Dataset Information

Short-term Efficacy of a Brief Intervention to Reduce Drug Misuse and Increase Drug Treatment Utilization Among Adult Emergency Department Patients.

ABSTRACT: Although 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.This 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.Of 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 (?-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 (?1.8; 95% CI = -3.5 to 6.8), who had received treatment during the past 3 months (?-2.0; 95% CI = -6.5 to 2.4), or who at least contacted a treatment program (? 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.The 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.

SUBMITTER: Merchant RC

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4876812 | biostudies-literature | 2015 Oct

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Short-term Efficacy of a Brief Intervention to Reduce Drug Misuse and Increase Drug Treatment Utilization Among Adult Emergency Department Patients.

Merchant Roland C RC Baird Janette R JR Liu Tao T

Academic emergency medicine : official journal of the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine 20150916 10

<h4>Objectives</h4>Although 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.<h4>Methods</h4>This randomized, controlled ...[more]

PMID: 26375468

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectivesIn this study, Increasing Viral Testing in the Emergency Department (InVITED), the authors investigated if a brief intervention about human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) and hepatitis C virus (HCV) risk-taking behaviors and drug use and misuse in addition to a self-administered risk assessment, compared to a self-administered risk assessment alone, increased uptake of combined screening for HIV and HCV, self-perception of HIV/HCV risk, and impacted beliefs and opinions on HIV/HCV screening.MethodsInVITED was a randomized, controlled trial conducted at two urban emergency departments (EDs) from February 2011 to March 2012. ED patients who self-reported drug use within the past 3 months were invited to enroll. Drug misuse severity and need for a brief or more intensive intervention was assessed using the Alcohol, Smoking and Substance Involvement Screening Test (ASSIST). Participants were randomly assigned to one of two study arms: a self-administered HIV/HCV risk assessment alone (control arm) or the assessment plus a brief intervention about their drug misuse and screening for HIV/HCV (intervention arm). Beliefs on the value of combined HIV/HCV screening, self-perception of HIV/HCV risk, and opinions on HIV/HCV screening in the ED were measured in both study arms before the HIV/HCV risk assessment (pre), after the assessment in the control arm, and after the brief intervention in the intervention arm (post). Participants in both study arms were offered free combined rapid HIV/HCV screening. Uptake of screening was compared by study arm. Multivariable logistic regression models were used to evaluate factors related to uptake of screening.ResultsOf the 395 participants in the study, the median age was 28 years (interquartile range [IQR] = 23 to 38 years), 44.8% were female, 82.3% had ever been tested for HIV, and 67.3% had ever been tested for HCV. Uptake of combined rapid HIV/HCV screening was nearly identical by study arm (64.5% vs. 65.2%; Δ = -0.7%; 95% confidence interval [CI] = -10.1% to 8.7%). Of the 256 screened, none had reactive HIV antibody tests, but seven (2.7%) had reactive HCV antibody tests. Multivariable logistic regression analysis results indicated that uptake of screening was not related to study arm assignment, total ASSIST drug scores, need for an intervention for drug misuse, or HIV/HCV sexual risk assessment scores. However, uptake of screening was greater among participants who indicated placing a higher value on combined rapid HIV/HCV screening for themselves and all ED patients and those with higher levels of perceived HIV/HCV risk. Uptake of combined rapid HIV/HCV screening was not related to changes in beliefs regarding the value of combined HIV/HCV screening or self-perceived HIV/HCV risk (post- vs. pre-risk assessment with or without a brief intervention). Opinions regarding the ED as a venue for combined rapid HIV/HCV screening were not related to uptake of screening.ConclusionsUptake of combined rapid HIV/HCV screening is high and considered valuable among drug using and misusing ED patients with little concern about the ED as a screening venue. The brief intervention investigated in this study does not appear to change beliefs regarding screening, self-perceived risk, or uptake of screening for HIV/HCV in this population. Initial beliefs regarding the value of screening and self-perceived risk for these infections predict uptake of screening.

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.

Project description:BACKGROUND: Emergency department (ED) utilization has dramatically increased in developed countries over the last twenty years. Because it has been associated with adverse outcomes, increased costs, and an overload on the hospital organization, several policies have tried to curb this growing trend. The aim of this study is to systematically review the effectiveness of organizational interventions designed to reduce ED utilization. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: We conducted electronic searches using free text and Medical Subject Headings on PubMed and The Cochrane Library to identify studies of ED visits, re-visits and mortality. We performed complementary searches of grey literature, manual searches and direct contacts with experts. We included studies that investigated the effectiveness of interventions designed to reduce ED visits and the following study designs: time series, cross-sectional, repeated cross-sectional, longitudinal, quasi-experimental studies, and randomized trial. We excluded studies on specific conditions, children and with no relevant outcomes (ED visits, re-visits or adverse events). From 2,348 potentially useful references, 48 satisfied the inclusion criteria. We classified the interventions in mutually exclusive categories: 1) Interventions addressing the supply and accessibility of services: 25 studies examined efforts to increase primary care physicians, centers, or hours of service; 2) Interventions addressing the demand for services: 6 studies examined educational interventions and 17 examined barrier interventions (gatekeeping or cost). CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE: The evidence suggests that interventions aimed at increasing primary care accessibility and ED cost-sharing are effective in reducing ED use. However, the rest of the interventions aimed at decreasing ED utilization showed contradictory results. Changes in health care policies require rigorous evaluation before being implemented since these can have a high impact on individual health and use of health care resources. Systematic review registration: http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO. Identifier: CRD420111253.

Project description:Recent health policy changes have focused efforts on reducing emergency department (ED) visits as a way to reduce costs and improve quality of care. This was a systematic review of interventions based outside the ED aimed at reducing ED use.This study was designed as a systematic review. We reviewed the literature on interventions in five categories: patient education, creation of additional non-ED capacity, managed care, prehospital diversion, and patient financial incentives. Studies written in English, with interventions administered outside of the ED, and a comparison group where ED use was an outcome, were included. Two independent reviewers screened search results using MEDLINE, Cochrane, OAIster, or Scopus. The following data were abstracted from included studies: type of intervention, study design, population, details of intervention, effect on ED use, effect on non-ED health care use, and other health and financial outcomes. Quality of individual articles was assessed using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) guidelines.Of 39 included studies, 34 were observational and five were randomized controlled trials. Two of five studies on patient education found reductions in ED use ranging from 21% to 80%. Out of 10 studies of additional non-ED capacity, four showed decreases of 9% to 54%, and one a 21% increase. Both studies on prehospital diversion found reductions of 3% to 7%. Of 12 studies on managed care, 10 had decreases ranging from 1% to 46%. Nine out of 10 studies on patient financial incentives found decreases of 3% to 50%, and one a 34% increase. Nineteen studies reported effect on non-ED use with mixed results. Seventeen studies included data on health outcomes, but 13 of these only included data on hospitalizations rather than morbidity and mortality. Seven studies included data on cost outcomes. According to the GRADE guidelines, all studies had at least some risk of bias, with four moderate quality, one low quality, and 34 very low quality studies.Many studies have explored interventions based outside the ED to reduce ED use in various populations, with mixed evidence. Approximately two-thirds identified here showed reductions in ED use. The interventions with the greatest number of studies showing reductions in ED use include patient financial incentives and managed care, while the greatest magnitude of reductions were found in patient education. These findings have implications for insurers and policymakers seeking to reduce ED use.

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.

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.

Dataset Information

Short-term Efficacy of a Brief Intervention to Reduce Drug Misuse and Increase Drug Treatment Utilization Among Adult Emergency Department Patients.

Publications

Short-term Efficacy of a Brief Intervention to Reduce Drug Misuse and Increase Drug Treatment Utilization Among Adult Emergency Department Patients.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets