Evaluation of a brief intervention to reduce the negative consequences of drug misuse among adult emergency department patients.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Guan W
PROVIDER: S-EPMC4663151 | biostudies-literature | 2015 Dec
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Evaluation of a brief intervention to reduce the negative consequences of drug misuse among adult emergency department patients.
Guan Wentao W Liu Tao T Baird Janette R JR Merchant Roland C RC
Drug and alcohol dependence 20151013
<h4>Objectives</h4>Determine if a brief intervention (BI) reduces the negative consequences of drug use/misuse among adult emergency department (ED) patients, and identify patients more likely to benefit from the BI.<h4>Methods</h4>This randomized, controlled trial enrolled 1026 18-64 year-old ED patients whose drug misuse indicated a needed for a BI. Differences in total Inventory of Drug Use Consequences (InDUC) scores between the treatment (BI) and control arms (no BI) were assessed every 90 ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:ObjectivesAlthough brief interventions (BIs) have shown some success for smoking cessation and alcohol misuse, it is not known if they can be applied in the emergency department (ED) to drug use and misuse. The objectives of this investigation were to assess the 3-month efficacy of a BI to reduce drug use and misuse, increase drug treatment services utilization among adult ED patients, and identify subgroups more likely to benefit from the BI.MethodsThis randomized, controlled trial enrolled 18- to 64-year-old English- or Spanish-speaking patients from two urban, academic EDs whose responses to the Alcohol, Smoking, and Substance Involvement Screening Test indicated a need for a brief or intensive intervention. Treatment participants received a tailored BI, while control participants only completed the study questionnaires. At the 3-month follow-up, each participant's past 3-month drug use and misuse and treatment utilization were compared to his or her baseline enrollment data. Regression modeling was used to identify subgroups of patients (per demographic and clinical factors) more likely to stop or reduce their drug use or misuse or engage in drug treatment by the 3-month follow-up assessment.ResultsOf the 1,030 participants, the median age was 30 years (interquartile range = 24 to 42 years), and 46% were female; 57% were white/non-Hispanic, 24.9% were black/non-Hispanic, and 15% were Hispanic. The most commonly misused drugs were marijuana, prescription opioids, cocaine/crack, and benzodiazepines. Although at follow-up the proportions of participants reporting any past 3-month drug misuse had decreased in both study arms (control 84% vs. treatment 78%), the decreases were similar between the two study arms (Δ-6.3%; 95% confidence interval [CI] = -13.0% to 0.0). In addition, at follow-up there were no differences between study arms in those who were currently receiving drug treatment (Δ1.8; 95% CI = -3.5 to 6.8), who had received treatment during the past 3 months (Δ-2.0; 95% CI = -6.5 to 2.4), or who at least contacted a treatment program (Δ 1.7; 95% CI = -2.4 to 6.1). Those whose baseline screening indicated the need for a brief instead of a more intensive intervention, and those currently engaged in drug treatment at the 3-month follow-up, were generally more likely to stop or decrease their drug use/misuse.ConclusionsThe BI employed in this study did not reduce drug use and misuse or increase treatment utilization more than the control condition over a 3-month period. Future research should help determine what role, if any, BIs should play in affecting drug use and misuse among ED patients.
| S-EPMC4876812 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Study objectiveTo determine the efficacy of emergency practitioner-performed brief intervention for hazardous/harmful drinkers in reducing alcohol consumption and negative consequences in an emergency department (ED) setting.MethodsA randomized clinical trial (Project ED Health) was conducted in an urban ED from May 2002 to November 2003 for hazardous/harmful drinkers. Patients 18 years or older who screened above National Institute for Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism guidelines for "low-risk" drinking or presented with an injury in the setting of alcohol ingestion were eligible. The mean number of drinks per week and binge-drinking episodes during the past 30 days were collected at 6 and 12 months; negative consequences and use of treatment services, at 12 months. A Brief Negotiation Interview performed by emergency practitioners was compared to scripted Discharge Instructions.ResultsA total of 494 hazardous/harmful drinkers were studied. The 2 groups were similar with respect to baseline characteristics. In the Brief Negotiation Interview group, the mean number of drinks per week at 12 months was 3.8 less than the 13.6 reported at baseline. The Discharge Instructions group decreased 2.6 from 12.4 at baseline. Likewise, binge-drinking episodes per month decreased by 2.0 from a baseline of 6.0 in the Brief Negotiation Interview group and 1.5 from 5.4 in the Discharge Instructions group. For each outcome, the time effect was significant and the treatment effect was not.ConclusionAmong ED patients with hazardous/harmful drinking, we did not detect a difference in efficacy between emergency practitioner-performed Brief Negotiation Interview and Discharge Instructions. Further studies to test the efficacy of brief intervention in the ED are needed.
| S-EPMC2819119 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Most previous brief intervention (BI) studies have focused on alcohol or drug use, instead of both substances. Our primary aim was to determine if an alcohol- and drug-use BI reduced alcohol use and increased alcohol treatment services utilization among adult emergency department (ED) patients who drink alcohol and require an intervention for their drug use. Our secondary aims were to assess when the greatest relative reductions in alcohol use occurred, and which patients (stratified by need for an alcohol use intervention) reduced their alcohol use the most. In this secondary analysis, we studied a sub-sample of participants from the Brief Intervention for Drug Misuse in the Emergency Department (BIDMED) randomized, controlled trial of a BI vs. no BI, whose responses to the Alcohol, Smoking and Substance Involvement Screening Test (ASSIST) indicated a need for a BI for any drug use, and who also reported alcohol use. Participants were stratified by their ASSIST alcohol subscore: 1) no BI needed, 2) a BI needed, or 3) an intensive intervention needed for alcohol use. Alcohol use and alcohol treatment services utilization were measured every 3 months for 12 months post-enrollment. Of these 833 participants, median age was 29 years-old, 46% were female; 55% were white/non-Hispanic, 27% black/non-Hispanic, and 15% Hispanic. Although any alcohol use, alcohol use frequency, days of alcohol use, typical drinks consumed/day, and most drinks consumed/day decreased in both the BI and no BI arms, there were no differences between study arms. Few patients sought alcohol use treatment services in follow-up, and utilization also did not differ by study arm. Compared to baseline, alcohol use reduced the most during the first 3 months after enrollment, yet reduced little afterward. Participants whose ASSIST alcohol subscores indicated a need for an intensive intervention generally had the greatest relative decreases in alcohol use. These results indicate that the BI was not efficacious in reducing alcohol use among alcohol- and drug-using adult ED patients than the self-assessments alone, but suggest that self-assessments with or without a BI may confer reductions in alcohol use.
| S-EPMC5681406 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundRisky driving and hazardous drinking are associated with significant human and economic costs. Brief interventions for more than one risky behavior have the potential to reduce health-compromising behaviors in populations with multiple risk-taking behaviors such as young adults. Emergency department (ED) visits provide a window of opportunity for interventions meant to reduce both risky driving and hazardous drinking.MethodsWe determined the efficacy of a Screening, Brief Intervention, and Referral to Treatment (SBIRT) protocol addressing risky driving and hazardous drinking. We used a randomized controlled trial design with follow-ups through 12 months. ED patients aged 18 to 44 who screened positive for both behaviors (n = 476) were randomized to brief intervention (BIG), contact control (CCG), or no-contact control (NCG) groups. The BIG (n = 150) received a 20-minute assessment and two 20-minute interventions. The CCG (n = 162) received a 20-minute assessment at baseline and no intervention. The NCG (n = 164) were asked for contact information at baseline and had no assessment or intervention. Outcomes at 3, 6, 9, and 12 months were self-reported driving behaviors and alcohol consumption.ResultsOutcomes were significantly lower in BIG compared with CCG through 6 or 9 months, but not at 12 months: Safety belt use at 3 months (adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 0.22; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.08 to 0.65); 6 months (AOR, 0.13; 95% CI, 0.04 to 0.42); and 9 months (AOR, 0.18; 95% CI, 0.06 to 0.56); binge drinking at 3 months (adjusted rate ratio [ARR] 0.84; 95% CI, 0.74 to 0.97) and 6 months (ARR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.67 to 0.97); and ≥5 standard drinks/d at 3 months (AOR, 0.43; 95% CI, 0.20 to 0.91) and 6 months (AOR, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.17 to 0.98). No substantial differences were observed between BIG and NCG at 12 months.ConclusionsOur findings indicate that SBIRT reduced risky driving and hazardous drinking in young adults, but its effects did not persist after 9 months. Future research should explore methods for extending the intervention effect.
| S-EPMC4106279 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Study objectiveBrief interventions have been shown to reduce alcohol use and improve outcomes in hazardous and harmful drinkers, but evidence to support their use in emergency department (ED) patients is limited. The use of research assessments in studies of brief interventions may contribute to uncertainty about their effectiveness. Therefore we seek to determine (1) if an emergency practitioner-performed Brief Negotiation Interview or a Brief Negotiation Interview with a booster reduces alcohol consumption compared with standard care; and (2) the impact of research assessments on drinking outcomes using a standard care-no-assessment group.MethodsWe randomized 889 adult ED patients with hazardous and harmful drinking. A total of 740 received an emergency practitioner-performed Brief Negotiation Interview (n=297), a Brief Negotiation Interview with a 1-month follow-up telephone booster (Brief Negotiation Interview with booster) (n=295), or standard care (n=148). We also included a standard care with no assessments (n=149) group to examine the effect of assessments on drinking outcomes. Primary outcomes analyzed with mixed-models procedures included past 7-day alcohol consumption and 28-day binge episodes at 6 and 12 months, collected by interactive voice response. Secondary outcomes included negative health behaviors and consequences collected by telephone surveys.ResultsThe reduction in mean number of drinks in the past 7 days from baseline to 6 and 12 months was significantly greater in the Brief Negotiation Interview with booster (from 20.4 [95% confidence interval {CI} 18.8 to 22.0] to 11.6 [95% CI 9.7 to 13.5] to 13.0 [95% CI 10.5 to 15.5]) and Brief Negotiation Interview (from 19.8 [95% CI 18.3 to 21.4] to 12.7 [95% CI 10.8 to 14.6] to 14.3 [95% CI 11.9 to 16.8]) than in standard care (from 20.9 [95% CI 18.7 to 23.2] to 14.2 [95% CI 11.2 to 17.1] to 17.6 [95% CI 14.1 to 21.2]). The reduction in 28-day binge episodes was also greater in the Brief Negotiation Interview with booster (from 7.5 [95% CI 6.8 to 8.2] to 4.4 [95% CI 3.6 to 5.2] to 4.7 [95% CI 3.9 to 5.6]) and Brief Negotiation Interview (from 7.2 [95% CI 6.5 to 7.9] to 4.8 [95% CI 4.0 to 5.6] to 5.1 [95% CI 4.2 to 5.9]) than in standard care (from 7.2 [95% CI 6.2 to 8.2] to 5.7 [95% CI 4.5 to 6.9] to 5.8 [95% CI 4.6 to 7.0]). The Brief Negotiation Interview with booster offered no significant benefit over the Brief Negotiation Interview alone. There were no differences in drinking outcomes between the standard care and standard care-no assessment groups. The reductions in rates of driving after drinking more than 3 drinks from baseline to 12 months were greater in the Brief Negotiation Interview (38% to 29%) and Brief Negotiation Interview with booster (39% to 31%) groups than in the standard care group (43% to 42%).ConclusionEmergency practitioner-performed brief interventions can reduce alcohol consumption and episodes of driving after drinking in hazardous and harmful drinkers. These results support the use of brief interventions in ED settings.
| S-EPMC3811141 | 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:It is becoming more commonplace for employees to use prescription medication outside of intended use. Opioid and other prescription misuse has implications for the health and productivity of workers. Easy-to-access webinars that help employees learn about alternatives to prescription use may decrease risk.The aim of this study was to examine the efficacy of an interactive but brief health consciousness and prescription drug intervention for a diverse sample of employees and show effectiveness via both Internet-delivered webinar and classroom delivery.Employees from a variety of workplaces filled out pre- and post-questionnaires upon completion of a one-hour long intervention.A total of 114 participants completed the pre- and post-questionnaires. Results showed that, compared with before the training, participants reported significantly more knowledge about prescription drug misuse and alternatives to prescription drug use after the training (t113=7.91, P<.001). Moreover, the medium of presentation (ie, face-to-face vs webinar) did not significantly impact effectiveness of the training (F1,98=1.15, P=.29).In both webinar and classroom formats, participants gained knowledge about alternatives to prescription drug use. This intervention appears to be beneficial to employees and assists in the awareness of prescription drug use in general and in the workplace.
| S-EPMC5519829 | biostudies-other
Project description:ObjectivesThe objective was to assess the relationship between alcohol use and misuse and patient sex among emergency department (ED) patients by comparing self-reported estimates of quantity and frequency of alcohol use, estimated blood alcohol concentrations (eBACs) when typically drinking and during heavy episodic drinking (binging), and alcohol misuse severity, to understand sex differences in alcohol use and misuse for this population.MethodsThe authors surveyed a random sample of nonintoxicated, subcritically ill or injured, 18- to 64-year-old English- or Spanish-speaking patients on randomly selected dates and times at two EDs during July 2009 and August 2009. Participants self-administered a questionnaire about their self-reported alcohol use during a typical month within the past 12 months and the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT). Using the formulae by Matthews and Miller, sex-specific eBACs were calculated for participants according to their reported weight and the number of reported alcoholic drinks consumed on days when typically drinking and on days of heavy episodic (binge) drinking (five or more drinks/occasion for men, four or more drinks for women). Sex-specific alcohol misuse severity levels (low-risk, harmful, hazardous, and dependence) were calculated using AUDIT scores. Wilcoxon rank-sum and Pearson's chi-square tests were used to compare outcomes by sex. Negative binomial regression was used to assess the relationship between sex and the number of drinks consumed on a typical day, the number of days spent drinking and binging, and estimated AUDIT scores. Logistic regression was used to assess the outcome of the presence of binging according to sex. Multinomial logistic regression was used to compare by sex the percentage of days spent drinking and binging in 1 month, eBACs when typically drinking and when binging, and AUDIT at-risk drinking levels. Incidence rate ratios (IRRs) and adjusted odds ratios (AORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated. All models were adjusted for patient demographic characteristics.ResultsOf the 513 participants, 52.1% were women, 55.8% were white non-Hispanic, and their median age was 34 years (interquartile range [IQR] = 25 to 46 years). Men reported greater mean alcohol consumption than women when typically drinking (4.3 vs. 3.3 drinks/day; p < 0.001) and during heavy episodic drinking (8.6 vs. 5.3 drinks/occasion; p < 0.001). Men spent more days drinking (IRR = 1.41, 95% CI = 1.19 to 1.65) and engaging in heavy episodic drinking (IRR = 1.68, 95% CI = 1.31 to 2.17) than women. Additionally, men were more likely to engage in heavy episodic drinking (AOR = 1.72, 95% CI = 1.16 to 2.56) than women. However, the mean eBACs for men and women were similar when typically drinking (0.05 vs. 0.06; p < 0.13) and during heavy episodic drinking (0.13 vs. 0.12; p < 0.13). Mean AUDIT scores were greater for men than women (7.5 vs. 5.3; p < 0.001), although alcohol misuse severity levels were similar between men and women (24.4% vs. 26.6% for hazardous, 2.8% vs. 2.2% for harmful, and 6.5% vs. 3.4% for dependence; p < 0.38).ConclusionsAlthough men drink more than women, women have similar eBACs with comparable levels of alcohol misuse. Women may benefit from recognizing that they are reaching similar levels of intoxication compared to men. Addressing these differences and possible health implications in future ED brief interventions may induce changes in problematic alcohol use among women.
| S-EPMC3424395 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundViolent injury is the leading cause of death among urban youth. Emergency department (ED) visits represent an opportunity to deliver a brief intervention (BI) to reduce violence among youth seeking medical care in high-risk communities.ObjectiveThe objective was to determine the efficacy of a universally applied BI addressing violence behaviors among youth presenting to an urban ED.MethodsED youth (14 to 20 years old) seeking medical or injury-related care in a Level I ED (October 2011-March 2015) and screening positive for a home address within the intervention or comparison neighborhood of a larger youth violence project were enrolled in this quasi-experimental study. Based on home address, participants were assigned to receive either the 30-minute therapist-delivered BI (Project Sync) or a resource brochure (enhanced usual care [EUC] condition). The Project Sync BI combined motivational interviewing and cognitive skills training, including a review of participant goals, tailored feedback, decisional balance exercises, role-playing exercises, and linkage to community resources. Participants completed validated survey measures at baseline and a 2-month follow-up assessment. Main outcome measures included self-report of physical victimization, aggression, and self-efficacy to avoid fighting. Poisson and zero-inflated Poisson regression analyses analyzed the effects of the BI, compared to the EUC condition, on primary outcomes.ResultsA total of 409 eligible youth (82% participation) were enrolled and assigned to receive either the BI (n = 263) or the EUC condition (n = 146). Two-month follow-up was 91% (n = 373). There were no significant baseline differences between study conditions. Among the entire sample, mean (±SD) age was 17.7 (±1.9) years, 60% were female, 93% were African American, and 79% reported receipt of public assistance. Of participants, 9% presented for a violent injury, 9% reported recent firearm carriage, 20% reported recent alcohol use, and 39% reported recent marijuana use. Compared with the EUC group, participants in the therapist BI group showed self-reported reductions in frequency of violent aggression (therapist, -46.8%; EUC, -36.9%; incident rate ratio [IRR] = 0.87; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.76 to 0.99) and increased self-efficacy for avoiding fighting (therapist, +7.2%; EUC, -1.3%; IRR = 1.09; 95% CI = 1.02 to 1.15). No significant changes were noted for victimization.ConclusionsAmong youth seeking ED care in a high-risk community, a brief, universally applied BI shows promise in increased self-efficacy for avoiding fighting and a decrease in the frequency of violent aggression.
| S-EPMC5018914 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Study objectiveWe conduct a randomized controlled trial to test efficacy of a telephone intervention for injured emergency department (ED) patients with alcohol misuse to decrease alcohol use, impaired driving, alcohol-related injuries, and alcohol-related negative consequences.MethodsED patients screening positive for alcohol misuse were randomized to a 3-session telephone brief motivational intervention on alcohol, delivered by a counselor trained in motivational interviewing during 6 weeks, or a control intervention of a scripted home fire and burn safety education delivered in 3 calls. Patients were followed for 12 months and assessed for changes in alcohol use, impaired driving, alcohol-related injuries, and alcohol-related negative consequences.ResultsSeven hundred thirty ED patients were randomized; 78% received their assigned intervention by telephone, and of those, 72% completed 12-month assessments. There were no differential benefits of telephone brief motivational intervention versus assessment and a control intervention in all 3 variables of alcohol use (frequency of binge alcohol use during the previous 30 days, maximum number of drinks at one time in the past 30 days, and typical alcohol use in the past 30 days), alcohol-impaired driving, alcohol-related injuries, and alcohol-related negative consequences.ConclusionDespite the potential advantage of delivering a telephone brief motivational intervention in not disrupting ED clinical care, our study found no efficacy for it over an assessment and control intervention. Potential causes for our finding include that injury itself, alcohol assessments, or the control intervention had active ingredients for alcohol change.
| S-EPMC4724518 | biostudies-literature