Table 2.
Evaluation summary ratings of screening and brief intervention (SBI) implementation in primary care in Vhembe District, South Africa
| SBI implementation factors | No. of clinics which answered “yes” or (strongly) agree |
P* | |
|---|---|---|---|
| clinics with good implementation (n = 9)† | clinics with poor implementation (n = 9) | ||
| Structure and organization of clinics: | |||
| all nurses in the clinic trained in SBI | 8 | 3 | 0.050 |
| feedback provided | 4 | 2 | 0.637 |
| nurse clinical workload <35 patients a day‡ | 7 | 2 | 0.057 |
| competing priorities (eg, voluntary HIV counseling and testing, tuberculosis, antenatal care, Papanicolaou smear examinations) | 1 | 5 | 0.131 |
| teamwork | 7 | 3 | 0.153 |
| tension in the clinic | 2 | 4 | 0.620 |
| Perceptions of innovation: | |||
| early adopters (first 2 mo) | 6 | 0 | 0.009 |
| perceived benefit from SBI | 9 | 8 | >0.95 |
| compatibility with beliefs, values, past history and current needs | 6 | 4 | 0.637 |
| low perceived complexity of innovation | 8 | 4 | 0.131 |
| trialability and observability | 4 | 3 | >0.95 |
*Fisher exact test.
†The cut-off for clinics with good SBI implementation was 120 and more Alcohol Use Disorder Identification Test questionnaires retrieved.
‡According to District Health Information System Database (15).