Is screening and intervention associated with treatment receipt among individuals with alcohol use disorder? Evidence from a national survey

Mind The Gap: Differences in Alcohol Use Screening And Discussions Among Adults Comparing Asian American And Other Racial And Ethnic Subgroups in the United States, 2015-2019

AIMS

Asian Americans are the fastest growing racial and ethnic subgroup in the USA but are underrepresented in the alcohol literature, partially due to misconceptions and racial stereotypes. We estimated any alcohol screening/discussions with providers among Asian Americans and other racial and ethnic subgroups and tested associations with alcohol treatment.

METHODS

Weighted prevalences of any alcohol screening or discussions with providers included US adults reporting past-year alcohol use and > =1 healthcare visit in the 2015-2019 National Survey on Drug Use and Health (n = 123,002). Multinomial logistic regressions estimated adjusted associations between alcohol use screening/discussions (ref: no screening/discussion) comparing Asian Americans to other racial and ethnic adult subgroups. Among adults with alcohol use disorder (AUD), we estimated adjusted odds of alcohol treatment and perceived treatment need by screening/discussions and racial and ethnic subgroup.

RESULTS

Among Asian American adults who reported past-year alcohol use and a healthcare visit, 24.7% reported any screening only and 51.4% discussed alcohol with providers. All racial and ethnic subgroups were more likely than Asian Americans to report alcohol screening/discussions (e.g. white adults, screening adjusted relative risk ratio [aRRR] = 1.48, 95% CI: 1.28-1.72; discussions aRRR = 1.92, 95% CI: 1.74-2.10). AUD treatment use and perceived need were about two times higher among people reporting alcohol discussions.

CONCLUSIONS

Asian Americans were less likely to report discussing alcohol with providers than all other racial and ethnic subgroups. Alcohol discussions were associated with treatment use and perceived need. Efforts to increase equitable alcohol screening and discussions with clinicians are needed.

Trends in Alcohol Use Disorder Treatment Utilization and Setting From 2008 to 2017

OBJECTIVE

Little is known about recent trends in treatment for alcohol use disorder. The authors used national data to examine treatment trends among individuals with alcohol use disorder.

METHODS

A sample of nonelderly adults (ages 18-64 years, N=36,707) with alcohol use disorder was identified from the National Survey on Drug Use and Health. Multinomial logistic regression analysis was conducted to examine trends in treatment for alcohol use disorder in 2008-2010, 2011-2013, and 2014-2017 in any medical setting (hospitals, rehabilitation centers, mental health centers, emergency departments, and private doctors' offices), self-help groups only (no medical setting), and no setting (i.e., no treatment). Additional analyses investigated trends in mental health treatment. Regression models adjusted for predisposing, enabling, and need-related characteristics.

RESULTS

Among those with an alcohol use disorder, the percentage who received any treatment was significantly lower in 2011-2013 (5.6%) than in 2008-2010 (6.9%) (p<0.05). In adjusted analyses, the probability of receiving no treatment increased by 1.5 percentage points in 2014-2017 (95% CI=0.5-2.5) compared with the 2008-2010 baseline. Significant declines were observed in the receipt of any treatment in a medical setting (marginal effect [ME]=-1.0%, 95% CI=-2.0 to -0.0) and self-help treatment only (ME=-0.5%, 95% CI=-0.8 to -0.1) in 2014-2017 compared with the baseline period. The probability of receiving any mental health treatment did not change during the study period.

CONCLUSIONS

Among persons with an alcohol use disorder, treatment declined from 2008 to 2017. Future studies should examine the mechanisms that may be responsible for this decline.

Associations of At-Risk Drinking, Current Smoking, and Their Co-Occurrence With Primary Care Service Utilization

PURPOSE

Smoking and at-risk drinking are each associated with lower primary care utilization, but the influence of their co-occurrence is not known. The current study compared associations of endorsement of one behavior vs endorsement of both with primary care utilization.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional telephone survey.

SETTING

All United States and Territories.

SUBJECTS

246 801 adults aged 18-64.

MEASURES

The outcome was endorsement of attending a past-year primary care visit. Predictor variables included drinking and smoking status examined individually and combined.

ANALYSIS

Multivariable logistic regressions, adjusted for socio-demographics and number of chronic health conditions.

RESULTS

The odds of attending a past-year primary care visit were 24% lower for persons who drank at risk levels compared to the odds of persons who did not drink and 36% lower for persons who smoked vs those who did not smoke. Among persons who endorsed at least one risk behavior, the odds of attending a past-year primary care visit were 25-35% lower for those who engaged in multiple behaviors compared to the odds of persons who engaged in one behavior.

CONCLUSION

Substance use screening and intervention services in primary care may not be reaching individuals with the greatest need for services. Proactive outreach and identification of primary care utilization barriers are needed, with special consideration of those with co-occurring substance use.

Understanding low treatment seeking rates for alcohol use disorder: A narrative review of the literature and opportunities for improvement

Despite a well-documented global burden of disease attributable to alcohol use disorder (AUD), treatment seeking rates remain low. In this qualitative literature review, we address treatment seeking for AUD from a host of perspectives and summarize the literature on key factors. First, we summarize the rates of alcohol treatment seeking across various epidemiological surveys, spanning decades. Second, we discuss the definition of treatment seeking and 'what' is typically considered formal treatment. Third, we consider timing and discuss 'when' individuals are most likely to seek treatment. Fourth, we review the literature on 'who' is most likely to seek treatment, including demographic and clinical correlates. Fifth, we address the critical question of 'why' so few people receive clinical services for AUD, relative to the number of individuals affected by the disorder, and review barriers to treatment seeking at the treatment- and person-levels of analysis. Finally, we identify opportunities to improve treatment seeking rates by focusing on tangible points of intervention. Specifically, we recommend a host of adaptations to models of care including efforts to make treatment more appealing across stages of AUD severity, accept a range of health-enhancing drinking goals as opposed to an abstinence-only model, educate providers and consumers about evidence-based behavioral and pharmacological treatments, and incentivize the delivery of evidence-based services.

Treatment rates for alcohol use disorders: a systematic review and meta-analysis

AIMS

To estimate the treatment rate for alcohol use disorders (AUDs) in the general adult population. Treatment rates were also considered in relation to economic differences.

METHODS

Systematic review and meta-analysis. We searched PubMed, EMBASE, PsycINFO and CINAHL databases to identify studies that reported treatment rates for alcohol use disorders in the general population. Independent reviewers screened the articles based on predefined inclusion criteria. Data were extracted using a standardized data extraction form. We conducted quality assessments of the included studies. The overall treatment rates were estimated from studies that reported any treatment for AUDs from healthcare or informal non-healthcare settings (any treatment). We estimated the separate treatment rates for each diagnostic category as reported in the primary studies: AUD as a single disorder, alcohol abuse and alcohol dependence. Data were pooled using a random-effect model.

RESULTS

Thirty-two articles were included to estimate the treatment rates (percentage treated among the total number of people with AUDs). The pooled estimate of people with AUDs who received any treatment were 14.3% (95% CI: 9.3-20.3%) for alcohol abuse, 16.5% (95% CI: 12-21.5%) for alcohol dependence and 17.3% (95% CI: 12.8-22.3%) for AUD. A subgroup analysis by World Bank economic classification of countries found that the treatment rate for AUD was 9.3% (95% CI: 4.0-15.7%) in low and lower-middle-income countries.

CONCLUSION

Globally, approximately one in six people with AUDs receives treatment. Treatment rates for AUDs are generally low, with even lower rates in low and lower-middle-income countries.

Missed opportunities by health care providers to reduce racial/ethnic disparities in the use of alcohol treatment services

OBJECTIVE

The objectives of this study were to: (1) investigate racial/ethnic differences in being offered information on alcohol treatment options by a health care provider; and (2) conduct stratified subgroup analyses to explore racial/ethnic differences in the use of alcohol treatment utilization among those who have received information on alcohol treatment services by a health care provider.

METHODS

Data from National Survey on Drug Use and Health (2015-2017) was used. Analyses were restricted to adult White, Black, and Latino participants who met diagnostic criteria for a past-year alcohol use disorder (AUD) and reported visiting a health care provider in the past-year (n = 4,939). A multivariable logistic regression model was estimated to investigate differences in being offered information on alcohol treatment by a health care provider by race/ethnicity. A sub analysis that was limited to participants who reported receiving information on alcohol treatment services by a health care provider (n = 481) was also conducted to explore racial/ethnic differences in treatment utilization.

RESULTS

Overall, health care providers rarely provided information on alcohol treatment services to persons with AUD. In multivariable analyses, Latinos were less likely to receive information on alcohol treatment services than Whites, but no White-Black differences were documented. When analyses were restricted to those who had received information on alcohol treatment options, no racial/ethnic differences in the use of alcohol treatment services were found.

CONCLUSIONS

Health care providers can potentially encourage use of alcohol treatment among those in need and contribute to reducing existing alcohol-related racial/ethnic disparities.

Gender differences in any alcohol screening and discussions with providers among older adults in the United States, 2015 to 2019

BACKGROUND

Unhealthy alcohol use is increasing among older adults, particularly women. We estimated gender differences in the prevalence of alcohol screening/discussions with healthcare providers among older adults who use alcohol.

METHODS

Using the 2015 to 2019 National Survey on Drug Use and Health, we included 9663 adults age 65 and older in the United States who used alcohol and had a past-year healthcare encounter. We estimated the weighted prevalence of alcohol screening/discussions (no screening; screening only; discussions with providers) by gender. We used weighted multinomial logistic regression models to examine correlates of alcohol use screening/discussions.

RESULTS

Among older adults who used alcohol and encountered the healthcare system in the past year, 24.68% of men and 27.04% of women reported no alcohol screening/discussions. Men were more likely than women to be asked about drinking frequency, amount, or problems related to drinking. Compared to no alcohol screening/discussions, women were 22% more likely (95% CI: 1.05, 1.42) to report alcohol screening only but were 18% less likely to discuss alcohol with providers (95% CI: 0.73, 0.91) than men. Women had 0.67 times (95% CI: 0.60, 0.74) the adjusted odds of reporting alcohol discussions with providers versus any alcohol screening only compared with men.

CONCLUSIONS

Over a quarter of older adults who used alcohol were not asked about their drinking, and older women were less likely than men to discuss alcohol use with providers. Given the increased risk for harms of alcohol use with aging, older adults should be screened and counseled regarding their alcohol use.

A cascade of care for alcohol use disorder: Using 2015-2019 National Survey on Drug Use and Health data to identify gaps in past 12-month care

BACKGROUND

Although effective treatments exist, alcohol use disorder (AUD) is undertreated. We used a cascade of care framework to understand gaps in care for persons with AUD.

METHODS

Using 2015-2019 National Survey on Drug Use and Health data, we evaluated the following steps in the cascade of care: (1) adult prevalence of AUD; (2) proportion of adults with AUD who utilized health care in the past 12 months; (3) proportion with AUD screened about their alcohol use; (4) proportion with AUD who received a brief intervention about their alcohol misuse; (5) proportion with AUD who received information about treatment for alcohol misuse; and (6) proportion with AUD who received treatment. Analyses were stratified by AUD severity.

RESULTS

Of the 214,505 persons included in the sample, the weighted prevalence of AUD was 7.8% (95% CI 7.6-8.0%). Cascades of care showed the majority of individuals with AUD utilized health care in the past 12 months [81.4% (95% CI 80.7-82.1%)] and were screened about alcohol use [69.9% (95% CI 68.9-70.8%)]. However, only a minority of individuals received subsequent steps of care, including 11.6% (95% CI 11.0-12.2%) who reported receiving a brief intervention, 5.1% (95% CI 4.6-5.6%) who were referred to treatment, and 5.8% (95% CI 5.4-6.3%) who received treatment. Similar patterns were observed when cascades of care were stratified by AUD severity.

CONCLUSIONS

Persons with AUD commonly utilize health care and are often screened about alcohol use, but few receive treatment. Healthcare settings-particularly primary care settings-represent a prime opportunity to implement AUD treatment to improve outcomes in this high-risk population.

Outcomes of an interprofessional SBIRT training program: Knowledge attainment and perceived competence for practice

BACKGROUND

One way to address substance misuse is to train health professional students in Screening, Brief Intervention, and Referral to Treatment (SBIRT), an early intervention strategy. This study evaluated a semester-long, 50-hour elective SBIRT training that blended online coursework with interprofessional experiences. Medicine, nursing, pharmacy, and social work students completed an interprofessional standardized patient experience and completed a minimum of two interprofessional SBIRT experiences at community agencies. Methods: We analyzed longitudinal data from 197 students using structural equation modeling to examine gains in knowledge and perceived competence, as well as to test if background variables predicted 30-day application of SBIRT knowledge and skills, 30-day satisfaction' 12-month frequencies of care for performing SBIRT; and number of SBIRT clients/patients served directly. Results: Overall, student SBIRT knowledge and perceived competence both increased by more than a standard deviation during the course. Students who experienced larger gains in perceived competence rated the course significantly higher in terms of relevance and usefulness and, in turn, served significantly more SBIRT clients/patients during the following year. We did not find evidence that intra-individual growth in knowledge impacted the degree to which students ultimately applied SBIRT components. Finally, students who had more previous training and experience related to substance abuse ultimately reported greater application of SBIRT knowledge and skills. Interprofessional differences included: At baseline, medicine students had significantly lower substance abuse education knowledge as compared to the other disciplines. Pharmacy and social work students were more likely to have had previous experience with motivational interviewing. Baseline perceived competence in applying SBIRT was higher in social work and nursing. Upon completion, pharmacy and medicine students had lower satisfaction with the course. Conclusions: These findings suggest that SBIRT courses can increase knowledge and perceived competence; moreover, student background characteristics, work settings, and experiences may have important effects on learning SBIRT.

A Cascade of Care for Alcohol Use Disorder: Using 2015-2018 National Survey on Drug Use and Health Data to Identify Gaps in Care

BACKGROUND

Although effective treatments exist, alcohol use disorder (AUD) is undertreated. We used a cascade of care framework to understand gaps in care between diagnosis and treatment for persons with AUD.

METHODS

Using 2015-2018 National Survey on Drug Use and Health data, we evaluated the following steps in the cascade of care: 1) prevalence of adults with AUD; 2) proportion of adults who utilized health care in the past 12 months; 3) were screened about alcohol use; 4) received a brief intervention about alcohol misuse; 5) received information about treatment for alcohol misuse; and 6) proportion of persons with AUD who received treatment. Analyses were stratified by AUD severity.

RESULTS

Of the 171,766 persons included in the sample, weighted prevalence of AUD was 7.9% (95% CI 7.7-8.0%). Persons with AUD utilized health care settings at similar rates as those without AUD. Cascades of care showed the majority of individuals with AUD utilized health care and were screened about alcohol use, but the percent who received the subsequent steps of care decreased substantially. For those with severe AUD, 83.5% (CI: 78.3%-88.7%) utilized health care in the past 12 months, 73.5% (CI: 68.1%-78.9%) were screened for alcohol use, 22.7% (CI: 19.4%-26.0%) received a brief intervention, 12.4% (CI: 10%-14.7%) received information about treatment, and 20.5% (CI: 18%-23.1%) were treated for AUD. The greatest decrease in the care continuum occurred from screening to brief intervention and referral to treatment. More persons with severe AUD received treatment than were referred, indicating other pathways to treatment outside of the healthcare system.

CONCLUSIONS

Persons with AUD utilize health care at high rates and are frequently screened about alcohol use, but few receive treatment. Health care settings-particularly primary care settings-represent a prime opportunity to implement pharmacologic treatment for AUD to improve outcomes in this high-risk population.

Discussing Drug Use With Health Care Providers Is Associated With Perceived Need and Receipt of Drug Treatment Among Adults in the United States: We Need to Talk

BACKGROUND

Drug treatment utilization is low despite a high public health burden of drug use disorders (DUDs). Engaging people at risk for DUDs across a broader range of health care settings may improve uptake of drug treatment.

OBJECTIVES

To estimate the prevalence of drug use screening/discussions between health care providers and individuals with past-year drug use, and to assess the associations between drug use screening/discussions and perceived need and use of drug treatment.

METHODS

We analyzed representative cross-sectional data from the 2015 to 2017 National Surveys on Drug Use and Health. The sample included adults aged 18 years and above reporting past-year drug use and ≥1 health care visit. We measured correlates of drug use screening/discussions using multinomial logistic regression. Overall and among adults meeting DUD criteria, we used logistic regression to estimate associations between drug use screening/discussions and (1) past-year drug treatment and (2) perceived need for treatment.

RESULTS

In the full sample (n=21,505), 34.50% reported no screening/discussions, 44.50% reported screening only, and 21.00% reported discussions with providers. Discussions were associated with significantly higher odds of receiving any drug treatment [adjusted odds ratio (aOR)=3.52 (2.66-4.65)], specialty drug treatment [aOR=4.13 (2.92-5.82)], and perceived treatment need [aOR=2.08 (1.21-3.59)]. Among people with DUD (n=3,834; 15.69%), discussions were associated with treatment use, but not with perceived need.

CONCLUSIONS

Discussing drug use with providers may impact people's perceptions of drug treatment need and use, indicating potential opportunities to engage people in addiction treatment. Addressing barriers to discussing drug use across care settings could increase treatment use, particularly among people with DUD.

Documented brief intervention associated with reduced linkage to specialty addictions treatment in a national sample of VA patients with unhealthy alcohol use with and without alcohol use disorders

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Alcohol screening, brief intervention (BI) and referral to treatment is often considered stepped care, such that BI with referral links patients to treatment. A meta-analysis of randomized trials found no evidence that BI increases treatment for alcohol use disorder (AUD). This study aimed to determine whether BI is associated with receipt of treatment for AUD among patients receiving BI as part of routine care.

DESIGN

Regression analysis.

SETTING

US Veterans Health Administration (VA), in which BI is supported by performance measurement and electronic clinical reminders.

PARTICIPANTS

VA outpatients with positive Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test Consumption screens (≥ 5) (n = 830,825) documented nationally from 1 October 2009 to 30 May 2013.

MEASUREMENTS

Regression models estimated the prevalence of receiving VA specialty addictions treatment within 0-365 days for patients with documented BI (advice to reduce/abstain within 0-14 days) compared to those without. Models clustered on patient and adjusted for demographics and mental health and substance use conditions were fit among all patients and stratified across documented past-year AUD diagnosis. Multiple secondary analyses assessed robustness of findings, including assessing repeated BI as a predictor.

FINDINGS

Among 830,825 VA outpatients with unhealthy alcohol use (1,172,606 positive screens), documented BI was associated with lower likelihood of receiving VA specialty addictions treatment [adjusted incidence rate ratio (aIRR) = 0.84, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.83-0.84]. Associations were similar for those with and without AUD (aIRR = 0.83, 95% CI = 0.82-0.84 and aIRR = 0.86, 95% CI = 0.83-0.88, respectively) and in most secondary analyses. However, among patients without AUD, documentation of more than one BI was associated with greater likelihood of treatment relative to no BI (aIRR = 1.75, 95% CI = 1.68-1.83).

CONCLUSIONS

In a national sample of US Veterans Health Administration patients with unhealthy alcohol use, documented brief intervention for alcohol use was associated with lower likelihood of receiving specialty addictions treatment regardless of alcohol use disorder diagnosis.