Dataset Information

Receipt of addiction treatment as a consequence of a brief intervention for drug use in primary care: a randomized trial.

ABSTRACT:

Background and aims

Screening, brief intervention and 'referral to treatment' programs have been promoted widely as US federal policy. Little is known about the efficacy of the RT component (referral to treatment) of brief intervention for motivating patients with unhealthy drug use identified by screening to use addiction treatment. This study aimed to compare receipt of addiction treatment following two types of brief intervention for drug use versus a no-intervention control group among primary care patients screening positive for drug use.

Design

Secondary analyses from a single-site randomized controlled trial.

Setting

Massachusetts, USA.

Participants

A total of 528 adults with Alcohol, Smoking and Substance Involvement Screening Test (ASSIST) drug-specific scores ≥ 4.

Interventions

Random assignment to: (1) a 10-15-minute brief negotiated interview (BNI) conducted by health educators (n = 174), (2) a 30-45-minute adaptation of motivational interviewing by Masters-level counselors (MOTIV) (n = 177) or (3) no BI (n = 177). All received a list of treatment and mutual help resources; both intervention protocols included dedicated staff for treatment referrals.

Measurements

Receipt of any addiction treatment within 6 months after study entry, assessed in a state-wide database and hospital electronic medical record linked to trial data.

Findings

Among 528 participants, the main drugs used were marijuana (63%), cocaine (19%) and opioids (17%); 46% met past-year drug dependence criteria (short form Composite International Diagnostic Interview); and 10% of MOTIV, 18% of BNI and 17% of control participants had any addiction treatment receipt within 6 months after study entry. There was no significant difference in addiction treatment receipt for BNI versus control [adjusted odds ratio (AOR) = 1.11; 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.57, 2.15, Hochberg adjusted P = 0.76]. The MOTIV group had lower odds of linking to treatment (AOR = 0.36, 95% CI = 0.17, 0.78, Hochberg adjusted P = 0.02) compared with the no BI group.

Conclusion

Brief intervention delivered in primary care for screen-identified drug use did not increase addiction treatment receipt significantly; a motivational interviewing approach appeared to be counterproductive.

SUBMITTER: Kim TW

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5382041 | biostudies-literature | 2017 May

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Receipt of addiction treatment as a consequence of a brief intervention for drug use in primary care: a randomized trial.

Kim Theresa W TW Bernstein Judith J Cheng Debbie M DM Lloyd-Travaglini Christine C Samet Jeffrey H JH Palfai Tibor P TP Saitz Richard R

Addiction (Abingdon, England) 20170207 5

<h4>Background and aims</h4>Screening, brief intervention and 'referral to treatment' programs have been promoted widely as US federal policy. Little is known about the efficacy of the RT component (referral to treatment) of brief intervention for motivating patients with unhealthy drug use identified by screening to use addiction treatment. This study aimed to compare receipt of addiction treatment following two types of brief intervention for drug use versus a no-intervention control group amo ...[more]

PMID: 27886657

Similar Datasets

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.

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.

Project description:BackgroundQUIT is the only primary care-based brief intervention that has previously shown efficacy for reducing risky drug use in the United States (Gelberg et al., 2015). This pilot study replicated the QUIT protocol in one of the five original QUIT clinics primarily serving Latinos.DesignSingle-blind, two-arm, randomized controlled trial of patients enrolled from March-October 2013 with 3-month follow-up.SettingPrimary care waiting room of a federally qualified health center (FQHC) in East Los Angeles.ParticipantsAdult patients with risky drug use (4-26 on the computerized WHO ASSIST): 65 patients (32 intervention, 33 control); 51 (78%) completed follow-up; mean age 30.8 years; 59% male; 94% Latino.Interventions and measuresIntervention patients received: 1) brief (typically 3-4 minutes) clinician advice to quit/reduce their risky drug use, 2) video doctor message reinforcing the clinician's advice, 3) health education booklet, and 4) up to two 20-30 minute follow-up telephone drug use reduction coaching sessions. Control patients received usual care and cancer screening information. Primary outcome was reduction in number of days of drug use in past 30days of the highest scoring drug (HSD) on the baseline ASSIST, from baseline to 3-month follow-up.ResultsControls reported unchanged HSD use between baseline and 3-month follow-up whereas Intervention patients reported reducing their use by 40% (p<0.001). In an intent-to-treat linear regression analysis, intervention patients reduced past month HSD use by 4.5 more days than controls (p<0.042, 95% CI: 0.2, 8.7). Similar significant results were found using a complete sample regression analysis: 5.2 days (p<0.03, 95% CI: 0.5, 9.9). Additionally, on logistic regression analysis of test results from 47 urine samples at follow-up, intervention patients were less likely than controls to test HSD positive (p<0.05; OR: 0.10, 95% CI: 0.01, 0.99).ConclusionsFindings support the efficacy of the QUIT brief intervention for reducing risky drug use.

Project description:BackgroundRandomized trials of complex interventions are increasingly including qualitative components to further understand factors that contribute to their success. In this paper, we explore the experiences of health care practitioners in a province wide smoking cessation program (the Smoking Treatment for Ontario Patients program) who participated in the COMBAT trial. This trial examined if the addition of an electronic prompt embedded in a Clinical Decision Support System (CDSS)-designed to prompt practitioners to Screen, provide a Brief intervention and Referral to Treatment (SBIRT) to patients who drank alcohol above the amounts recommended by the Canadian Cancer Society guidelines-influenced the proportion of practitioners delivering a brief intervention to their eligible patients. We wanted to understand the factors influencing implementation and acceptability of delivering a brief alcohol intervention for treatment-seeking smokers for health care providers who had access to the CDSS (intervention arm) and those who did not (control arm).MethodsTwenty-three health care practitioners were selected for a qualitative interview using stratified purposeful sampling (12 from the control arm and 11 from the intervention arm). Interviews were 45 to 90 min in length and conducted by phone using an interview guide that was informed by the National Implementation Research Network's Hexagon tool. Interview recordings were transcribed and coded iteratively between three researchers to achieve consensus on emerging themes. The preliminary coding structure was developed using the National Implementation Research Network's Hexagon Tool framework and data was analyzed using the framework analysis approach.ResultsSeventy eight percent (18/23) of the health care practitioners interviewed recognized the need to simultaneously address alcohol and tobacco use. Seventy four percent (17/23), were knowledgeable about the evidence of health risks associated with dual alcohol and tobacco use but 57% (13/23) expressed concerns with using the Canadian Cancer Society guidelines to screen for alcohol use. Practitioners acknowledged the value of adding a validated screening tool to the STOP program's baseline questionnaire (19/23); however, following through with a brief intervention and referral to treatment proved challenging due to lack of training, limited time, and fear of stigmatizing patients. Practitioners in the intervention arm (5/11; 45%) might not follow the recommendations from CDSS if these recommendations are not perceived as beneficial to the patients.ConclusionsThe results of the study show that practitioners' beliefs were reflective of the current social norms around alcohol use and this influenced their decision to offer a brief alcohol intervention. Future interventions need to emphasize both organizational and sociocultural factors as part of the design. The results of this study point to the need to change social norms regarding alcohol in order to effectively implement interventions that target both alcohol and tobacco use in primary care clinics. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03108144. Retrospectively registered 11 April 2017, https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03108144.

Project description:BackgroundBrief interventions such as Screening, a single session of Brief Intervention, and Referral to Treatment (SBIRT) have shown mixed effectiveness in primary care. However, there are indications that multi-session brief interventions may demonstrate more consistently positive outcomes, and perhaps a more intensive approach would be of benefit in addressing substance use in primary care. This study compared the effectiveness of SBIRT with a single BI session (BI/RT) to a multi-session brief-treatment intervention (BI/RT+) in primary care. We also developed easy-to-use, evidence-based materials to assist clinicians in delivering these interventions.Methods/designThis study was conducted in three Federally Qualified Healthcare Centers (FQHCs). A total of 10,935 patients were screened, and 600 individuals were recruited. The sample was primarily Black/African American (82 %) with a mean age of 40. Patients who attended a healthcare appointment were screened for substance use via the AUDIT and DAST. Patients were eligible for the study if they scored 8 or higher on the AUDIT, were using only marijuana and scored 2 or higher on the DAST, or were using other illicit drugs and scored 1 or higher on the DAST. Participants were randomly assigned to receive one-session BI/RT, or two to six sessions of brief intervention that incorporated elements of motivational enhancement therapy and cognitive-behavioral therapy (BI/RT+). Both interventions were delivered by behavioral health consultants at the FQHCs. Participants completed follow-up assessments every 3 months for 1 year. Primary outcome variables included substance use treatment sessions attended and days of substance use. Secondary outcomes included measures of health, employment, legal, and psychiatric functioning and HIV risk behaviors. Additionally, we will conduct an economic evaluation examining cost-effectiveness and will analyze outcomes from a process evaluation examining patient and provider experiences.DiscussionThe ability of brief interventions to impact substance use has great potential, but research findings have been mixed. By conducting a large-scale randomized controlled trial in real-world health centers, this study will answer important questions about the effectiveness of expanded BIs for patients who screen positive for risky substance use in primary care. Trial registration NCT01751672.

Dataset Information

Receipt of addiction treatment as a consequence of a brief intervention for drug use in primary care: a randomized trial.

Background and aims

Design

Setting

Participants

Interventions

Measurements

Findings

Conclusion

Publications

Receipt of addiction treatment as a consequence of a brief intervention for drug use in primary care: a randomized trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets