Understanding Which Teenagers Benefit Most From a Brief Primary Care Substance Use Intervention.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: D'Amico EJ
PROVIDER: S-EPMC6746575 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Aug
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Understanding Which Teenagers Benefit Most From a Brief Primary Care Substance Use Intervention.
D'Amico Elizabeth J EJ Parast Layla L Osilla Karen C KC Seelam Rachana R Meredith Lisa S LS Shadel William G WG Stein Bradley D BD
Pediatrics 20190711 2
<h4>Background and objectives</h4>The primary care (PC) setting provides an opportunity to address adolescent alcohol and marijuana use. We examined moderators of effectiveness for a PC brief motivational intervention on adolescents' alcohol and marijuana use and consequences 1 year later.<h4>Methods</h4>We conducted a randomized controlled trial in 4 PC clinics from April 2013 to November 2015 and followed adolescents using Web-based surveys. We examined whether demographic factors and severity ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:Brief 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.This 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.The 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.
| S-EPMC4835884 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeThis study aimed to elicit pediatric primary care providers' (PCPs) feedback on the acceptability and feasibility of implementing a tablet computer-facilitated Screening and Brief Intervention (cSBI) system for adolescent substance use in their practices.MethodsWe trained PCPs at five Boston area practices and enrolled their 12- to 18-year-old patients in a pilot randomized trial of cSBI versus usual care. PCPs completed an 18-item poststudy questionnaire. We computed frequencies and thematically coded open-ended responses.ResultsThe analysis sample included 49 of 54 participating PCPs (90.7%). Overall, 89.8% of participants agreed the cSBI system was useful, and 81.6% reported increased confidence in providing brief counseling. Most useful were the immediate availability of screen results, talking points on substance use risks, and counseling prompts. Challenges included time and unfamiliarity with tablet computers. Many suggested electronic health record integration of cSBI to improve efficiency.ConclusionscSBI showed high acceptability and increased confidence among pediatric PCPs. Feasibility could be enhanced by electronic health record integration.
| S-EPMC8087815 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Primary care providers need effective strategies for substance use screening and brief counseling of adolescents. We examined the effects of a new computer-facilitated screening and provider brief advice (cSBA) system.We used a quasi-experimental, asynchronous study design in which each site served as its own control. From 2005 to 2008, 12- to 18-year-olds arriving for routine care at 9 medical offices in New England (n = 2096, 58% females) and 10 in Prague, Czech Republic (n = 589, 47% females) were recruited. Patients completed measurements only during the initial treatment-as-usual study phase. We then conducted 1-hour provider training, and initiated the cSBA phase. Before seeing the provider, all cSBA participants completed a computerized screen, and then viewed screening results, scientific information, and true-life stories illustrating substance use harms. Providers received screening results and "talking points" designed to prompt 2 to 3 minutes of brief advice. We examined alcohol and cannabis use, initiation, and cessation rates over the past 90 days at 3-month follow-up, and over the past 12 months at 12-month follow-up.Compared with treatment as usual, cSBA patients reported less alcohol use at follow-up in New England (3-month rates 15.5% vs 22.9%, adjusted relative risk ratio [aRRR] = 0.54, 95% confidence interval 0.38-0.77; 12-month rates 29.3% vs 37.5%, aRRR = 0.73, 0.57-0.92), and less cannabis use in Prague (3-month rates 5.5% vs 9.8%, aRRR = 0.37, 0.17-0.77; 12-month rates 17.0% vs 28.7%, aRRR = 0.47, 0.32-0.71).Computer-facilitated screening and provider brief advice appears promising for reducing substance use among adolescent primary care patients.
| S-EPMC3362902 | 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:In 2016, 21 million Americans aged 12 years and older needed treatment for a substance use disorder (SUD). However, only 10% to 11% of individuals requiring SUD treatment received it. Given their access to patients, primary care providers are in a unique position to perform universal Screening, Brief Intervention, and Referral to Treatment (SBIRT) to identify individuals at risk, fill gaps in services, and make referrals to specialty treatment when indicated. Major barriers to SBIRT include limited time among providers and low motivation to change among many patients.The objective of this study was to develop and test the acceptability of a prototype of a mobile-delivered substance use risk intervention (SURI) for primary care patients and a clinical dashboard for providers that can address major barriers to SBIRT for risky drug use. The SURI delivers screening and feedback on SUD risk via mobile tools to patients at home or in the waiting room; for patients at risk, it also delivers a brief intervention based on the transtheoretical model of behavior change (TTM) to facilitate progress through the stages of change for quitting the most problematic drug and for seeking treatment if indicated. The prototype also delivers 30 days of stage-matched text messages and 4 Web-based activities addressing key topics. For providers, the clinical dashboard summarizes the patient's SUD risk scores and stage of change data, and provides stage-matched scripts to guide in-person sessions.A total of 4 providers from 2 federally qualified health centers (FQHCs) were recruited for the pilot test, and they in turn recruited 5 patients with a known SUD. Furthermore, 3 providers delivered dashboard-guided SBIRT sessions and completed a brief acceptability survey. A total of 4 patients completed a Web-based SURI session and in-person SBIRT session, accessed other program components, and completed 3 acceptability surveys over 30 days. Questions in the surveys were adapted from the National Cancer Institute's Education Materials Review Form. Response options ranged from 1=strongly disagree to 5=strongly agree. The criterion for establishing acceptability was an overall rating of 4.0 or higher across items.For providers, the overall mean acceptability rating was 4.4 (standard deviation [SD] 0.4). Notably, all providers gave a rating of 5.0 for the item, "The program can give me helpful information about my patient." For patients, the overall mean acceptability rating was 4.5 (SD 0.3) for the mobile- and provider-delivered SBIRT sessions and 4.0 (SD 0.4) for the text messages and Web-based activities. One highly rated item was "The program could help me make some positive changes" (4.5).The SURI program and clinical dashboard, developed to reduce barriers to SBIRT in primary care, were well received by providers and patients.
| S-EPMC5770579 | biostudies-other
Project description:Although 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).To determine whether brief intervention improves drug use outcomes compared with enhanced care as usual.A 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.Participants 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).The 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.Mean 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, ??=?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, ??=?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.A 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.clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00877331.
| S-EPMC4599980 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:Authorities recommend universal substance use screening, brief intervention, and referral to treatment (SBIRT) for all (ie, universal) adult primary care patients. OBJECTIVE:The objective of this study was to examine long-term (24-mo) changes in health care utilization and costs associated with receipt of universal substance use SBIRT implemented by paraprofessionals in primary care settings. RESEARCH DESIGN:This study used a difference-in-differences design and Medicaid administrative data to assess changes in health care use among Medicaid beneficiaries receiving SBIRT. The difference-in-differences estimates were used in a Monte Carlo simulation to estimate potential cost-offsets associated with SBIRT. SUBJECTS:The treatment patients were Medicaid beneficiaries who completed a 4-question substance use screen as part of an SBIRT demonstration program between 2006 and 2011. Comparison Medicaid patients were randomly selected from matched clinics in Wisconsin. MEASURES:The study includes 4 health care utilization measures: outpatient days; inpatient length of stay; inpatient admissions; and emergency department admissions. Each outcome was assigned a unit cost based on mean Wisconsin Medicaid fee-for-service reimbursement amounts. RESULTS:We found an annual increase of 1.68 outpatient days (P=0.027) and a nonsignificant annual decrease in inpatient days of 0.67 days (P=0.087) associated with SBIRT. The estimates indicate that the cost of a universal SBIRT program could be offset by reductions in inpatient utilization with an annual net cost savings of $782 per patient. CONCLUSIONS:Paraprofessional-delivered universal SBIRT is likely to yield health care cost savings and is a cost-effective mechanism for integrating behavioral health services in primary care settings.
| S-EPMC6690790 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundIn response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the French government took many measures, the most notable of which was a national lockdown on 17 March 2020. Its effects have been widely studied, but to our knowledge, no study has sought to determine how adolescents have adapted to cope with this situation. The present study set out to explore teenagers' stress levels, coping strategies, and substance use during this period.MethodsThis paper is a cross-sectional study that rides on an existing prevention program interviewed 348 French middle school students (209 girls and 139 boys) in grade 8 (M age = 13.45; SDage = 0.54) using an online questionnaire between March 17 and May 11, 2020 (COVID-19 lockdown). The study examined the teenagers' perceived stress, coping strategies they had used, including recent use of tobacco, alcohol and cannabis, during COVID-19 lockdown.ResultsTeenagers reported lower perceived stress during lockdown than usually, with a significant decrease for girls. Those who perceived the least social support reported the highest levels of stress. The strategies of planning, behavioral disengagement, self-distraction, positive reframing, acceptance, and religion were used more than usual, while active coping and self-blame were used less. Acceptance was the most often used strategy and a source of decreased stress during lockdown. A significant decrease in recent tobacco, alcohol and cannabis use was also observed.ConclusionChanges in the use of coping strategies, withdrawal from the stressful school environment, and greater exposure to parents than to peers caused adolescents to be less stressed and to decrease their substance use during the lockdown.
| S-EPMC8813749 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceAnnual preventive health visits provide an opportunity to screen youths for unhealthy substance use and intervene before serious harm results.ObjectivesTo assess the feasibility and acceptability and estimate the efficacy of a primary care computer-facilitated screening and practitioner-delivered brief intervention (CSBI) system compared with usual care (UC) for youth substance use and associated risk of riding with an impaired driver.Design, setting, and participantsAn intent-to-treat pilot randomized clinical trial compared CSBI with UC among 965 youths aged 12 to 18 years at 5 pediatric primary care offices and 54 practitioners. Patients were randomized to CSBI (n = 628) or usual care (n = 243) groups within practitioner with 12 months of follow-up. Data were collected from February 1, 2015, to December 31, 2017. Data analysis was performed January 1, 2018, to March 30, 2019.InterventionsPatients self-administered a computer-facilitated substance use screening questionnaire before their annual preventive health visits. Immediately after completing the screening, they received their score and level of risk and viewed 10 pages of scientific information and true-life vignettes illustrating health risks associated with substance use. Trained practitioners received the screening results, patients' risk levels, talking points designed to prompt brief counseling, and recommended follow-up plans.Main outcomes and measuresFeasibility and acceptability were assessed using adolescents' postvisit ratings. Days of alcohol use, cannabis use, and heavy episodic drinking were assessed at baseline and 3-, 6-, 9-, and 12-month follow-ups using Timeline Followback, and riding in the past 3 months with a driver who was impaired by use of alcohol or other drugs was assessed using 2 self-report items. The primary outcome was the intervention effect among at-risk youths who reported using alcohol or other drugs in the past 12 months or riding with an impaired driver in the past 3 months at baseline. The secondary outcome was the prevention effect among those with no prior use or risk.ResultsAmong 871 youths screened, 869 completed the baseline assessment; 211 of the 869 reported alcohol or cannabis use in the past 12 months at baseline (mean [SD] age, 16.4 [1.3] years; 114 [54.1%] female; 105 [49.8%] non-Hispanic white). Of the 211 youths, 148 (70.1%) were assigned to the CSBI group and 63 (29.9%) were assigned to the UC group. Among youths in the CSBI group, 105 (70.9%) reported receiving counseling about alcohol, 122 (82.4%) reported receiving counseling about cannabis, and 129 (87.2%) reported receiving counseling about not riding with an impaired driver. Adjusted hazard ratios for time to first postvisit use of alcohol or other drugs for CSBI vs UC were as follows: alcohol use, 0.69 (95% CI, 0.47-1.02); heavy episodic drinking, 0.66 (95% CI, 0.40-1.10); and cannabis use, 0.62 (95% CI, 0.41-0.94). At 12-month follow-ups among 99 youths who reported having ridden in the past 3 months at baseline with an impaired driver (64 in the CSBI group; 35 in the UC group), adjusted relative risk ratio of riding in the past 3 months with an impaired driver for CSBI vs UC groups was 0.58 (95% CI, 0.37-0.91). No intervention effect was observed among youths who reported no prior use of alcohol or other drugs (n = 658) or not having ridden with an impaired driver (n = 769) at baseline.Conclusions and relevanceThe CSBI system is a feasible and acceptable option for screening youths in primary care practice for use of alcohol and other drugs and for risk of riding with an impaired driver, and the estimated efficacy in this sample warrants further testing in larger samples.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00227877.
| S-EPMC6593643 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND AND AIMS:Brief alcohol interventions in medical settings are efficacious in improving self-reported alcohol consumption among those with low-severity alcohol problems. Screening, Brief Intervention and Referral to Treatment initiatives presume that brief interventions are efficacious in linking patients to higher levels of care, but pertinent evidence has not been evaluated. We estimated main and subgroup effects of brief alcohol interventions, regardless of their inclusion of a referral-specific component, in increasing the utilization of alcohol-related care. METHODS:A systematic review of English language papers published in electronic databases to 2013. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of brief alcohol interventions in general health-care settings with adult and adolescent samples. We excluded studies that lacked alcohol services utilization data. Extractions of study characteristics and outcomes were standardized and conducted independently. The primary outcome was post-treatment alcohol services utilization assessed by self-report or administrative data, which we compared across intervention and control groups. RESULTS:Thirteen RCTs met inclusion criteria and nine were meta-analyzed (n?=?993 and n?=?937 intervention and control group participants, respectively). In our main analyses the pooled risk ratio (RR) was?=?1.08, 95% confidence interval (CI)?=?0.92-1.28. Five studies compared referral-specific interventions with a control condition without such interventions (pooled RR?=?1.08, 95% CI?=?0.81-1.43). Other subgroup analyses of studies with common characteristics (e.g. age, setting, severity, risk of bias) yielded non-statistically significant results. CONCLUSIONS:There is a lack of evidence that brief alcohol interventions have any efficacy for increasing the receipt of alcohol-related services.
| S-EPMC4753046 | biostudies-literature