Acceptability of drug testing in an outpatient substance abuse program for adolescents

Screening for Adolescent Alcohol Use in the Emergency Department: What Does It Tell Us About Cannabis, Tobacco, and Other Drug Use?

BACKGROUND

The pediatric emergency department (PED) represents an opportune time for alcohol and drug screening. The National Institute of Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA) recommends a two-question alcohol screen for adolescents as a predictor of alcohol and drug misuse.

OBJECTIVE

A multi-site PED study was conducted to determine the association between the NIAAA two-question alcohol screen and adolescent cannabis use disorders (CUD), cigarette smoking, and lifetime use of other drugs.

METHODS

Participants included 12-17-year olds (n = 4834) treated in one of 16 participating PEDs. An assessment battery, including the NIAAA two-question screen and other measures of alcohol, tobacco and drug use, was self-administered on a tablet computer.

RESULTS

A diagnosis of CUD, lifetime tobacco use or lifetime drug use was predicted by any self-reported alcohol use in the past year, which indicates a classification of moderate risk for middle school ages and low risk for high school ages on the NIAAA two-question screen. Drinking was most strongly predictive of a CUD, somewhat weaker for lifetime tobacco use, and weakest for lifetime drug use. This same pattern held for high school and middle school students and was stronger for high school students over middle school students for all three categories. This association was also found across gender, ethnicity and race. The association was strongest for CUD for high school students, sensitivity 81.7% (95% CI, 77.0, 86.5) and specificity 70.4% (95% CI, 68.6, 72.1). Conclusions/Importance: A single question about past year alcohol use can provide valuable information about other substance use, particularly marijuana.

Testing for drugs of abuse in children and adolescents

Drug testing is often used as part of an assessment for substance use in children and adolescents. However, the indications for drug testing and guidance on how to use this procedure effectively are not clear. The complexity and invasiveness of the procedure and limitations to the information derived from drug testing all affect its utility. The objective of this clinical report is to provide guidance to pediatricians and other clinicians on the efficacy and efficient use of drug testing on the basis of a review of the nascent scientific literature, policy guidelines, and published clinical recommendations.

Effectiveness of treatment for adolescent substance use: is biological drug testing sufficient?

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to compare the relative effectiveness of three treatment modalities for adolescent substance use: biological drug screening (BDS), Motivational Enhancement Therapy-Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (MET/CBT5), and BDS combined with MET/CBT5, relative to no treatment.

METHOD

This study comprised 5,186 adolescents (70% male) enrolled in substance use treatment and tracked through the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration's Center for Substance Abuse Treatment's database (BDS = 1,110; MET/CBT5 = 784; BDS combined with MET/CBT5 = 2,539; no treatment = 753). Outcomes of interest were substance use frequency and severity of substance use problems at 3, 6, and 12 months, as measured by the Global Appraisal of Individual Needs survey. Propensity score weighting was used to adjust for pretreatment covariate imbalances between groups. Weighted generalized linear models were used to estimate the impact of treatment on outcomes at 3, 6, and 12 months.

RESULTS

BDS, alone or in combination with MET/CBT5, was associated with improved substance use and substance problems outcomes. Relative to youth reporting no treatment services, the BDS group reported significantly lower substance use at all visits, with the observed difference increasing over time. BDS alone was associated with significantly fewer substance problems than bds combined with met/cbt5 at all visits and significantly lower use at 12 months.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results demonstrate significant improvement on substance use outcomes associated with BDS and offer preliminary evidence that BDS, particularly standalone BDS, may be an effective form of drug treatment for adolescents. Further work, including randomized studies, should explore the optimal format of administering BDS to adolescents to achieve maximum effectiveness.

Screening instruments for substance use and brief interventions targeting adolescents in primary care: a literature review

BACKGROUND

A review of the literature was conducted to examine substance use screening instruments commonly used with adolescents in medical settings, their comparative usefulness, and SBIRT (Screening, Brief Intervention, and Referral to Treatment).

METHODS

We screened two databases (Ovid MEDLINE and PsycINFO) targeting journal articles dealing with screening for alcohol and drug use in adolescence as well as adolescent SBIRT.

RESULTS

Adolescents preferred paper forms and computerized questionnaires over interviews with physicians or nurses. The CRAFFT was the best studied instrument for screening for alcohol/drug use and related problems, and is the only tool with data to support its use in medical settings. Other screening instruments require more testing/evaluation in more representative samples of adolescents in primary care settings. Long term follow-up data to establish the efficacy of SBIRT in adolescence are not available. Innovative computerized approaches to screening for substance use in this population have recently been proposed. Although promising, they require further evaluation.

CONCLUSIONS

The CRAFFT has the most consistent data to support its use in primary care settings. The effects of SBIRT in adolescence have not been adequately evaluated. Adolescents' opinions and preferences for SBIRT should be studied to improve their acceptance.