Will emergency and surgical patients participate in and complete alcohol interventions? A systematic review

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>In the everyday surgical life, staff may experience that patients with Alcohol Use Disorders (AUDs) seem reluctant to participate in alcohol intervention programs. The objective was therefore to assess acceptance of screening and intervention as well as adherence to the intervention program among emergency department (ED) and surgical patients with AUDs.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>A systematic literature search was followed by extraction of acceptance and adherence rates in ED and surgical patients. Numbers needed to screen (NNS) were calculated. Subgroup analyses were carried out based on different study characteristics.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The literature search revealed 33 relevant studies. Of these, 31 were randomized trials, 28 were conducted in EDs and 31 evaluated the effect of brief alcohol intervention. Follow-up was mainly conducted after six and/or twelve months.</p> <p>Four in five ED patients accepted alcohol screening and two in three accepted participation in intervention. In surgical patients, two in three accepted screening and the intervention acceptance rate was almost 100%. The adherence rate was above 60% for up to twelve months in both ED and surgical patients. The NNS to identify one eligible AUD patient and to get one eligible patient to accept participation in alcohol intervention varied from a few up to 70 patients.</p> <p>The rates did not differ between randomized and non-randomized trials, brief and intensive interventions or validated and self-reported alcohol consumption. Adherence rates were not affected by patients' group allocation and type of follow-up.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Most emergency and surgical patients with AUD accept participation in alcohol screening and interventions and complete the intervention program.</p

Was is empirische Ethik?

Definition of the problem Empirical ethics is a relatively new type of research, predominantly practiced in medical ethics. Arguments This article discusses the distinctive features of empirical ethics and makes a distinction between generalist and contextualist empirical ethics. After providing some examples of both types of empirical ethics, it discusses a weak spot in each of them. Conclusion The conclusion is that the emergence of empirical ethics as such is a positive development. Empirical ethics, however, should be regarded as a complement to 'traditional' philosophical medical ethics, and not as the better alternative. © Die Autor(en) 2009