervention trial, and recruitment success. Differences were analyzed with nonlinear mixed models, controlling for age, sex, and facility. Structured interviews with staff explored levers and barriers to screening. Results: Of the 370 participants, 22.7% scored >= 4 and 7.8% >= 6 on the AUDIT-C. Electronic questionnaires were more likely than paper questionnaires to identify an AUDIT-C >= 6 (OR=1.96; 95% CI 1.10-3.48), but not >= 4 (OR=0.83; 95% CI 0.43-1.62). Oral questionnaires were as likely as paper questionnaires to identify an AUDIT-C >= 4 (OR=1.00; 95% CI 0.40-2.51) or >= 6 (OR=1.94; 95% CI 0.83-4.50). Electronic and oral questionnaires were more likely to elicit acquiescence to trial participation (OR=1.59; 95% CI 1.23-2.07, and OR=1.66; 95% CI 1.22-2.26, respectively). Oral questionnaires created problems with confidentiality, privacy, and disruption of patient flow, and reduced recruitment success (OR=0.51; 95% CI 0.42-0.62). Conclusions: Among acutely injured patients in clinics who consented to screening, nearly one-fourth reported hazardous drinking. Compared to paper questionnaires, electronic screening produced less social desirability bias and greater acquiescence to trial participation. Oral questionnaires produced greater acquiescence, but barriers to use adversely affected recruitment. Electronic questionnaires may be preferable for screening for hazardous drinking and recruitment into intervention trials in acute care clinics.