English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Background Good evidence for the efficacy of alcohol brief interventions (ABIs) delivered in primary care [1] has been insufficient to drive routine implementation [2] and may not translate to normal clinical settings, possibly due to a loss of fidelity [3]. Implementation efforts, and research trials, rely on practitioners being adequately prepared to deliver ABIs consistently with evidence or protocols (amongst other factors). Relatively little research attention has been paid to establishing optimal duration, content, methods, style, deliverer or format of training and the importance of heterogeneity in training provision in affecting trial outcomes is currently unknown. This study aimed to ascertain how published trials of ABIs describe the training and related support provided to practitioners, what additional relevant information can be obtained from trial authors and how current frameworks or taxonomies can inform how best to analyse and describe training content and design.

A scoping study of practitioner training in alcohol brief interventions as described and delivered in randomised controlled trials