A randomized trial of computerized vs. in-person brief intervention for illicit drug use in primary care: outcomes through 12 months.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Gryczynski J
PROVIDER: S-EPMC4304885 | biostudies-literature | 2015 Mar
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
A randomized trial of computerized vs. in-person brief intervention for illicit drug use in primary care: outcomes through 12 months.
Gryczynski Jan J Mitchell Shannon Gwin SG Gonzales Arturo A Moseley Ana A Peterson Thomas R TR Ondersma Steven J SJ O'Grady Kevin E KE Schwartz Robert P RP
Journal of substance abuse treatment 20140916
This study examined outcomes through 12 months from a randomized trial comparing computerized brief intervention (CBI) vs. in-person brief intervention (IBI) delivered by behavioral health counselors for adult community health center patients with moderate-level drug misuse (N=360). Data were collected at baseline, 3-, 6-, and 12-month follow-up, and included the Alcohol, Smoking, and Substance Involvement Screening Test (ASSIST) and laboratory analysis of hair samples. Repeated measures analyse ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:This study is a secondary analysis from a randomized clinical trial of computerized vs. in-person brief intervention (BI) for illicit drug misuse among adult primary care patients (N=359; 45% Female; 47% Hispanic) with moderate-risk illicit drug misuse as measured by the World Health Organization's Alcohol, Smoking, and Substance Involvement Screening Test (ASSIST). This study examined differences in response to the two brief intervention strategies (both based on motivational interviewing) on the basis of gender and ethnicity, comparing non-Hispanic males, non-Hispanic females, Hispanic males, and Hispanic females. Participants were assessed at baseline, 3-, 6-, and 12-month follow-up with the ASSIST. Trajectories in Global Continuum of Illicit Drug Risk Scores were examined using a generalized linear mixed model. There were significant differences in response to computerized vs. in-person BI over time on the basis of gender-ethnic subgroups (Gender×Ethnicity×Condition×Time interaction; p=0.03), with Hispanic males tending to respond more favorably to the computerized BI and Hispanic females tending to respond more favorably to the in-person BI. There was no clear differentiation in response to the two BIs among non-Hispanic males, while among non-Hispanic females the pattern of change converged following baseline differences. Consideration of gender and ethnic differences in future studies of BI is warranted.
| S-EPMC5731246 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background and aimsSeveral studies have found that brief interventions (BIs) for drug misuse have superior effectiveness to no-treatment controls. However, many health centers do not provide BIs for drug use consistently due to insufficient behavioral health staff capacity. Computerized BIs for drug use are a promising approach, but their effectiveness compared with in-person BIs has not been established. This study compared the effectiveness of a computerized brief intervention (CBI) to an in-person brief intervention (IBI) delivered by a behavioral health counselor.MethodsTwo-arm randomized clinical trial, conducted in two health centers in New Mexico, United States. Participants were 360 adult primary care patients with moderate-risk drug scores on the Alcohol, Smoking, and Substance Involvement Screening Test (ASSIST) who were randomly assigned on a 1 : 1 basis to a computerized brief intervention (CBI) or to an in-person brief intervention (IBI) delivered by a behavioral health counselor. Assessments were conducted at baseline and 3-month follow-up, and included the ASSIST and drug testing on hair samples.ResultsThe IBI and CBI conditions did not differ at 3 months on global ASSIST drug scores [b = -1.79; 95% confidence interval (CI) = -4.37, 0.80] or drug-positive hair tests [odds ratio (OR) = 0.97; 95% CI = 0.47, 2.02]. There was a statistically significant advantage of CBI over IBI in substance-specific ASSIST scores for marijuana (b = -1.73; 95% CI = -2.91, -0.55; Cohen's d = 0.26; P = 0.004) and cocaine (b = -4.48; 95% CI = -8.26, -0.71; Cohen's d = 0.50; P = 0.021) at 3 months.ConclusionsComputerized brief intervention can be an effective alternative to in-person brief intervention for addressing moderate drug use in primary care.
| S-EPMC4086904 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundAlcohol screening, brief intervention and referral to treatment (SBIRT) in adult primary care is an evidence-based, public health strategy to address unhealthy alcohol use, but evidence of effectiveness of alcohol brief intervention (ABI) in real-world implementation is lacking.MethodsWe fit marginal structural models with inverse probability weighting to estimate the causal effects of ABI on 12-month drinking outcomes using longitudinal electronic health records data for 312,056 adults with a positive screening result for unhealthy drinking between 2014 and 2017 in a large healthcare system that implemented systematic primary care-based SBIRT. We examined effects of ABI with and without adjusting for receipt of specialty alcohol use disorder (AUD) treatment, and whether effects varied by patient demographic characteristics and alcohol use patterns.ResultsReceiving ABI resulted in significantly greater reductions in heavy drinking days (mean difference [95% CI] = -0.26 [-0.45, -0.08]), drinking days per week (-0.04 [-0.07, -0.01]), drinks per drinking day (-0.05 [-0.08, -0.02]) and drinks per week (-0.16 [-0.27, -0.04]). Effects of ABI on 12-month drinking outcomes varied by baseline consumption level, age group and whether patients already had an AUD, with better improvement in those who were drinking at levels exceeding only daily limits, younger, and without an AUD.ConclusionsSystematic ABI in adult primary care has the potential to reduce drinking among people with unhealthy drinking considerably on both an individual and population level. More research is needed to help optimize ABI, in particular tailoring it to diverse sub-populations, and studying its long-term public health impact.
| S-EPMC10122418 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveEstimate the effectiveness of brief interventions in reducing trauma recidivism in hospitalized trauma patients who screened positive for alcohol and/or illicit drug use.MethodsDynamic cohort study based on registry data from 1818 patients included in a screening and brief intervention program for alcohol and illicit drug use for hospitalized trauma patients. Three subcohorts emerged from the data analysis: patients who screened negative, those who screened positive and were offered brief intervention, and those who screened positive and were not offered brief intervention. Follow-up lasted from 10 to 52 months. Trauma-free survival, adjusted hazard rate ratios (aHRR) and adjusted incidence rate ratios (aIRR) were calculated, and complier average causal effect (CACE) analysis was used.ResultsWe found a higher cumulative risk of trauma recidivism in the subcohort who screened positive. In this subcohort, an aHRR of 0.63 (95% CI: 0.41-0.95) was obtained for the group offered brief intervention compared to the group not offered intervention. CACE analysis yielded an estimated 52% reduction in trauma recidivism associated with the brief intervention.ConclusionThe brief intervention offered during hospitalization in trauma patients positive for alcohol and/or illicit drug use can halve the incidence of trauma recidivism.
| S-EPMC5559089 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundAlcohol screening and brief intervention have demonstrated efficacy but limited effectiveness and implementation in real-world primary care settings.ObjectiveTo evaluate the effectiveness of a computerized Relational Agent programmed to provide alcohol screening, brief intervention, and referral to treatment. We hypothesized that participants in the experimental condition would report greater reductions in their drinking and higher rates of brief intervention and referrals to specialty care compared to those in treatment as usual (TAU).DesignThis was a Hybrid I implementation design and stratified RCT. Participants were randomized to TAU or Relational Agent + TAU and assessed at baseline and 3-month follow-up.ParticipantsA total of 178 veteran participants were recruited by referral from primary care staff after a positive alcohol screen, or via letter sent do patients screening positive during recent visit.Intervention(s)TAU involved yearly reminders to screen alcohol use and provide brief intervention and treatment referrals, as needed. The Relational Agent added an automated brief intervention, a 1-month follow-up Relational Agent visit, and referral to treatment if needed.Main measuresWe measured average drinks per day, drinking days per week, number of brief interventions, and number of referrals over 3 months.Key resultsParticipants decreased their drinking in both study conditions, with no significant between-group differences on primary alcohol measures. However, Relational Agent + TAU participants evidenced greater improvements regarding negative alcohol-related consequences over 3 months, and were significantly more likely to receive a brief intervention and referral to specialty care.ConclusionsThe Relational Agent successfully provided brief intervention and referred many more patients to specialty care and was able to intervene with patients with less severe drinking without increasing primary care burden.Trial registrationclinicaltrials.gov , NCT02030288, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/home.
| S-EPMC8212899 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundAlthough screening, brief intervention, and referral to treatment (SBIRT) has shown promise for alcohol use, relatively little is known about its effectiveness for adult illicit drug use. This randomized controlled trial assessed the effectiveness of the SBIRT approach for outcomes related to drug use among patients visiting trauma and emergency departments (EDs) at two large, urban hospitals.MethodsA total of 700 ED patients who admitted using illegal drugs in the past 30 days were recruited, consented, provided baseline measures of substance use and related problems measured with the Addiction Severity Index-Lite (ASI-Lite), and then randomized to the Life Shift SBIRT intervention or to an attention-placebo control group focusing on driving and traffic safety (Shift Gears). Both groups received a level of motivational intervention matched to their condition and risk level by trained paraprofessional health educators. Separate measurement technicians conducted face-to-face follow-ups at 6 months post-intervention and collected hair samples to confirm reports of abstinence from drug use. The primary outcome measure of the study was past 30-day drug abstinence at 6 months post-intervention, as self-reported on the ASI-Lite.ResultsOf 700 participants, 292 (42%) completed follow-up. There were no significant differences in self-reported abstinence (12.5% vs. 12.0% , p = 0.88) for Life Shift and Shift Gears groups, respectively. When results of hair analyses were applied, the abstinence rate was 7 percent for Life Shift and 2 percent for Shift Gears (p = .074). In an analysis in which results were imputed (n = 694), there was no significant difference in the ASI-Lite drug use composite scores (Life Shift +0.005 vs. Shift Gears +0.017, p = 0.12).ConclusionsIn this randomized controlled trial, there was no evidence of effectiveness of SBIRT on the primary drug use outcome.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT01683227.
| S-EPMC4046000 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionAlthough substance use is common among probationers in the United States, treatment initiation remains an ongoing problem. Among the explanations for low treatment initiation are that probationers are insufficiently motivated to seek treatment, and that probation staff have insufficient training and resources to use evidence-based strategies such as motivational interviewing. A web-based intervention based on motivational enhancement principles may address some of the challenges of initiating treatment but has not been tested to date in probation settings. The current study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of a computerized intervention, Motivational Assessment Program to Initiate Treatment (MAPIT), relative to face-to-face Motivational Interviewing (MI) and supervision as usual (SAU), delivered at the outset of probation.MethodsThe intervention took place in probation departments in two U.S. cities. The baseline sample comprised 316 participants (MAPIT = 104, MI = 103, and SAU = 109), 90% (n = 285) of whom completed the 6-month follow-up. Costs were estimated from study records and time logs kept by interventionists. The effectiveness outcome was self-reported initiation into any treatment (formal or informal) within 2 and 6 months of the baseline interview. The cost-effectiveness analysis involved assessing dominance and computing incremental cost-effectiveness ratios and cost-effectiveness acceptability curves. Implementation costs were used in the base case of the cost-effectiveness analysis, which excludes both a hypothetical license fee to recoup development costs and startup costs. An intent-to-treat approach was taken.ResultsMAPIT cost $79.37 per participant, which was ~$55 lower than the MI cost of $134.27 per participant. Appointment reminders comprised a large proportion of the cost of the MAPIT and MI intervention arms. In the base case, relative to SAU, MAPIT cost $6.70 per percentage point increase in the probability of initiating treatment. If a decision-maker is willing to pay $15 or more to improve the probability of initiating treatment by 1%, estimates suggest she can be 70% confident that MAPIT is good value relative to SAU at the 2-month follow-up and 90% confident that MAPIT is good value at the 6-month follow-up.ConclusionsWeb-based MAPIT may be good value compared to in-person delivered alternatives. This conclusion is qualified because the results are not robust to narrowing the outcome to initiating formal treatment only. Further work should explore ways to improve access to efficacious treatment in probation settings.
| S-EPMC5831724 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceThe United States has invested substantially in screening and brief intervention for illicit drug use and prescription drug misuse, based in part on evidence of efficacy for unhealthy alcohol use. However, it is not a recommended universal preventive service in primary care because of lack of evidence of efficacy.ObjectiveTo test the efficacy of 2 brief counseling interventions for unhealthy drug use (any illicit drug use or prescription drug misuse)-a brief negotiated interview (BNI) and an adaptation of motivational interviewing (MOTIV)-compared with no brief intervention.Design, setting, and participantsThis 3-group randomized trial took place at an urban hospital-based primary care internal medicine practice; 528 adult primary care patients with drug use (Alcohol, Smoking, and Substance Involvement Screening Test [ASSIST] substance-specific scores of ≥4) were identified by screening between June 2009 and January 2012 in Boston, Massachusetts.InterventionsTwo interventions were tested: the BNI is a 10- to 15-minute structured interview conducted by health educators; the MOTIV is a 30- to 45-minute intervention based on motivational interviewing with a 20- to 30-minute booster conducted by master's-level counselors. All study participants received a written list of substance use disorder treatment and mutual help resources.Main outcomes and measuresPrimary outcome was number of days of use in the past 30 days of the self-identified main drug as determined by a validated calendar method at 6 months. Secondary outcomes included other self-reported measures of drug use, drug use according to hair testing, ASSIST scores (severity), drug use consequences, unsafe sex, mutual help meeting attendance, and health care utilization.ResultsAt baseline, 63% of participants reported their main drug was marijuana, 19% cocaine, and 17% opioids. At 6 months, 98% completed follow-up. Mean adjusted number of days using the main drug at 6 months was 12 for no brief intervention vs 11 for the BNI group (incidence rate ratio [IRR], 0.97; 95% CI, 0.77-1.22) and 12 for the MOTIV group (IRR, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.84-1.32; P = .81 for both comparisons vs no brief intervention). There were also no significant effects of BNI or MOTIV on any other outcome or in analyses stratified by main drug or drug use severity.Conclusions and relevanceBrief intervention did not have efficacy for decreasing unhealthy drug use in primary care patients identified by screening. These results do not support widespread implementation of illicit drug use and prescription drug misuse screening and brief intervention.Trial registrationclinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00876941.
| S-EPMC4667772 | biostudies-literature
Project description:AimsThe efficacy of screening and brief intervention for lower-risk drug use is unknown. This pilot study tested the efficacy of two brief interventions (BIs) for drug use compared to no BI in primary care patients with lower-risk drug use identified by screening.MethodsWe randomly assigned participants identified by screening with Alcohol Smoking and Substance Involvement Screening Test (ASSIST) drug specific scores of 2 or 3 to: no BI, a brief negotiated interview (BNI), or an adaptation of motivational interviewing (MOTIV). Primary outcome was number of days use of main drug in the past 30 as determined by validated calendar method at 6 months. Analyses were performed using negative binomial regression adjusted for baseline use and main drug.ResultsOf 142 eligible adults, 61(43 %) consented and were randomized. Participant characteristics were: mean age 41; 54 % male; 77 % black. Main drug was cannabis 70 %, cocaine 15 %, prescription opioid 10 %; 7% reported injection drug use and mean days use of main drug (of 30) was 3.4. At 6 months, 93 % completed follow-up and adjusted mean days use of main drug were 6.4 (no BI) vs 2.1 (BNI) (incidence rate ratio, IRR 0.33[0.15-0.74]) and 2.3 (MOTIV) (IRR 0.36[0.15-0.85]).ConclusionsBI appears to have efficacy for preventing an increase in drug use in primary care patients with lower-risk use identified by screening. These findings raise the potential that less severe patterns of drug use in primary care may be uniquely amenable to brief intervention and warrant replication.
| S-EPMC10772359 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceAlthough brief intervention is effective for reducing problem alcohol use, few data exist on its effectiveness for reducing problem drug use, a common issue in disadvantaged populations seeking care in safety-net medical settings (hospitals and community health clinics serving low-income patients with limited or no insurance).ObjectiveTo determine whether brief intervention improves drug use outcomes compared with enhanced care as usual.Design, setting, and participantsA randomized clinical trial with blinded assessments at baseline and at 3, 6, 9, and 12 months conducted in 7 safety-net primary care clinics in Washington State. Of 1621 eligible patients reporting any problem drug use in the past 90 days, 868 consented and were randomized between April 2009 and September 2012. Follow-up participation was more than 87% at all points.InterventionsParticipants received a single brief intervention using motivational interviewing, a handout and list of substance abuse resources, and an attempted 10-minute telephone booster within 2 weeks (n = 435) or enhanced care as usual, which included a handout and list of substance abuse resources (n = 433).Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcomes were self-reported days of problem drug use in the past 30 days and Addiction Severity Index-Lite (ASI) Drug Use composite score. Secondary outcomes were admission to substance abuse treatment; ASI composite scores for medical, psychiatric, social, and legal domains; emergency department and inpatient hospital admissions, arrests, mortality, and human immunodeficiency virus risk behavior.ResultsMean days used of the most common problem drug at baseline were 14.40 (SD, 11.29) (brief intervention) and 13.25 (SD, 10.69) (enhanced care as usual); at 3 months postintervention, means were 11.87 (SD, 12.13) (brief intervention) and 9.84 (SD, 10.64) (enhanced care as usual) and not significantly different (difference in differences, β = 0.89 [95% CI, -0.49 to 2.26]). Mean ASI Drug Use composite score at baseline was 0.11 (SD, 0.10) (brief intervention) and 0.11 (SD, 0.10) (enhanced care as usual) and at 3 months was 0.10 (SD, 0.09) (brief intervention) and 0.09 (SD, 0.09) (enhanced care as usual) and not significantly different (difference in differences, β = 0.008 [95% CI, -0.006 to 0.021]). During the 12 months following intervention, no significant treatment differences were found for either variable. No significant differences were found for secondary outcomes.Conclusions and relevanceA one-time brief intervention with attempted telephone booster had no effect on drug use in patients seen in safety-net primary care settings. This finding suggests a need for caution in promoting widespread adoption of this intervention for drug use in primary care.Trial registrationclinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00877331.
| S-EPMC4599980 | biostudies-literature