Dataset Information

Physician versus non-physician delivery of alcohol screening, brief intervention and referral to treatment in adult primary care: the ADVISe cluster randomized controlled implementation trial.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:Unhealthy alcohol use is a major contributor to the global burden of disease and injury. The US Preventive Services Task Force has recommended alcohol screening and intervention in general medical settings since 2004. Yet less than one in six US adults report health care professionals discussing alcohol with them. Little is known about methods for increasing implementation; different staffing models may be related to implementation effectiveness. This implementation trial compared delivery of alcohol screening, brief intervention and referral to specialty treatment (SBIRT) by physicians versus non-physician providers receiving training, technical assistance, and feedback reports. METHODS:The study was a cluster randomized implementation trial (ADVISe [Alcohol Drinking as a Vital Sign]). Within a private, integrated health care system, 54 adult primary care clinics were stratified by medical center and randomly assigned in blocked groups of three to SBIRT by physicians (PCP arm) versus non-physician providers and medical assistants (NPP and MA arm), versus usual care (Control arm). NIH-recommended screening questions were added to the electronic health record (EHR) to facilitate SBIRT. We examined screening and brief intervention and referral rates by arm. We also examined patient-, physician-, and system-level factors affecting screening rates and, among those who screened positive, rates of brief intervention and referral to treatment. RESULTS:Screening rates were highest in the NPP and MA arm (51 %); followed by the PCP arm (9 %) and the Control arm (3.5 %). Screening increased over the 12 months after training in the NPP and MA arm but remained stable in the PCP arm. The PCP arm had higher brief intervention and referral rates (44 %) among patients screening positive than either the NPP and MA arm (3.4 %) or the Control arm (2.7 %). Higher ratio of MAs to physicians was related to higher screening rates in the NPP and MA arm and longer appointment times to screening and intervention rates in the PCP arm. CONCLUSION:Findings suggest that time frames longer than 12 months may be required for full SBIRT implementation. Screening by MAs with intervention and referral by physicians as needed can be a feasible model for increasing the implementation of this critical and under-utilized preventive health service within currently predominant primary care models. TRIAL REGISTRATION:Clinical Trials NCT01135654.

SUBMITTER: Mertens JR

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4653951 | biostudies-literature | 2015 Nov

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Physician versus non-physician delivery of alcohol screening, brief intervention and referral to treatment in adult primary care: the ADVISe cluster randomized controlled implementation trial.

Mertens Jennifer R JR Chi Felicia W FW Weisner Constance M CM Satre Derek D DD Ross Thekla B TB Allen Steve S Pating David D Campbell Cynthia I CI Lu Yun Wendy YW Sterling Stacy A SA

Addiction science & clinical practice 20151119

<h4>Background</h4>Unhealthy alcohol use is a major contributor to the global burden of disease and injury. The US Preventive Services Task Force has recommended alcohol screening and intervention in general medical settings since 2004. Yet less than one in six US adults report health care professionals discussing alcohol with them. Little is known about methods for increasing implementation; different staffing models may be related to implementation effectiveness. This implementation trial comp ...[more]

PMID: 26585638

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceEarly intervention for substance use is critical to improving adolescent outcomes. Studies have found promising results for Screening, Brief Intervention, and Referral to Treatment (SBIRT), but little research has examined implementation.ObjectiveTo compare SBIRT implementation in pediatric primary care among trained pediatricians, pediatricians working in coordination with embedded behavioral health care practitioners (BHCPs), and usual care (UC).Design, setting, and participantsThe study is a 2-year (November 1, 2011, through October 31, 2013), nonblinded, cluster randomized, hybrid implementation and effectiveness trial examining SBIRT implementation outcomes across 2 modalities of implementation and UC. Fifty-two pediatricians from a large general pediatrics clinic in an integrated health care system were randomized to 1 of 3 SBIRT implementation arms; patients aged 12 to 18 years were eligible.InterventionsTwo modes of SBIRT implementation, (1) pediatrician only (pediatricians trained to provide SBIRT) and (2) embedded BHCP (BHCP trained to provide SBIRT), and (3) UC.Main outcomes and measuresImplementation of SBIRT (primary outcome), which included assessments, brief interventions, and referrals to specialty substance use and mental health treatment.ResultsThe final sample included 1871 eligible patients among 47 pediatricians; health care professional characteristics did not differ across study arms. Patients in the pediatrician-only (adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 10.37; 95% CI, 5.45-19.74; P < .001) and the embedded BHCP (AOR, 18.09; 95% CI, 9.69-33.77; P < .001) arms had higher odds of receiving brief interventions compared with patients in the UC arm. Patients in the embedded BHCP arm were more likely to receive brief interventions compared with those in the pediatrician-only arm (AOR, 1.74; 95% CI, 1.31-2.31; P < .001). The embedded BHCP arm had lower odds of receiving a referral compared with the pediatrician-only (AOR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.43-0.78; P < .001) and UC (AOR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.48-0.89; P = .006) arms; odds of referrals did not differ between the pediatrician-only and UC arms.Conclusions and relevanceThe intervention arms had better screening, assessment, and brief intervention rates than the UC arm. Patients in the pediatrician-only and UC arms had higher odds of being referred to specialty treatment than those in the embedded BHCP arm, suggesting lingering barriers to having pediatricians fully address substance use in primary care. Findings also highlight age and ethnic groups less likely to receive these important services.Trial registrationClinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT02408952.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Alarming rates of unhealthy alcohol, non-prescription drug, and tobacco use highlight the preventable health risks of substance abuse and the urgent need to activate clinicians to recognize and treat risky use. Screening, brief intervention, and referral to treatment (SBIRT) is an efficacious and effective processes to identify, reduce and prevent risky use of substances. This paper describes a study protocol testing implementation of a toolkit to enhance use of SBIRT in acute care settings to recognize and address patient risky alcohol, drug, and tobacco use. METHODS:This study uses a phased cluster randomized mixed method design to test nurse-led implementation of an SBIRT toolkit on one medical-surgical unit at 14 acute care hospitals (critical access, community and academic health centers). Medical surgical units will be randomly assigned to implement the SBIRT toolkit (engagement and communication, assessment, planning, training, and evaluation tools) or a wait-list usual care control group that begins implementation 6 months later. Primary endpoints are documentation of SBIRT delivery in randomly selected electronic medical records at baseline, 6 months and 12 months after group 1 implementation (61 records per unit per time period, N?=?2562). Two surveys will be administered to unit nurses: smoking cessation activities will be assessed at baseline and SBIRT use will be assessed on randomly-selected days after implementation. In addition, site coordinators will complete a baseline capacity assessment, an implementation fidelity survey post-implementation, and a structured interview at the end of the study. Multilevel mixed-effects effects logistic and linear models will be used to analyze use of SBIRT and cost outcomes. DISCUSSION:This study will guide subsequent SBIRT implementation, dissemination, and spread across rural, community and urban healthcare systems throughout the state and beyond. The long-term objective is to activate clinicians to recognize, intervene and refer people with risky substance use to improve health and decrease substance use disorders. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03560076.

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.

Project description:Importance:Most smoking cessation (SC) clinics are costly, passive, and underused. Objective:To compare the SC effect of a combined intervention involving brief, model-guided SC advice plus active referral to SC services (active referral group) with those of brief, model-guided SC advice only (brief advice group) and general SC advice only (control group). Design, Setting, and Participants:A single-blind, 3-arm, pragmatic cluster randomized clinical trial was conducted including 1226 adult daily smokers in the general Hong Kong community proactively recruited to participate in the Quit-to-Win Contest held in 2015. The study was conducted from June 20 to September 24, 2015. Participants were randomly allocated to the active referral (n = 402), brief advice (n = 416), and control (n = 408) groups. Intention-to-treat analysis was used. Interventions:Brief telephone counseling was offered to the active referral and brief advice groups at 1 and 2 months. Interventions were delivered by SC ambassadors who had undergone a short training period. Main Outcomes and Measures:The primary outcome was the self-reported past 7-day point prevalence of abstinence (PPA) at 6 months. The secondary outcomes were carbon monoxide level-validated abstinence, smoking reduction, and SC service use. Results:Participants included 991 (80.8%) men; mean (SD) age was 42.0 (14.8) years. The response rate was 68.2% at 3 and 72.3% at 6 months. The corresponding PPAs were 18.9% and 17.2% in the active referral group-higher than in the brief advice (8.9% and 9.4%; both P ≤ .001) or control (14.0% and 11.5%; P = .03 at 6 months) groups. Compared with the other 2 groups, the active referral group had significantly higher validated abstinence rates (10.2% at 3 months and 9.0% at 6 months, all P < .05) with odds ratios of 2.84 (95% CI, 1.57-5.15) and 2.61 (95% CI, 1.46-4.68) at 3 months, and 1.85 (95% CI, 1.06-3.23) and 1.81 (95% CI, 1.04-3.16) at 6 months in the brief advice and control groups, respectively. The SC service use rate was significantly higher in the active referral group (25.1%) than in either brief advice (2.4%) or control (3.4%) groups at 6 months (P < .001). Conclusions and Relevance:An intervention involving brief advice and active referral delivered to smokers in the community by volunteers can increase quitting in places where SC services are available but underused. Trial Registration:clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT02539875.

Project description:ObjectiveTo evaluate the effectiveness of different brief intervention strategies at reducing hazardous or harmful drinking in primary care. The hypothesis was that more intensive intervention would result in a greater reduction in hazardous or harmful drinking.DesignPragmatic cluster randomised controlled trial.SettingPrimary care practices in the north east and south east of England and in London.Participants3562 patients aged 18 or more routinely presenting in primary care, of whom 2991 (84.0%) were eligible to enter the trial: 900 (30.1%) screened positive for hazardous or harmful drinking and 756 (84.0%) received a brief intervention. The sample was predominantly male (62%) and white (92%), and 34% were current smokers.InterventionsPractices were randomised to three interventions, each of which built on the previous one: a patient information leaflet control group, five minutes of structured brief advice, and 20 minutes of brief lifestyle counselling. Delivery of the patient leaflet and brief advice occurred directly after screening and brief lifestyle counselling in a subsequent consultation.Main outcome measuresThe primary outcome was patients' self reported hazardous or harmful drinking status as measured by the alcohol use disorders identification test (AUDIT) at six months. A negative AUDIT result (score <8) indicated non-hazardous or non-harmful drinking. Secondary outcomes were a negative AUDIT result at 12 months, experience of alcohol related problems (alcohol problems questionnaire), health utility (EQ-5D), service utilisation, and patients' motivation to change drinking behaviour (readiness to change) as measured by a modified readiness ruler.ResultsPatient follow-up rates were 83% at six months (n=644) and 79% at 12 months (n=617). At both time points an intention to treat analysis found no significant differences in AUDIT negative status between the three interventions. Compared with the patient information leaflet group, the odds ratio of having a negative AUDIT result for brief advice was 0.85 (95% confidence interval 0.52 to 1.39) and for brief lifestyle counselling was 0.78 (0.48 to 1.25). A per protocol analysis confirmed these findings.ConclusionsAll patients received simple feedback on their screening outcome. Beyond this input, however, evidence that brief advice or brief lifestyle counselling provided important additional benefit in reducing hazardous or harmful drinking compared with the patient information leaflet was lacking.Trial registrationCurrent Controlled Trials ISRCTN06145674.

Dataset Information

Physician versus non-physician delivery of alcohol screening, brief intervention and referral to treatment in adult primary care: the ADVISe cluster randomized controlled implementation trial.

Publications

Physician versus non-physician delivery of alcohol screening, brief intervention and referral to treatment in adult primary care: the ADVISe cluster randomized controlled implementation trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets