Telemedicine allowed greater access to the healthcare system, reduced the need to employ emergency services, improved assessment/control of symptoms, and provided greater orientation and confidence in the care given by family members through early and proactive interventions. Web conferencing proved to be a good adjuvant to home monitoring of symptoms, complementing in-person assistance.

BackgroundEvidence-based practice for healthy lifestyle promotion in primary health care is supported internationally by national policies and guidelines but implementation in routine primary health care has been slow. Referral to digital interventions could lead to a larger proportion of patients accessing structured interventions for healthy lifestyle promotion, but such referral might have unknown implications for clinicians with patients accessing such interventions. This qualitative study aimed to explore the perceptions of clinicians in primary care on healthy lifestyle promotion with or without digital screening and intervention.MethodsFocus group interviews were conducted at 10 primary care clinics in Sweden with clinicians from different health professions. Transcribed interviews were analyzed using content analysis, with inspiration from a phenomenological-hermeneutic method involving naïve understanding, structural analysis and comprehensive understanding.ResultsTwo major themes captured clinicians’ perceptions on healthy lifestyle promotion: 1) the need for structured professional practice and 2) deficient professional practice as a hinder for implementation. Sub-themes in theme 1 were striving towards professionalism, which for participants meant working in a standardized fashion, with replicable routines regardless of clinic, as well as being able to monitor statistics on individual patient and group levels; and embracing the future with critical optimism, meaning expecting to develop professionally but also being concerned about the consequences of integrating digital tools into primary care, particularly regarding the importance of personal interaction between patient and provider. For theme 2, sub-themes were being in an unmanageable situation, meaning not being able to do what is perceived as best for the patient due to lack of time and resources; and following one’s perception, meaning working from a gut feeling, which for our participants also meant deviating from clinical routines.ConclusionsIn efforts to increase evidence-based practice and lighten the burden of clinicians in primary care, decision- and policy-makers planning the introduction of digital tools for healthy lifestyle promotion will need to explicitly define their role as complements to face-to-face encounters. Our overriding hope is that this study will contribute to maintaining meaningfulness in the patient-clinician encounter, when digital tools are added to facilitate patient behavior change of unhealthy lifestyle behaviors.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s12875-018-0829-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Background Swedish national guidelines recommend that all health care settings systematically screen patients for alcohol use and illicit substance use. When hazardous use is identified, it should immediately be addressed, preferably through brief interventions (BI). It is well known that the prevalence of alcohol use and illicit substance use among psychiatric patients is high, but it is not known to what extent screening and BI are routinely carried out in such clinics. Methods Two online surveys investigating the use of screening and BI for alcohol and illicit substances were constructed; one for psychiatric outpatient clinic directors and one for staff at these clinics. The main analyses were calculated as simple frequencies. In secondary analyses, we investigated the associations between substance abuse training, type of clinic and screening/BI delivery. For these analyses, the Chi square test was used. Results Most clinic directors reported that they have guidelines to screen for alcohol (93.1%) and illicit substance use (78.9%) at initial assessment. Fifty percent reported having guidelines for delivering BI when identifying hazardous alcohol use (35.9% for hazardous illicit substance use). Among staff, 66.6% reported always screening for alcohol use and 57.8% reported always screening for illicit substance use at initial assessment. Further, 36.7% reported that they usually deliver BI when identifying hazardous alcohol use (35.7% for hazardous illicit substance use). Secondary analyses indicated that staff with substance abuse training were significantly more likely to screen for alcohol use than staff without such training. Further, staff at psychosis clinics were significantly less likely to screen for both alcohol and substance use than staff at both general and specialist psychiatric clinics. Conclusions Most clinic directors reported having clear guidelines for staff to screen for alcohol use and illicit substance use, but fewer staff members than expected indicated that these guidelines were adhered to. Providing training about substance use disorders for staff may increase use of screening for alcohol use, and psychosis clinics may need to improve their screening routines. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1186/s13722-019-0140-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.