Dataset Information

Screening, Brief Intervention, and Referral to Treatment for Pain Management for Veterans Seeking Service-Connection Payments for Musculoskeletal Disorders: SBIRT-PM Study Protocol.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Veterans with significant chronic pain from musculoskeletal disorders are at risk of substance misuse. Veterans whose condition is the result of military service may be eligible for a disability pension. Department of Veterans Affairs compensation examinations, which determine the degree of disability and whether it was connected to military service, represent an opportunity to engage Veterans in pain management and substance use treatments. A multisite randomized clinical trial is testing the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of Screening, Brief Intervention, and Referral to Treatment for Pain Management (SBIRT-PM) for Veterans seeking compensation for musculoskeletal disorders. This telephone-based intervention is delivered through a hub-and-spoke configuration.

Design

This study is a two-arm, parallel-group, 36-week, multisite randomized controlled single-blind trial. It will randomize 1,100 Veterans experiencing pain and seeking service-connection for musculoskeletal disorders to either SBIRT-PM or usual care across eight New England VA medical centers. The study balances pragmatic with explanatory methodological features. Primary outcomes are pain severity and number of substances misused. Nonpharmacological pain management and substance use services utilization are tracked in the trial.

Summary

Early trial enrollment targets were met across sites. SBIRT-PM could help Veterans, at the time of their compensation claims, use multimodal pain treatments and reduce existing substance misuse. Strategies to address COVID-19 pandemic impacts on the SBIRT-PM protocol have been developed to maintain its pragmatic and exploratory integrity.

SUBMITTER: Martino S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7734657 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:AbstractMany veterans have negative views about the service connection claims process for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), which likely impacts willingness to file service connection claims, re-file claims, and use Veterans Healthcare Administration care. Nevertheless, veterans have reported that PTSD claims are important to them for the financial benefits, validation of prior experience and harm, and self-other issues such as pleasing a significant other. It is unknown if reported attitudes are specific to PTSD claimants or if they would be similar to those submitting claims for other disorders, such as musculoskeletal disorders. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to compare attitudes and beliefs about service connection processes between veterans submitting service connection claims for PTSD and musculoskeletal disorders.Participants were Operation Enduring Freedom, Operation Iraqi Freedom, and Operation New Dawn veterans filing service connection claims for PTSD (n = 218) or musculoskeletal disorder (n = 257) who completed a modified Disability Application Appraisal Inventory. This secondary data analysis using multiple regression models tested the effect of demographics, clinical characteristics, and claim type on 5 Disability Application Appraisal Inventory subscales: Knowledge about service connection claims, Negative Expectations about the process, and importance of Financial Benefits, importance of Validation of veteran's experience/condition, and importance of Self-Other attitudes.The PTSD group assigned significantly less importance to financial benefits than the musculoskeletal disorder group. In addition, the subset of the PTSD group without depression had significantly more Negative Expectations than musculoskeletal disorder claimants without depression. Negative Expectations did not differ between the PTSD and musculoskeletal disorder groups with depression. Depression was significantly positively associated with Negative Expectations, importance of Financial Benefits, and importance of Validation.Most perceptions around seeking service connection are not specific to PTSD claimants. Depression is associated with having negative expectations about service connection claims and motivations to file claims. Addressing depression and negative expectations during the compensation and pension process might help veterans at this important point of contact with Veterans Healthcare Administration services.

Project description:BackgroundDepression is a leading cause of disability worldwide. African American adults, compared to White adults, are half as likely to be screened for depression in primary care settings. Disparities in depression screening contribute to poor clinical outcomes, as African Americans with depression are more disabled and sicker longer compared to Whites. African American churches are trusted settings that provide access to supports for depression. Indeed, in the first study of its kind, the investigators found that 20% of adults in African American churches screened positive for depression using the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9). However, no subjects with a positive screen (PHQ-9 ≥ 10) accepted a treatment referral when offered by research personnel. Community Health Workers, who are trusted paraprofessionals from the target community, may bridge the gap between depression screening and treatment. The investigators have trained and certified 112 Community Health Workers from 45 African American churches in New York City to deliver an evidence-based intervention called Screening, Brief Intervention, and Referral to Treatment (SBIRT). Thus, the aim of the current study is to test the impact of Community Health Worker-delivered depression screening in Black churches on engagement with clinical services.MethodsUsing a hybrid type 1 effectiveness-implementation design, we propose a 2-arm, mixed-methods cluster randomized controlled trial. Church study sites will be randomized to either SBIRT (intervention arm) or referral as usual (usual care arm). This trial will be conducted with 600 church members across 30 churches (300 intervention; 300 usual care). Our primary outcome is treatment engagement, defined as attending a depression-related clinical visit. Secondary outcomes will be changes in Mental Health-Related Quality of Life and depressive symptoms at 3 and 6 months post-screening. Lastly, we will conduct a concurrent, mixed-methods (qualitative-quantitative) process evaluation to assess contextual facilitators and barriers of screening and referral.DiscussionThis is the first randomized trial of a church-placed, community health worker-delivered intervention for depression in African American populations. This study may provide a novel and effective approach to increasing depression identification and treatment linkage in economically disadvantaged populations with high depression rates.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT04524767 . Registered on 21 August 2020.

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:Background: The purpose of this review was to examine and chart the "scope" of strategies reported in ED-SBIRT (emergency department-based screening, brief intervention and referral to treatment) studies that employ non-face-to-face (nFtF) modalities for high-risk alcohol use (i.e., risk for alcohol-related injury, medical condition, use disorder) and to identify research gaps in the scientific literature. Methods: The scoping review population included study participants with high-risk alcohol use patterns as well as study participants targeted for primary public health prevention (e.g., adolescent ED patients). Core concepts included SBIRT components among intervention studies that incorporated some form of nFtF modality (e.g., computer-assisted brief intervention). The context encompassed ED-based studies or trauma center studies, regardless of geographic location. After screening a total of 1526 unique references, reviewers independently assessed 58 full-text articles for eligibility. Results: A total of 30 full-text articles were included. Articles covered a period of 14?years (2003-2016) and 19 journal titles. Authors reported the use of a wide range of nFtF modalities across all 3 ED-SBIRT components: "screening" (e.g., computer tablet screening), "brief intervention" (e.g., text message-based brief interventions), and "referral to treatment" (e.g., computer-generated feedback with information about alcohol treatment services). The most frequently used nFtF modality was computerized screening and/or baseline assessment. The main results were mixed with respect to showing evidence of ED-SBIRT intervention effects. Conclusions: There is an opportunity for substance use disorder researchers to explore the specific needs of several populations (e.g., ED patients with co-occurring problems such as substance use disorder and violence victimization) and on several methodological issues (e.g., ED-SBIRT theory of change). Substance use disorder researchers should take the lead on establishing guidelines for the reporting of ED-SBIRT studies-including categorization schemes for various nFtF modalities. This would facilitate both secondary research (e.g., meta-analyses) and primary research design.