Why the study?
Rates of alcohol screening and brief interventions in cardiology, along with how patient characteristics relate to their implementation, were not well known.
What are the rates of alcohol screening and brief interventions in routine cardiology practice in Sweden, and how are patient characteristics associated with their implementation?
What are the rates of alcohol screening and brief interventions in routine cardiology practice in Sweden, and how are patient characteristics associated with their implementation?
This cross-sectional study reveals suboptimal implementation of European cardiology guidelines for universal alcohol screening in Sweden, with just over half of cardiology patients screened and nearly two-thirds of hazardous drinkers failing to receive brief interventions.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Alcohol screening gaps in cardiology clinics warrant quality improvement efforts; leaves open optimal implementation strategies in cardiovascular care.
Aims To investigate rates of alcohol screening and brief interventions in cardiology, and to examine associations between patient characteristics and the implementation of screening and brief interventions.Methods Cross-sectional survey of cardiology patients (aged ≥18 years) in three towns/cities in Sweden (Falun, Gävle, Stockholm). Self-reported study outcomes included: a) being screened for alcohol use, and b) receiving a brief intervention. Covariates included sociodemographic characteristics and clinical factors. We examined associations between covariates and study outcomes using logistic regression models.Results From a total 1051 participants (median age = 73 years, 66% men), 54% were screened for alcohol use, mostly by doctors (48%) and nurses (40%). Odds ratios for being screened were lower among participants aged ≥80 years (OR = 0.57, 95%CI = 0.41–0.79), relative to those aged 65–79 years, and higher among participants with overweight (OR = 1.84, 95%CI = 1.38–2.44). Of those screened, 12% received brief interventions. Odds ratios for receiving brief interventions were higher among: men (OR = 3.04, 95%CI = 1.41–6.56), current smokers (OR = 10.88, 95%CI = 3.86–30.69), and participants with hazardous drinking (OR = 5.66, 95%CI = 2.59–12.36).Conclusions Just over half cardiology patients were screened for alcohol use. Almost two thirds of those identified with hazardous drinking did not receive brief interventions. Screening and brief intervention practices varied according to individual participant characteristics, and there was a shortfall in screening among the elderly. Findings indicate inconsistent implementation of European cardiology guidelines, which recommend universal screening, and highlight a need for improved implementation strategies.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Welfordsson et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: