Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Identification and management of alcohol use and illicit substance use in outpatient psychiatric clinics in Sweden: a national survey of clinic directors and staff
Stockholm University, Faculty of Social Sciences, Department of Sociology.
Show others and affiliations
Number of Authors: 52019 (English)In: Addiction science & clinical practice, ISSN 1940-0632, E-ISSN 1940-0640, Vol. 14, article id 10Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

Background: Swedish national guidelines recommend that all health care settings systematically screen patients for alcohol use and illicit substance use. When hazardous use is identified, it should immediately be addressed, preferably through brief interventions (BI). It is well known that the prevalence of alcohol use and illicit substance use among psychiatric patients is high, but it is not known to what extent screening and BI are routinely carried out in such clinics. Methods: Two online surveys investigating the use of screening and BI for alcohol and illicit substances were constructed; one for psychiatric outpatient clinic directors and one for staff at these clinics. The main analyses were calculated as simple frequencies. In secondary analyses, we investigated the associations between substance abuse training, type of clinic and screening/BI delivery. For these analyses, the Chi square test was used. Results: Most clinic directors reported that they have guidelines to screen for alcohol (93.1%) and illicit substance use (78.9%) at initial assessment. Fifty percent reported having guidelines for delivering BI when identifying hazardous alcohol use (35.9% for hazardous illicit substance use). Among staff, 66.6% reported always screening for alcohol use and 57.8% reported always screening for illicit substance use at initial assessment. Further, 36.7% reported that they usually deliver BI when identifying hazardous alcohol use (35.7% for hazardous illicit substance use). Secondary analyses indicated that staff with substance abuse training were significantly more likely to screen for alcohol use than staff without such training. Further, staff at psychosis clinics were significantly less likely to screen for both alcohol and substance use than staff at both general and specialist psychiatric clinics. Conclusions: Most clinic directors reported having clear guidelines for staff to screen for alcohol use and illicit substance use, but fewer staff members than expected indicated that these guidelines were adhered to. Providing training about substance use disorders for staff may increase use of screening for alcohol use, and psychosis clinics may need to improve their screening routines.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
2019. Vol. 14, article id 10
Keywords [en]
Substance use, Alcohol use, Psychiatry, Guideline adherence, Screening, Brief intervention
National Category
Substance Abuse
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:su:diva-167492DOI: 10.1186/s13722-019-0140-xISI: 000461524200001PubMedID: 30841916OAI: oai:DiVA.org:su-167492DiVA, id: diva2:1301271
Available from: 2019-04-01 Created: 2019-04-01 Last updated: 2019-04-01Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text in DiVA

Other links

Publisher's full textPubMed
By organisation
Department of Sociology
In the same journal
Addiction science & clinical practice
Substance Abuse

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

doi
pubmed
urn-nbn

Altmetric score

doi
pubmed
urn-nbn
Total: 8 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf