Dataset Information

Pilot of a screening, brief intervention and referral to treatment process for symptoms of trauma among primary care patients.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:For populations with high rates of trauma exposure yet low behavioural health service use, identifying and addressing trauma in the primary care setting could improve health outcomes, reduce disability and increase the efficiency of health system resources. OBJECTIVE:To assess the acceptability and feasibility of a screening, brief intervention and referral to treatment (SBIRT) process for trauma and symptoms of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) among American Indian and Alaska Native people. We also examine the short-term effects on service utilization and the screening accuracy of the Primary Care Posttraumatic Stress Disorder Screen. METHODS:Cross-sectional pilot in two tribal primary care settings. Surveys and interviews measured acceptability among patients and providers. Health service utilization was used to examine impact. Structured clinical interview and a functional disability measure were used to assess screening accuracy. RESULTS:Over 90% of patient participants (N = 99) reported the screening time was acceptable, the questions were easily understood, the right staff were involved and the process satisfactory. Ninety-nine percent would recommend the process. Participants screening positive had higher behavioural health utilization in the 3 months after the process than those screening negative. The Primary Care Posttraumatic Stress Disorder Screen was 100% sensitive to detect current PTSD with 51% specificity. Providers and administrators reported satisfaction with the process. CONCLUSIONS:The SBIRT process shows promise for identifying and addressing trauma in primary care settings. Future research should explore site specific factors, cost analyses and utility compared to other behavioural health screenings.

SUBMITTER: Avey JP

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7377346 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Jul

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Pilot of a screening, brief intervention and referral to treatment process for symptoms of trauma among primary care patients.

Avey Jaedon P JP Moore Laurie L Beach Barbara B Hiratsuka Vanessa Y VY Dirks Lisa G LG Dillard Denise A DA Novins Douglas D

Family practice 20200701 3

<h4>Background</h4>For populations with high rates of trauma exposure yet low behavioural health service use, identifying and addressing trauma in the primary care setting could improve health outcomes, reduce disability and increase the efficiency of health system resources.<h4>Objective</h4>To assess the acceptability and feasibility of a screening, brief intervention and referral to treatment (SBIRT) process for trauma and symptoms of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) among American Indian ...[more]

PMID: 31836903

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:Screening, Brief Intervention and Referral to Treatment (SBIRT) is a public health framework approach used to identify and deliver services to those at risk for substance-use disorders, depression, and other mental health conditions. Primary care is the first entry to the healthcare system for many patients, and SBIRT offers potential to identify these patients early and assist in their treatment. There is a need for pragmatic "best practices" for implementing SBIRT in primary care offices geared toward frontline providers and office staff. Methods:Ten primary care practices were awarded small community grants to implement an SBIRT program in their location. Each practice chose the conditions for which they would screen, the screening tools, and how they would provide brief intervention and referral to treatment within their setting. An evaluation team communicated with each practice throughout the process, collecting quantitative and qualitative data regarding facilitators and barriers to SBIRT success. Using the editing method, the qualitative data were analyzed and key strategies for success are detailed for implementing SBIRT in primary care. Results:The SBIRT program practices included primary care offices, federally qualified health centers, school-based health centers, and a safety-net emergency department. Conditions screened for included alcohol abuse, drug abuse, depression, anxiety, child safety, and tobacco use. Across practices, 49,964 patients were eligible for screening and 36,394 pre-screens and 21,635 full screens were completed. From the qualitative data, eight best practices for primary care SBIRT are described: Have a practice champion; Utilize an interprofessional team; Define and communicate the details of each SBIRT step; Develop relationships with referral partners; Institute ongoing SBIRT training; Align SBIRT with the primary care office flow; Consider using a pre-screening instrument, when available; and Integrate SBIRT into the electronic health record. Conclusions and implications:SBIRT is an effective tool that can empower primary care providers to identify and treat patients with substance use and mental health problems before costly symptoms emerge. Using the pragmatic best practices we describe, primary care providers may improve their ability to successfully create, implement, and sustain SBIRT in their practices.

Project description:Aim This project evaluated the effectiveness of screening brief intervention and referral for treatment (SBIRT) in primary care in Abu Dhabi to manage patients with problematic substance use. This study aimed to determine whether: (i) training primary care physicians on the SBIRT model increased the identification of patients using substances at a harmful, hazardous or dependent level; (ii) training improved physicians' knowledge, attitudes and beliefs in self-efficacy in managing substance use.BackgroundSubstance use is increasing in the United Arab Emirates yet there has been no formal primary care intervention. SBIRT was considered an appropriate model given its endorsement by the WHO.MethodsA controlled trial (two intervention and two matched control clinics) was undertaken. Intervention physicians (n=17) were trained in SBIRT. Physicians' attitudes were measured before and after training and eight months after implementation. Target recruitment was 900 patients. Inclusion criteria were: consenting UAE national, ⩾18 years, using the 'walk-in' primary care clinic. Patient data was collected by physician-administered questionnaire. Prevalence of drug use was measured through electronic patient records. Findings A total of 906 patients were screened, aged 18-82 years and 496 (55%) were female. Of these, 5.7% reported use of amphetamine, 3.9% alcohol, 3.3%, sedatives, 1.7% opioids and 1.1% cannabis. In all, 21 people had a moderate/high ASSIST score and received a brief intervention, but did not attend follow-up; three high-risk people were referred for specialist treatment. Physicians' attitudes towards patients with problematic substance use and providing treatment improved after training, but returned to pre-training levels after eight months. Including the 21 individuals identified from intervention screening, the prevalence of substance use increased to 0.208% (95% CI 0.154-0.274), significantly higher than in control clinics (P<0.001). In conclusion, physicians were generally positive towards SBIRT and SBIRT increased recorded drug related conditions at a practice level. However, poor patient attendance at follow-up requires investigation.

Project description:BackgroundUnhealthy 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.MethodsThe 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.ResultsScreening 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.ConclusionFindings 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 registrationClinical Trials NCT01135654.

Project description:AIMS:Unhealthy alcohol use is common among adults, and in particular, Veterans. Routine alcohol screening followed by brief intervention is recommended and considered a prevention priority in primary care settings. While previous studies have found that Veterans enrolled in the Veteran's Health Administration (VA) receive high rates of screening and brief intervention, less than 50% of Veterans receive VA health care. No study has evaluated receipt of these services in a general sample of Veterans. Therefore, in a nationally-representative sample, we examine whether Veteran status was associated with receiving alcohol screening and brief intervention in primary care. METHODS:Using the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's 2014 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System data, we identified adults who endorsed visiting a doctor for routine checkup at least once in the past two years and responded to an optional module assessing alcohol-related care (N?=?92,206; 14.1% Veterans). Multivariable logistic regression was used to assess the association between Veteran status and screening and brief intervention outcomes. We also evaluate differences in alcohol-related care across Veteran status stratified by gender. Models were adjusted for sociodemographic and clinical characteristics likely to confound the association. RESULTS:Overall, Veterans were more likely than non-Veterans to be screened for alcohol quantity and heavy episodic drinking (ps?<?0.05), and more likely to endorse receiving brief intervention advice about alcohol's harmful effects (p?<?.001). Veteran status predicted an increased likelihood of being screened and receipt of advice about alcohol's harmful effects, but did not predict the likelihood of receiving advice to reduce or abstain from drinking (AOR?=?1.00, 95% C.I. [0.80-1.26]). Analyses stratified by gender indicated a similar pattern of results for males as the overall sample. Results among females indicated Veteran status predicted the likelihood of being asked about heavy episodic drinking (AOR?=?1.47, 95% C.I. [1.09-1.99]) and being offered advice about the harmful effects of alcohol (AOR?=?1.62, 95% C.I. [1.06-2.48]). Female Veterans were not more likely than female non-Veterans to be advised to reduce and/or abstain from drinking. CONCLUSIONS:Screening about any alcohol use was common while report of screening for quantity and heavy episodic drinking occurrence and report of brief intervention were less common. Veterans were more likely than non-Veterans to report receiving recommended care, though rates of advice to reduce or abstain from drinking did not differ across groups. Persistent gaps in delivery of recommended alcohol-related care, especially for particularly vulnerable subpopulations such as women Veterans, suggest a need for quality improvement.

Project description:BackgroundObesity is a common cause of non-communicable disease. Guidelines recommend that physicians screen and offer brief advice to motivate weight loss through referral to behavioural weight loss programmes. However, physicians rarely intervene and no trials have been done on the subject. We did this trial to establish whether physician brief intervention is acceptable and effective for reducing bodyweight in patients with obesity.MethodsIn this parallel, two-arm, randomised trial, patients who consulted 137 primary care physicians in England were screened for obesity. Individuals could be enrolled if they were aged at least 18 years, had a body-mass index of at least 30 kg/m2 (or at least 25 kg/m2 if of Asian ethnicity), and had a raised body fat percentage. At the end of the consultation, the physician randomly assigned participants (1:1) to one of two 30 s interventions. Randomisation was done via preprepared randomisation cards labelled with a code representing the allocation, which were placed in opaque sealed envelopes and given to physicians to open at the time of treatment assignment. In the active intervention, the physician offered referral to a weight management group (12 sessions of 1 h each, once per week) and, if the referral was accepted, the physician ensured the patient made an appointment and offered follow-up. In the control intervention, the physician advised the patient that their health would benefit from weight loss. The primary outcome was weight change at 12 months in the intention-to-treat population, which was assessed blinded to treatment allocation. We also assessed asked patients' about their feelings on discussing their weight when they have visited their general practitioner for other reasons. Given the nature of the intervention, we did not anticipate any adverse events in the usual sense, so safety outcomes were not assessed. This trial is registered with the ISRCTN Registry, number ISRCTN26563137.FindingsBetween June 4, 2013, and Dec 23, 2014, we screened 8403 patients, of whom 2728 (32%) were obese. Of these obese patients, 2256 (83%) agreed to participate and 1882 were eligible, enrolled, and included in the intention-to-treat analysis, with 940 individuals in the support group and 942 individuals in the advice group. 722 (77%) individuals assigned to the support intervention agreed to attend the weight management group and 379 (40%) of these individuals attended, compared with 82 (9%) participants who were allocated the advice intervention. In the entire study population, mean weight change at 12 months was 2·43 kg with the support intervention and 1·04 kg with the advice intervention, giving an adjusted difference of 1·43 kg (95% CI 0·89-1·97). The reactions of the patients to the general practitioners' brief interventions did not differ significantly between the study groups in terms of appropriateness (adjusted odds ratio 0·89, 95% CI 0·75-1·07, p=0·21) or helpfulness (1·05, 0·89-1·26, p=0·54); overall, four (<1%) patients thought their intervention was inappropriate and unhelpful and 1530 (81%) patients thought it was appropriate and helpful.InterpretationA behaviourally-informed, very brief, physician-delivered opportunistic intervention is acceptable to patients and an effective way to reduce population mean weight.FundingThe UK National Prevention Research Initiative.

Dataset Information

Pilot of a screening, brief intervention and referral to treatment process for symptoms of trauma among primary care patients.

Publications

Pilot of a screening, brief intervention and referral to treatment process for symptoms of trauma among primary care patients.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets