[Attend, consult, involve: do we need to redefine the concept of community engagement?] / Asistir, consultar, involucrar: ¿es necesario redefinir el concepto de participación comunitaria?

OBJECTIVE: To describe how a sample of people working in community health promotion projects perceive and implement community engagement approaches. METHOD: Mixed qualitative-quantitative study. Data was collected through: semi-structured interviews with 10 people representing the projects, and workshops in which 53 people participated and responded to a questionnaire prepared ad hoc to identify levels of community engagement. Descriptive statistical analysis of the questionnaires and framework analysis of the interviews, observations and workshops recordings. RESULTS: Although the projects are described as highly participatory, community engagement appeared mainly in the form of attending events, with few examples of consultation or community involvement. CONCLUSIONS: This difference may be due to the lack of a culture of participation, both in individuals and institutions, and lack of training in community engagement. It is proposed to change the language from participation-attendance to using expressions such as consulting or involving people.

Training health providers to address unhealthy alcohol use in primary care: a cross-sectional, multicenter study.

BACKGROUND: Health professionals' training is a key element to address unhealthy alcohol use in Primary Care (PC). Education about alcohol use can be effective in improving PC provider's knowledge and skills addressing alcohol-related problems. The aim of the study was to evaluate the training of health professionals to address unhealthy alcohol use in PC. METHODS: An observational, descriptive, cross-sectional, multicenter study was performed. LOCATION: PC centres of the Spanish National Health System (SNHS). PARTICIPANTS: Family physicians, residents and nurses completed an online questionnaire that inquired about their training (none, basic, medium or advanced), knowledge and preventive practices aimed at reducing unhealthy alcohol use. The study population was recruited via random sampling, stratified by the regions of the SNHS's PC centre, and by email invitation to members of two Spanish scientific societies of Family Medicine. RESULTS: A total of 1760 professionals participated in the study. Sixty-seven percent (95% CI: 67.5-71.8) reported not having received specific training to address unhealthy alcohol use, 30% (95% CI: 27.4-31.7) reported having received basic training, and 3% (95% CI: 2.3-4.0) medium/advanced training. The training received was greater in younger providers (p < 0.001) who participated in the PAPPS (Preventive Activities and Health Promotion Programme) (p < 0.001). Higher percentages of providers with intermediate or advanced training reported performing screening for unhealthy alcohol use (p < 0.001), clinical assessment of alcohol consumption (p < 0.001), counselling of patients to reduce their alcohol intake (p < 0.001) or to abstain, in the cases of pregnant women and drivers (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Our study reveals a low level of training among Spanish PC providers to address unhealthy alcohol use. A higher percentage of screening, clinical assessment and counselling interventions aimed at reducing unhealthy alcohol use was reported by health professionals with an intermediate or advanced level of training.

[Analysis of the situation, evaluation and improvement proposals of the Preventive Activities and Health Promotion Program (PAPPS)]. / Análisis de la situación, evaluación y propuestas de mejora del Programa de Actividades Preventivas y de Promoción de la Salud (PAPPS).

OBJECTIVE: To analyze the situation, evaluation and proposals for improvement of the Preventive Activities and Health Promotion Program (PAPPS). MATERIAL AND METHODS: A qualitative study of situation analysis was carried out for the evaluation of the PAPPS in 2 phases: 1) Generation of ideas and collection of information through a DAFO matrix, using 2 types of criteria: internal (strengths and weaknesses), and external (threats and opportunities); 2) Prioritization of the improvement proposals collected. Selection of participants: Key informants were identified taking into account their relationship and knowledge of the PAPPS program. All members of the PAPPS, expert groups and members with past participation were included, as well as the coordinators, including the autonomous leaders of the PAPPS. Two invitations to participate in the study were sent: the first from December 29, 2017 to February 11, 2018, and the second from January 10 to 23, 2019. The information was obtained from a questionnaire designed to be self-completed. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: A total of 73 subjects answered the questionnaire. 35% of the participants were members of the PAPPS working groups, followed by family doctors from other areas, with 20.5%. The order of prioritization of the improvement proposals was as follows: 1) Unify recommendations with other semFYC working groups; 2) Prepare lists with "Recommendations not to do" from the point of view of prevention; 3) Incorporate PAPPS in the political agenda; 4) Greater coordination and interaction between groups with common competences; 5) Teaching in undergraduate and teaching units; 6) Review, update and dissemination of the program in Primary Care.

Cost-effectiveness of strategies to improve delivery of brief interventions for heavy drinking in primary care: results from the ODHIN trial.

BACKGROUND: Screening and brief interventions (SBIs) for heavy drinking are an effective and cost-effective approach to reducing alcohol-related harm, yet delivery rates remain low. This study uses trial data to estimate the cost-effectiveness of alternative strategies to increase SBI delivery. METHODS: Data from a large cluster-randomized trial were combined with the Sheffield Alcohol Policy Model, a policy appraisal tool, to estimate the cost-effectiveness of eight strategies to increase SBI delivery in primary care in England, Poland and the Netherlands: care as usual (control), training and support (TS), financial reimbursement (FR), referral of patients to an online brief intervention (eBI) and all combinations of TS, FR and eBI. cost-effectiveness was assessed from a healthcare perspective by comparing health benefits (measured in Quality-Adjusted Life Years) with total implementation costs and downstream healthcare savings for each strategy over a 30-year horizon and calculating Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). RESULTS: All trialled strategies were cost-effective compared to control. TS combined with FR was the most cost-effective approach in England (more effective and less costly than control) and Poland (ICER €4632 vs. next-best strategy). This combination is not cost-effective in the Netherlands, where TS alone is the most cost-effective approach (ICER €3386 vs. next-best strategy). CONCLUSIONS: Structured TS, financial incentives and access to online interventions are all estimated to be cost-effective methods of improving delivery of alcohol brief interventions. TS and FR together may be the most cost-effective approach, however this is sensitive to country characteristics and alternative BI effect assumptions. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov trial identifier: NCT01501552.

Measuring the quality of motivational interviewing in primary health care encounters: The development and validation of the motivational interviewing assessment scale (MIAS).

BACKGROUND: Motivational interviewing (MI) is a collaborative, goal-oriented method to help patients change behaviour. Tools that are often used to measure MI are the motivational interviewing skills code' (MISC), the 'motivational interviewing treatment integrity' (MITI) and the 'behaviour change counselling index' (BECCI). The first two instruments have not been designed to be used in primary healthcare (PHC) settings. The BECCI actually is time-consuming. The motivational interviewing assessment scale (MIAS, 'EVEM' in Spanish) was developed to measure MI in PHC encounters as an alternative to the previous instruments. OBJECTIVES: To validate MIAS as an instrument to assess the quality of MI in PHC settings. METHODS: (a) DEVELOPMENT: Sixteen experts in MI participated in the design, face and consensus validity, using a Delphi-type methodology. (b) SETTING: 27 PHC centres located in Spain. SUBJECTS: four experts in MI tested its psychometric properties with 332 video recordings coming from the Dislip-EM study (consultations provided by 37 practitioners). MEASUREMENTS: dimensionality, internal consistency, reliability (intra-class correlation coefficient-ICC), sensitivity to change and convergent validity with the BECCI scale. RESULTS: A 14-item scale was obtained after the validation process. Factor analysis: two factors explained 76.6% of the total variance. Internal consistency, α = 0.99. Reliability: intra-rater ICC = 0.96; inter-rater ICC = 0.97. Sensitivity to change: means before and after training were 23.63 versus 38.57 (P < 0.001). Spearman's coefficient between the MIAS and the BECCI scale was 0.98 (P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: The MIAS is a consistent and reliable instrument to assess the use of MI in PHC settings. [Box: see text].