Results of a statewide survey of adolescent substance use screening rates and practices in primary care

Adolescent behavioural risk screening in primary care: physician's point of view

BACKGROUND

Despite regular consultation between adolescents/young adults (AYA) and their physicians, they are not regularly screened for psychosocial risk behaviours. This study examines physicians' self-reported psychosocial risk behaviour screening in AYA. It aims to highlight which elements hinder or improve screening abilities.

METHODOLOGY

The design was a cross-sectional quantitative survey. Data were obtained through a self-reported questionnaire sent out to primary care physicians (PCP) in Switzerland in 2018. The target population consisted of 1,824 PCP (29% response rate). Participants were asked whether they screened youths from 3 age groups [10-14 y/o, 15-20 y/o, and 21-25y/o] for the HEEADSSS items during child well visits and routine checkups. Barriers to screening included primary consultation motive prioritization, insufficient time, patient compliance, reimbursement, lack of skills related to adolescent health, lack of referral options. Data were analysed first through a bivariate analysis using Chi-square tests then through a multinomial logistic regression.

RESULTS

The majority of physicians partook in preventive screening for 3-5 psychosocial risk elements. They reported the primary consultation motive as well as a lack of available time as having a high impact on their screening habits. Physician's experience and having discussed confidentiality were related to an increase in the number of topics addressed. Confidentiality remained a significant variable throughout all analyses.

CONCLUSION

Barriers such as lack of consultation time and prioritization issues were found by physicians to be critical but did not hinder screening habits. The main element impacting screening habits was assuring confidentiality and the second is self-efficacy.

Computer-Facilitated Screening and Brief Intervention for Alcohol Use Risk in Adolescent Patients of Pediatric Primary Care Offices: Protocol for a Cluster Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

Alcohol and other substance use disorders usually begin with substance use in adolescence. Pediatric primary care offices, where most adolescents receive health care, are a promising venue for early identification of substance use and for brief intervention to prevent associated problems and the development of substance use disorder.

OBJECTIVE

This study tests the effects of a computer-facilitated screening and brief intervention (cSBI) system (the CRAFFT [Car, Relax, Alone, Forget, Family/Friends, Trouble] Interactive System [CRAFFT-IS]) on heavy episodic drinking, riding with a driver who is substance impaired, or driving while substance impaired among adolescents aged 14 to 17 years presenting for a well visit at pediatric primary care practices.

METHODS

We are conducting a cluster randomized controlled trial of the CRAFFT-IS versus usual care and recruiting up to 40 primary care clinicians at up to 20 pediatric primary care practices within the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) Pediatric Research in Office Settings network. Clinicians are randomized 1:1 within each practice to implement the CRAFFT-IS or usual care with a target sample size of 1300 adolescent patients aged 14 to 17 years. At study start, intervention clinicians complete web-based modules, trainer-led live sessions, and mock sessions to establish baseline competency with intervention counseling. Adolescents receive mailed recruitment materials that invite adolescents to complete an eligibility survey. Eligible and interested adolescents provide informed assent (parental permission requirement has been waived). Before their visit, enrolled adolescents seeing intervention clinicians complete a self-administered web-based CRAFFT screening questionnaire and view brief psychoeducational content illustrating substance use-associated health risks. During the visit, intervention clinicians access a computerized summary of the patient's screening results and a tailored counseling script to deliver a motivational interviewing-based brief intervention. All participants complete previsit, postvisit, and 12-month follow-up study assessments. Primary outcomes include past 90-day heavy episodic drinking and riding with a driver who is substance impaired at 3-, 6-, 9-, and 12-month follow-ups. Multiple logistic regression modeling with generalized estimating equations and mixed effects modeling will be used in outcomes analyses. Exploratory aims include examining other substance use outcomes (eg, cannabis and nicotine vaping), potential mediators of intervention effect (eg, self-efficacy not to drink), and effect moderation by baseline risk level and sociodemographic characteristics.

RESULTS

The AAP Institutional Review Board approved this study. The first practice and clinicians were enrolled in August 2022; as of July 2023, a total of 6 practices (23 clinicians) had enrolled. Recruitment is expected to continue until late 2024 or early 2025. Data collection will be completed in 2025 or 2026.

CONCLUSIONS

Findings from this study will inform the promotion of high-quality screening and brief intervention efforts in pediatric primary care with the aim of reducing alcohol-related morbidity and mortality during adolescence and beyond.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04450966; https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT04450966.

INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID)

DERR1-10.2196/55039.

Substance Use Screening, Brief Intervention, and Referral to Treatment in Pediatric Primary Care, School-Based Health Clinics, and Mental Health Clinics

Adolescent cannabis use is a modifiable health behavior with potential adverse developmental, cognitive, psychological, and health effects. Over the last 2 decades, work to promote implementation of screening, brief intervention, and referral to treatment has improved screening, use of validated screening tools, and preventive messaging. Current intervention strategies for cannabis use are associated with modest, short-term effects, and referral to treatment is limited by availability of resources for adolescent substance use. This article provides an update on the evidence base for screening, brief intervention, referral to treatment, and the current state of implementation focused on management of cannabis use disorder.

Substance Use Screening, Brief Intervention, and Referral to Treatment in Pediatric Primary Care, School-Based Health Clinics, and Mental Health Clinics

Adolescent cannabis use is a modifiable health behavior with potential adverse developmental, cognitive, psychological, and health effects. Over the last 2 decades, work to promote implementation of screening, brief intervention, and referral to treatment has improved screening, use of validated screening tools, and preventive messaging. Current intervention strategies for cannabis use are associated with modest, short-term effects, and referral to treatment is limited by availability of resources for adolescent substance use. This article provides an update on the evidence base for screening, brief intervention, referral to treatment, and the current state of implementation focused on management of cannabis use disorder.

Attitudes and training related to substance use in pediatric emergency departments

Background

In recent years, pediatric emergency departments (PED) have seen an increase in presentations related to substance use among their adolescent patient population. We aimed to examine pediatric emergency medicine (PEM) physicians’ knowledge, attitudes, and beliefs on caring for adolescents with substance use.

Methods

We conducted a cross-sectional online survey of PEM physicians through the American Academy of Pediatrics Pediatric Emergency Medicine Collaborative Research Committee (PEM-CRC) listserv. The 41-item survey contained the following domains: demographics, current protocols and education for managing adolescent substance use, and attitudes about treatment of substance use. We calculated descriptive statistics for each variable within the domains.

Results

Of 177 respondents (38.2% response rate), 55.4% were female, 45.2% aged ≥ 50 years, 78% worked in a children’s hospital, and 50.8% had > 15 years clinical practice. Overall, 77.8% reported caring for adolescents with a chief complaint related to non-opioid substance use and 26.0% opioid use at least once a month. Most (80.9%) reported feeling comfortable treating major medical complications of substance use, while less than half were comfortable treating withdrawal symptoms. 73% said that they were not interested in prescribing buprenorphine.

Conclusions

Among this national sample of PEM physicians, 3 of 4 physicians managed substance-related visits monthly, but 52% lacked comfort in managing withdrawal symptoms and 73.1% were not interested in prescribing buprenorphine. Almost all PEM physician identified substance use-related education is important but lacked access to faculty expertise or educational content. Expanded access to education and training for PEM physicians related to substance use is needed.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13722-022-00339-w.

Addressing adolescent substance use in an urban pediatric federally qualified health center

OBJECTIVE

Screening, brief intervention, and referral to treatment (SBIRT) is a systematic approach to identification and intervention for individuals at risk for substance use disorders. Prior research indicates that SBIRT is underutilized in pediatric primary care. Yet few studies have examined procedures for identifying and addressing substance use in clinics that serve publicly insured adolescents (i.e., federally qualified health centers [FQHC]). This descriptive, multi-method study assessed adolescent substance use frequency and provider perspectives to inform SBIRT implementation in an urban pediatric FQHC in California.

METHODS

A medical record review assessed substance use frequency and correlates among publicly insured adolescents aged 12-17 years who completed a well-child visit in pediatric primary care between 2014 and 2017 (N = 2252). Data on substance use (i.e., alcohol, illicit drugs, and tobacco) were from a health assessment tool mandated by Medicaid. Semi-structured interviews with 12 providers (i.e., pediatricians, nurse practitioners, behavioral health clinicians) elicited information about the current clinic workflow for adolescent substance use and barriers and facilitators to SBIRT implementation.

RESULTS

Of 1588 adolescents who completed the assessment (70.5%), 6.8% reported current substance use. Self-reported use was highest among non-Hispanic Black (15.2%) adolescents and those with co-occurring depressive symptoms (14.4%). Provider-reported challenges to implementing SBIRT included a lack of space for confidential screening and a lack of referral options. Providers favored implementing technology-based tools such as tablets for adolescent pre-visit screening and electronic medical record-based decision support to facilitate brief intervention and treatment referrals.

CONCLUSIONS

This study fills a substantial research gap by examining factors that impede and support SBIRT implementation in pediatric FQHC settings. Successful SBIRT implementation in these settings could significantly reduce the unmet need for substance use treatment among uninsured and publicly insured adolescents. Pediatric primary care and urgent care providers perceived SBIRT to be feasible, and health information and digital technologies may facilitate the integration of SBIRT into clinic workflows. Ensuring confidentiality for screening and expanding referral options for adolescents in need of community-based addiction treatment are also critical to increasing SBIRT uptake.

Development and validation of a prediction model for opioid use disorder among youth

BACKGROUND

Youth are vulnerable to opioid use initiation and its complications. With growing rates of opioid overdose, strategies to identify youth at risk of opioid use disorder (OUD) to efficiently focus prevention interventions are needed. This study developed and validated a prediction model of OUD in youth aged 14-18 years.

METHODS

The model was developed in a Colorado healthcare system (derivation site) using Cox proportional hazards regression analysis. Model predictors and outcomes were identified using electronic health record data. The model was externally validated in a separate Denver safety net health system (validation site). Youth were followed for up to 3.5 years. We evaluated internal and external validity using discrimination and calibration.

RESULTS

The derivation cohort included 76,603 youth, of whom 108 developed an OUD diagnosis. The model contained 3 predictors (smoking status, mental health diagnosis, and non-opioid substance use or disorder) and demonstrated good calibration (p = 0.90) and discrimination (bootstrap-corrected C-statistic = 0.76: 95 % CI = 0.70, 0.82). Sensitivity and specificity were 57 % and 84 % respectively with a positive predictive value (PPV) of 0.49 %. The validation cohort included 45,790 youth of whom, 74 developed an OUD diagnoses. The model demonstrated poorer calibration (p < 0.001) but good discrimination (C-statistic = 0.89; 95 % CI = 0.84, 0.95), sensitivity of 87.8 % specificity of 68.6 %, and PPV of 0.45 %.

CONCLUSIONS

In two Colorado healthcare systems, the prediction model identified 57-88 % of subsequent OUD diagnoses in youth. However, PPV < 1% suggests universal prevention strategies for opioid use in youth may be the best health system approach.

Family involvement in treatment and recovery for substance use disorders among transition-age youth: Research bedrocks and opportunities

This article presents a narrative review and conceptual framework for research on family involvement across the continuum of substance use disorder (SUD) services for transition-age youth (ages 15-26). Though families are powerful resources for enhancing treatment and recovery success among youth with SUDs, they are not routinely included in clinical practice. This article summarizes youth SUD prevalence and service utilization rates and presents developmental and empirical rationale for increasing family involvement in services. It then describes key research issues on family involvement across the SUD services continuum: Problem Identification, Treatment Engagement, Active Treatment, Recovery Support. Within each phase, it highlights bedrock research findings and suggests promising opportunities for advancing the scientific knowledge base on family involvement. The main goals are to endorse family-oriented practices for immediate adoption in routine care and identify areas of research innovation that could significantly enhance the quality of youth SUD services.

Adolescent SBIRT Practices Among Pediatricians in Massachusetts

OBJECTIVES

Adolescent Screening, Brief Intervention, and Referral to Treatment (SBIRT) in primary care is a key strategy to prevent, identify, and respond to substance use problems and disorders, including opioid and other drug addictions. Despite substantial investment in recent years to increase its implementation, few studies have reported on recent levels of SBIRT implementation among pediatricians. We aimed to assess self-reported use of the SBIRT framework with adolescent patients among Massachusetts pediatricians, and describe trends since an earlier survey.

METHODS

We analyzed responses to a cross-sectional survey mailed in 2017 to a representative sample of pediatricians in Massachusetts. We computed response frequencies for all SBIRT practice questions. We used the chi-square test to compare current data to data collected in 2014, as we found no demographic differences between the 2 samples.

RESULTS

Nearly all pediatricians in the 2017 sample (n = 160) reported annual screening of their adolescent patients (99%). The majority reported giving positive reinforcement (87%), brief advice (92%), counseling (90%), and referral to treatment (66%) in response to screen results. Compared with 2014, a significantly higher proportion of pediatricians in 2017 referred patients who screened positively for problematic alcohol use, but perceived barriers to screening and follow-up remain, such as insufficient time to screen and patient refusal to return.

CONCLUSIONS

Among respondents to a Massachusetts pediatrician survey, we found high rates of delivering SBIRT in accordance with published guidelines, though barriers remain. Whether the content of the counseling adheres to guidelines is unknown.

Far from acceptable: youth-reported risk behaviour screening by primary care physicians

BACKGROUND

Adolescence and early adulthood are periods of experimentation during which health detrimental behaviours might be acquired.

OBJECTIVE

This study's purpose is to evaluate physicians' likelihood of addressing health risk behaviours with youths depending on the youths' wishes, risk behaviours and personal characteristics.

METHODS

Data were drawn from the third wave (2017-18) of the GenerationFRee longitudinal study carried out on a sample of 1970 youths aged 17-26 in Switzerland. Analysed risk behaviours were: eating disorders, substance use, emotional wellbeing, problematic Internet use and gambling. Bivariate and multivariate analyses were performed, results are presented as adjusted odds ratios (aORs).

RESULTS

Physicians discussed most risk behaviours with less than half of the youths. The odds of addressing risk behaviours were seldom raised when the risk behaviour was present, or when the youth wished to discuss it. Emotional wellbeing was addressed with half as many males as females (aOR 0.47), and drugs were found to be addressed more frequently with youths reporting a low family socio-economic status (aOR 6.18). When a risk behaviour is addressed it is mostly alongside an extended screening.

CONCLUSIONS

This study confirmed the low levels of health risk behaviours screening, regardless of the youths' wish to discuss the topic with their physician. Despite the low levels, physicians do tend to screen systematically, especially when discussing substance use. There is a need to improve physicians training in risk behaviour screening and counselling in order to increase this practice.

Substance use service availability in HIV treatment programs: Data from the global IeDEA consortium, 2014-2015 and 2017

BACKGROUND

Substance use is common among people living with HIV and has been associated with suboptimal HIV treatment outcomes. Integrating substance use services into HIV care is a promising strategy to improve patient outcomes.

METHODS

We report on substance use education, screening, and referral practices from two surveys of HIV care and treatment sites participating in the International epidemiology Databases to Evaluate AIDS (IeDEA) consortium. HIV care and treatment sites participating in IeDEA are primarily public-sector health facilities and include both academic and community-based hospitals and health facilities. A total of 286 sites in 45 countries participated in the 2014-2015 survey and 237 sites in 44 countries participated in the 2017 survey. We compared changes over time for 147 sites that participated in both surveys.

RESULTS

In 2014-2015, most sites (75%) reported providing substance use-related education on-site (i.e., at the HIV clinic or the same health facility). Approximately half reported on-site screening for substance use (52%) or referrals for substance use treatment (51%). In 2017, the proportion of sites providing on-site substance use-related education, screening, or referrals increased by 9%, 16%, and 8%, respectively. In 2017, on-site substance use screening and referral were most commonly reported at sites serving only adults (compared to only children/adolescents or adults and children/adolescents; screening: 86%, 37%, and 59%, respectively; referral: 76%, 47%, and 46%, respectively) and at sites in high-income countries (compared to upper middle income, lower middle income or low-income countries; screening: 89%, 76%, 68%, and 45%, respectively; referral: 82%, 71%, 57%, and 34%, respectively).

CONCLUSION

Although there have been increases in the proportion of sites reporting substance use education, screening, and referral services across IeDEA sites, gaps persist in the integration of substance use services into HIV care, particularly in relation to screening and referral practices, with reduced availability for children/adolescents and those receiving care within resource-constrained settings.

Management of Opioid Misuse and Opioid Use Disorders Among Youth

In response to the growing impact of the current opioid public health crisis in the United States on adolescents and young adults, pediatricians have an expanding role in identifying opioid use early, preventing escalation of risky use, reducing opioid-related harms, and delivering effective therapies. Research and expert consensus suggest the use of brief interventions focused on reducing risks associated with ongoing opioid use and using motivational interviewing strategies to engage youth in treatment. Because fatal opioid overdose remains a major cause of opioid-related mortality among youth, delivering overdose education as part of any visit in which a youth endorses opioid use is one evidence-based strategy to decrease the burden of opioid-related mortality. For youth that are injecting opioids, safe injection practices and linkage to needle or syringe exchanges should be considered to reduce complications from injection drug use. It is crucial that youth be offered treatment at the time of diagnosis of an opioid use disorder (OUD), including medications, behavioral interventions, and/or referral to mutual support groups. The 2 medications commonly used for office-based OUD treatment in adolescents are extended-release naltrexone (opioid antagonist) and buprenorphine (partial opioid agonist), although there is a significant treatment gap in prescribing these medications to youth, especially adolescents <18 years of age. Addiction is a pediatric disease that pediatricians and adolescent medicine physicians are uniquely poised to manage, given their expertise in longitudinal, preventive, and family- and patient-centered care. Growing evidence supports the need for integration of OUD treatment into primary care.

Substance Use Screening, Brief Intervention, and Referral to Treatment in Pediatric Practice: A Quality Improvement Project in the Maryland Adolescent and Young Adult Health Collaborative Improvement and Innovation Network

The American Academy of Pediatrics recommends pediatric providers routinely screen for, assess, and treat substance use and substance use disorders among adolescents, a process called "Screening, Brief Intervention, and Referral to Treatment," or "SBIRT." Because there are limited data on how Maryland pediatric practices have adopted SBIRT, a quality improvement initiative was developed within the Maryland Adolescent and Young Adult Health Collaborative Improvement and Innovation Network using a "Plan/Do/Study/Act" approach. A 2-part provider training was conducted regarding screening and motivational interviewing, and the "CRAFFT" screening tool was integrated into the practice's electronic medical record. Results from evaluation demonstrated significant improvements in provider knowledge, attitudes, and screening behavior. The association between substance use and sexual behavior suggests a need for further expansion of this model with inclusion of sexual health screening. Overall, this study demonstrates that SBIRT implementation into a general pediatric practice is highly feasible, acceptable, and shows preliminary effectiveness.

A Comparison of Screening Practices for Adolescents in Primary Care After Implementation of Screening, Brief Intervention, and Referral to Treatment

PURPOSE

The American Academy of Pediatrics recommends screening adolescents for substance use at all well-child and appropriate acute-care visits. However, many pediatric practices aim for such screenings annually at well-child visits.

METHODS

As part of a larger study, 7 urban Federally Qualified Health Center clinics implemented universal screening for risky alcohol and drug use using the Car, Relax, Alone, Forget, Friends, Trouble (CRAFFT) screening tool. The present study compared uptake of screening and screening results at well-child versus acute-care visits.

RESULTS

Over a period of 13 months for which encounter-level electronic medical records data were available, there were 6,346 clinic visits by 3,475 unique patients aged 12-17 years, at which 76.6% (n = 4,865) of visits had a screening for problematic substance use conducted. Rates of screening were 95.1% (2,750/2,891 involving 2,629 unique adolescents) for well-child visits and 61.2% (2,115/3,455 involving 1,535 unique adolescents) for acute-care visits. Rates of positive screening results were 9.0% (248/2,750 involving 245 unique adolescents) for well-child visits and 7.8% (164/2,115 involving 126 unique adolescents) for acute-care visits. Of the 469 unique adolescents screened only during an acute-care visit during that same period, 40 unique adolescents had positive screening results for a positive screening rate of 8.5%.

CONCLUSIONS

Nearly 10% of adolescent patients screened only at acute-care visits would not have been screened if screening was implemented solely at well-child visits, and 40 adolescents reporting substance use would have been missed. The findings highlight the benefits of screening adolescents at every primary care visit to better detect and intervene in adolescents' substance use.

Effect of Computer-Based Substance Use Screening and Brief Behavioral Counseling vs Usual Care for Youths in Pediatric Primary Care: A Pilot Randomized Clinical Trial

IMPORTANCE

Annual preventive health visits provide an opportunity to screen youths for unhealthy substance use and intervene before serious harm results.

OBJECTIVES

To 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 PARTICIPANTS

An 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.

INTERVENTIONS

Patients 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 MEASURES

Feasibility 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.

RESULTS

Among 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 RELEVANCE

The 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 REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00227877.

Adaptation of the Drug and Drug Problems Perception Questionnaire to assess healthcare provider attitudes toward adolescent substance use

Although preventive screening, brief intervention and referral to treatment for adolescent substance use is recommended by the American Academy of Pediatrics, primary care providers inconsistently address substance use with their pediatric patients (AAP Committee on Practice and Ambulatory Medicine and AAP Bright Futures Periodicity Schedule Workgroup, 2017). Further research on provider perceptions about addressing adolescent substance use may help identify and address some barriers to screening. However, there are few validated measures of provider perceptions toward patient substance, and none are specific to pediatric patients. This study (conducted in Maryland, 2015-2017) examines the internal consistency and factor structure of an adapted measure to assess perceptions of adolescent substance use. Internal consistency was assessed using responses from a sample of 276 healthcare practitioners (87.7% women, 12.3% men). Their professions included the following: Certified Medical Assistants (10.9%), Registered Nurses (17.8%), Nurse Practitioners (8.3%), Physician Assistants (3.6%), Medical Doctors (13.8%), Clinical Therapists (10.9%) and Other (21.0%). A four-factor solution was identified and initial evidence suggests the adapted measure is appropriate for use with health care providers. A subsample of 181 participants who reported direct interaction with adolescent patients in a provider role was also used to assess convergent validity with self-reported screening practices and effectiveness. Provider-reported frequency of alcohol and drug use assessment for pediatric patients was significantly related to positive perceptions about adolescent substance use on all subscales. The adapted measure could prove useful for assessing provider readiness to receive adolescent substance use screening training and could be further adapted to include items unique to adolescent care, including parental involvement.

Barriers Faced by Physicians in Screening for Substance Use Disorders Among Adolescents

OBJECTIVE

This study identifies key barriers faced by primary care providers (PCP) in implementation of screening, brief intervention, and referral to treatment (SBIRT) services for substance use disorders among adolescents.

METHODS

The authors used mixed methods, including 12 key informant interviews and a survey with 75 PCPs, to identify key barriers to PCP implementation of SBIRT services.

RESULTS

Time constraints, challenges related to parental involvement, a perceived lack of effectiveness of brief intervention services, and lack of training in providing brief intervention were barriers to screening and brief intervention. Referral to treatment was frequently perceived as a challenge. Increased reimbursement and dedicated resources were important interventions for improving screening rates.

CONCLUSIONS

Increased reimbursement could support workflow enhancements to improve the consistency of SBIRT procedures and alleviate time constraints. Consistent SBIRT applications for all adolescents could also be supported by increasing PCP training in brief intervention.

Predictors of substance use treatment initiation and engagement among adult and adolescent Medicaid recipients

Background: It is important to understand patterns and predictors of initiation and engagement in treatment for Medicaid-covered individuals with substance use disorders because Medicaid is a major source of payment for addiction treatment in the United States. Our analysis examined similarities and differences in predictors between adults and adolescents. Methods: An analysis of Oregon Medicaid claims data for the time period January 2010 through June 2015 assessed rates of substance use and of treatment initiation and engagement using the Healthcare Effectiveness Data and Information Set (HEDIS) definitions. The analysis included individuals aged 13-64 with a new alcohol and other drug dependence diagnosis who met the HEDIS enrollment criteria and did not have cancer. We created 4 logistic regression models to assess treatment initiation and engagement, separately for adults (ages 18-64) and adolescents (ages 13-17). Independent predictors included age, gender, race, the interaction of gender and race, urban/rural residence, presence of any chronic disease, a psychiatric diagnosis, or a pain diagnosis. Results: Among adults, odds of initiation were lower in white males than in nonwhite males, white females, and nonwhite females. Conversely, among adolescents, odds of initiation were higher in white males than in the other gender/race groups. Predictors of initiation also went in opposite directions for presence of a psychiatric diagnosis (negative in adults, positive in adolescents) and urban residence (positive in adults, negative in adolescents). We found similar patterns in models of engagement, although for engagement those with a psychiatric diagnosis had lower odds of engagement in both adults and adolescents. Conclusions: Predictors of treatment initiation and engagement for alcohol and drug use disorders differed between adults and adolescents on Medicaid. A better understanding of these differences will enable development of targeted treatment programs that are effective within age groups.

Research Review: What have we learned about adolescent substance use?

BACKGROUND

Adolescence is a critical biological, psychological, and social developmental stage involving heightened risk for substance use and associated adverse consequences. This review, synthesizing emerging findings on this complex topic, is intended to inform research and clinical care focused on adolescents.

METHODS

Literature searches were conducted using PubMed, yielding a cross-section of observational and interventional studies focused on adolescent substance use. Findings were organized and categorized to cover key areas of epidemiology, neurobiology, prevention, and treatment.

FINDINGS

Adolescent substance-related attitudes and use patterns have evolved over time, informed by adult and peer behaviors, public policy, media messaging, substance availability, and other variables. A number of risk and resiliency factors contribute to individual differences in substance use and related consequences. Advances in observational techniques have provided enhanced understanding of adolescent brain development and its implications for substance use. Prevention efforts have yielded mixed results, and while a number of adolescent-targeted evidence-based treatments for substance use disorders have been developed, effect sizes are generally modest, indicating the need for further research to enhance prevention and treatment outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Substance use in adolescence is heterogeneous, ranging from normative to pathological, and can lead to significant acute and long-term morbidity and mortality. Understanding risk and resiliency factors, underlying neurobiology, and optimal developmentally sensitive interventions is critical in addressing substance-associated problems in adolescence.

Nonmedical Prescription Drug Use among Adolescents: Global Epidemiological Evidence for Prevention, Assessment, Diagnosis, and Treatment

Purpose of review

This paper reviews the most recent epidemiological evidence on adolescent NMPD use. Particular attention is given to prevention, assessment and diagnosis of disorder, and treatment.

Recent findings

While international in scope, global evidence is only available for NMPD use, morbidity and mortality estimates. Prevention strategies, assessment and treatment are U.S.-centric. The literature on prevention strategies lacks high-quality evidence. Assessment, diagnosis and treatment of NMPD use disorder have more robust evidence bases. Despite this, screening for NMPD (and other drug) use disorders is infrequent and insensitive, leading to incomplete treatment provision. Treatments are shown to be safe and effective, but disparities in provision prevent wide-scale amelioration of the adolescent NMPD use problem.

Summary

Mental health care professionals and primary care physicians with adolescent patient populations should become involved in preventative strategies mentioned in this review. Additionally, higher screening rates will lead to less downstream problems related to NMPD use.

Use of the 5 As for Teen Alcohol Use

Clinical guidelines recommend addressing adolescent alcohol use in primary care; the 5 As (Ask, Advise, Assess, Assist, Arrange) may be a useful model for intervention. We audio-recorded 540 visits with 49 physicians and adolescents, compared alcohol disclosure rates in the encounter with those in a survey, and analyzed conversations for use of the 5 As and their relation to adolescent reports of drinking 3 months after the encounter. When physicians asked clear, nonleading questions, drinkers were more likely to disclose alcohol use ( P = .004). In 64% of visits in which alcohol was discussed, physicians used one or more of the 5 As, most frequently "Ask." No physician used all 5 As. Among drinkers, there was no association between physicians' partial use of the 5 As and adolescent alcohol consumption at 3 months. Physicians can learn more effective ways to "Ask" about alcohol use to increase disclosure of drinking and to be more comprehensive in their counseling.

Adolescent substance use: Assessing the knowledge, attitudes, and practices of a school-based health center workforce

BACKGROUND

Recent attention has focused on the potential for school-based health centers (SBHCs) to provide access points for adolescent substance use care. In 2015, the University of New Mexico began screening, brief intervention, and referral to treatment (SBIRT) training for providers at New Mexico Department of Health (NMDOH)-funded SBHCs across the state. This study assesses baseline knowledge, attitudes, and practices of the New Mexico SBHC provider workforce regarding adolescent substance use and provision of services.

METHODS

In early 2015, the NMDOH administered an SBHC provider workforce survey (N = 118) and achieved a 44.9% response rate. This descriptive analysis includes all survey respondents who self-identified as a primary care or behavioral health provider in an SBHC serving middle or high school students (n = 52).

RESULTS

Among respondents, the majority (57.7%) were primary care providers, including nurse practitioners, physicians, and physician assistants. The remaining 42.3% of respondents were master's-level behavioral health providers. Only 44.2% of providers reported practicing the full SBIRT model at their SBHC, and 21.2% reported having received continuing education on SBIRT within the previous 3 years. Most respondents, 84.6%, agreed that it is the responsibility of SBHC providers to screen students for substance use using a standardized tool, and 96.2% agreed that it is the responsibility of the SBHC provider to assess for students' readiness to change. A majority reported self-efficacy in helping students achieve change in their alcohol use, illicit drug use, and prescription drug misuse: 73.1%, 65.4%, and 63.5%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

These results suggest that SBIRT training for New Mexico SBHC providers is timely. The authors identified gaps between recommended SBIRT practices and SBIRT delivery as well as discrepancies between reported provider self-efficacy and actual implementation of the SBIRT model. Further study will determine the effectiveness of efforts to address substance use and implement SBIRT in SBHCs.

Screening, Brief Intervention, and Referral to Treatment

Screening, Brief Intervention, and Referral to Treatment is a quick, effective technique with which to manage substance use in adolescents and young adults. Use of a validated measure for detecting substance use and abuse is significantly more effective than unvalidated tools or provider intuition. There are a variety of validated tools available to use in the adolescent/young adult population, and there are opportunities to increase the efficiency and scalability of screening by using computerized questionnaires. This area continues to evolve rapidly.

Talking about screening, brief intervention, and referral to treatment for adolescents: An upstream intervention to address the heroin and prescription opioid epidemic

Overdose deaths from heroin and prescription opioids have reached epidemic proportions in recent years. Deaths specifically involving heroin have more than tripled since 2011, and for the first time, drug overdose deaths have exceeded deaths resulting from motor vehicle accidents. This epidemic has been receiving attention among policymakers and the media which has resulted in efforts to provide training and education on prescribing practices, increase the use of naloxone, and expand the availability and use of Medication-Assisted Treatment (MAT). What is not being talked about is the relationship between early initiation of less harmful substances such as alcohol and marijuana and subsequent use of prescription opioids and heroin. Screening, Brief Intervention, and Referral to Treatment (SBIRT) is a model which shows promise for preventing initiation and reducing risky substance use among adolescents before it progresses to use of harder drugs such as heroin. Unfortunately, though recommended by the American Academy of Pediatrics, health care providers are not even screening their adolescent patients for substance use. The heroin and prescription opioid epidemic and the dissemination of information regarding federal, state, and local efforts to combat the epidemic provide a platform for increasing awareness of SBIRT, garnering support for more research, and facilitating uptake and integration into practice. It is time to add SBIRT to the conversation.

The future of screening, brief intervention and referral to treatment in adolescent primary care: research directions and dissemination challenges

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Screening, brief intervention and referral to treatment (SBIRT) offers a practical, integrated model for addressing substance use in primary care settings. This review provides an update of the research on SBIRT for adolescents in primary care, examines current dissemination challenges and suggests future research directions.

RECENT FINDINGS

A number of brief screening tools for adolescents have been developed and tested relative to Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition (DSM-5) substance use disorders. Computerized previsit screening promotes standardization and is a more time-efficient alternative to provider interview. The adolescent brief intervention literature is growing, particularly with respect to technology-based tools, but is still limited, with evidence greatest for alcohol, and for motivational enhancement therapy interventions. Increasing SBIRT implementation in pediatric primary care remains a challenge. Using nonphysician behavioral health providers to deliver SBIRT, and embedding a screener and decision support tool in electronic medical record systems are strategies being investigated to promote SBIRT implementation.

SUMMARY

Substance use begins in adolescence, and pediatric SBIRT could help to achieve a population-level reduction of substance use-related harms. With a growing number of available tools, adolescent SBIRT effectiveness and feasibility are increasing, but more studies are needed to grow its evidence base, and elucidate strategies to increase implementation.

Substance Use Screening, Brief Intervention, and Referral to Treatment

The enormous public health impact of adolescent substance use and its preventable morbidity and mortality highlight the need for the health care sector, including pediatricians and the medical home, to increase its capacity regarding adolescent substance use screening, brief intervention, and referral to treatment (SBIRT). The American Academy of Pediatrics first published a policy statement on SBIRT and adolescents in 2011 to introduce SBIRT concepts and terminology and to offer clinical guidance about available substance use screening tools and intervention procedures. This clinical report provides a simplified adolescent SBIRT clinical approach that, in combination with the accompanying updated policy statement, guides pediatricians in implementing substance use prevention, detection, assessment, and intervention practices across the varied clinical settings in which adolescents receive health care.

Substance Use Patterns Through Early Adulthood: Results for Youth With and Without Chronic Conditions

INTRODUCTION

Adolescence and emergent adulthood are periods of peak prevalence for substance use that pose risks for short- and long-term health harm, particularly for youth with chronic medical conditions (YCMC) who are transitioning from adolescence to adulthood. As there have been no nationally representative studies of substance use during this period for these medically vulnerable youth, the authors sought to examine onset and intensification of these behaviors for a national sample of youth with and without chronic conditions.

METHODS

Longitudinal data are from 2,719 youth between the ages of 12 and 26 years interviewed from 2002 to 2011 for the Panel Study of Income Dynamics, Child Development and Transition to Adulthood Supplements, a nationally representative, population-based survey. Multivariate generalized linear mixed models were used to estimate patterns of alcohol, tobacco, and marijuana use during adolescence and emergent adulthood for youth with and without chronic conditions, adjusting for potential confounders.

RESULTS

Overall, 68.8%, 44.3%, and 47.8% of youth reported ever trying alcohol, tobacco, and marijuana, respectively. Among users, 42.2%, 73.4%, and 50.3% of youth reported binge drinking, regular cigarette use, and recent marijuana use, respectively. YCMC were more likely to engage in any and heavier substance use; transition years and early adulthood were periods of peak risk for YCMC compared with their healthy peers.

CONCLUSIONS

Substance use among YCMC during adolescence and emergent adulthood is a substantial concern. Increased prevention and case detection are in order to address these behaviors and promote optimal health outcomes for medically vulnerable youth.

SBIRT-A: Adapting SBIRT to Maximize Developmental Fit for Adolescents in Primary Care

The Screening, Brief Intervention and Referral to Treatment (SBIRT) model is widely recommended as part of routine visits in pediatric primary care despite a dearth of evidence on its effectiveness, feasibility, and developmental appropriateness for adolescents in this setting. The purpose of this article is to explicate ways that SBIRT may be tailored to better serve adolescents in primary care under a set of recommended adaptations that we refer to collectively as SBIRT-A or Screening, Brief Intervention, and Referral to Treatment for Adolescents. Each component of the SBIRT-A framework incorporates recommendations to optimize developmental fit with adolescents based on extant empirical research, developmental theory, and well-documented barriers to service delivery in primary care. Commonalities across proposed adaptations include reliance upon proactive methods to identify and engage youth; innovation in service delivery aimed at improving the consistency and reach of interventions; and a family-focused approach to engagement, assessment, and intervention. Specific recommendations include taking advantage of every clinical encounter with the family to screen, involving caregivers in assessments and brief interventions, leveraging technology to administer brief interventions and booster sessions, and patient- and family-centered procedures for treatment referral and engagement. The adaptations proposed in this article have the potential to enhance the detection of adolescents with SU problems in primary care, the consistency of intervention provision, and engagement of this typically recalcitrant population into appropriate treatment.

Adolescent substance use screening in primary care: Validity of computer self-administered versus clinician-administered screening

BACKGROUND

Computer self-administration may help busy pediatricians' offices increase adolescent substance use screening rates efficiently and effectively, if proven to yield valid responses. The CRAFFT screening protocol for adolescents has demonstrated validity as an interview, but a computer self-entry approach needs validity testing. The aim of this study was to evaluate the criterion validity and time efficiency of a computerized adolescent substance use screening protocol implemented by self-administration or clinician-administration.

METHODS

Twelve- to 17-year-old patients coming for routine care at 3 primary care clinics completed the computerized screen by both self-administration and clinician-administration during their visit. To account for order effects, we randomly assigned participants to self-administer the screen either before or after seeing their clinician. Both were conducted using a tablet computer and included identical items (any past-12-month use of tobacco, alcohol, drugs; past-3-month frequency of each; and 6 CRAFFT items). The criterion measure for substance use was the Timeline Follow-Back, and for alcohol/drug use disorder, the Adolescent Diagnostic Interview, both conducted by confidential research assistant interview after the visit. Tobacco dependence risk was assessed with the self-administered Hooked on Nicotine Checklist (HONC). Analyses accounted for the multisite cluster sampling design.

RESULTS

Among 136 participants, mean age was 15.0 ± 1.5 years, 54% were girls, 53% were black or Hispanic, and 67% had ≥3 prior visits with their clinician. Twenty-seven percent reported any substance use (including tobacco) in the past 12 months, 7% met criteria for an alcohol or cannabis use disorder, and 4% were HONC positive. Sensitivity/specificity of the screener were high for detecting past-12-month use or disorder and did not differ between computer and clinician. Mean completion time was 49 seconds (95% confidence interval [CI]: 44-54) for computer and 74 seconds (95% CI: 68-87) for clinician (paired comparison, P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

Substance use screening by computer self-entry is a valid and time-efficient alternative to clinician-administered screening.

Adolescent substance use screening in primary care: Validity of computer self-administered versus clinician-administered screening

BACKGROUND

Computer self-administration may help busy pediatricians' offices increase adolescent substance use screening rates efficiently and effectively, if proven to yield valid responses. The CRAFFT screening protocol for adolescents has demonstrated validity as an interview, but a computer self-entry approach needs validity testing. The aim of this study was to evaluate the criterion validity and time efficiency of a computerized adolescent substance use screening protocol implemented by self-administration or clinician-administration.

METHODS

Twelve- to 17-year-old patients coming for routine care at 3 primary care clinics completed the computerized screen by both self-administration and clinician-administration during their visit. To account for order effects, we randomly assigned participants to self-administer the screen either before or after seeing their clinician. Both were conducted using a tablet computer and included identical items (any past-12-month use of tobacco, alcohol, drugs; past-3-month frequency of each; and 6 CRAFFT items). The criterion measure for substance use was the Timeline Follow-Back, and for alcohol/drug use disorder, the Adolescent Diagnostic Interview, both conducted by confidential research assistant interview after the visit. Tobacco dependence risk was assessed with the self-administered Hooked on Nicotine Checklist (HONC). Analyses accounted for the multisite cluster sampling design.

RESULTS

Among 136 participants, mean age was 15.0 ± 1.5 years, 54% were girls, 53% were black or Hispanic, and 67% had ≥3 prior visits with their clinician. Twenty-seven percent reported any substance use (including tobacco) in the past 12 months, 7% met criteria for an alcohol or cannabis use disorder, and 4% were HONC positive. Sensitivity/specificity of the screener were high for detecting past-12-month use or disorder and did not differ between computer and clinician. Mean completion time was 49 seconds (95% confidence interval [CI]: 44-54) for computer and 74 seconds (95% CI: 68-87) for clinician (paired comparison, P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

Substance use screening by computer self-entry is a valid and time-efficient alternative to clinician-administered screening.

Substance abuse screening and brief intervention for adolescents in primary care

Adolescent substance use is common and is associated with serious mental, physical, and social risks, warranting systematic screening in the primary care setting. It is important for clinicians to become familiar with Screening, Brief Intervention, and Referral to Treatment (SBIRT), including administration of validated screening tools to identify level of risk associated with substance use and application of appropriate brief interventions. Positive reinforcement and brief advice is indicated for those adolescents with no or minimal risk for a substance use disorder. Providing a brief intervention using motivational interviewing strategies with subsequent close clinical follow-up is warranted when an adolescent meets criteria for a mild to moderate substance use disorder. Referral to treatment is recommended in cases of severe substance use. Immediate action, including breaking confidentiality, may be necessary when an adolescent's behavior raises acute safety concerns. Making time to interview adolescents alone is essential. It is also important to review the limitations of confidentiality with patients and parents/guardians and offer them strategies to discuss sensitive issues with their adolescents. Available resources for adolescents, parents/guardians, and clinicians regarding the risks of adolescent substance use and evidence-based treatment options can be used to support implementation of SBIRT in adolescent primary care.

An electronic screen for triaging adolescent substance use by risk levels

IMPORTANCE

Screening adolescents for substance use and intervening immediately can reduce the burden of addiction and substance-related morbidity. Several screening tools have been developed to identify problem substance use for adolescents, but none have been calibrated to triage adolescents into clinically relevant risk categories to guide interventions.

OBJECTIVE

To describe the psychometric properties of an electronic screen and brief assessment tool that triages adolescents into 4 actionable categories regarding their experience with nontobacco substance use.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

Adolescent patients (age range, 12-17 years) arriving for routine medical care at 2 outpatient primary care centers and 1 outpatient center for substance use treatment at a pediatric hospital completed an electronic screening tool from June 1, 2012, through March 31, 2013, that consisted of a question on the frequency of using 8 types of drugs in the past year (Screening to Brief Intervention). Additional questions assessed severity of any past-year substance use. Patients completed a structured diagnostic interview (Composite International Diagnostic Interview-Substance Abuse Module), yielding Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (Fifth Edition) substance use diagnoses.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

For the entire screen and the Screening to Brief Intervention, sensitivity and specificity for identifying nontobacco substance use, substance use disorders, severe substance use disorders, and tobacco dependence were calculated using the Composite International Diagnostic Interview-Substance Abuse Module as the criterion standard.

RESULTS

Of 340 patients invited to participate, 216 (63.5%) enrolled in the study. Sensitivity and specificity were 100% and 84% (95% CI, 76%-89%) for identifying nontobacco substance use, 90% (95% CI, 77%-96%) and 94% (95% CI, 89%-96%) for substance use disorders, 100% and 94% (95% CI, 90%-96%) for severe substance use disorders, and 75% (95% CI, 52%-89%) and 98% (95% CI, 95%-100%) for nicotine dependence. No significant differences were found in sensitivity or specificity between the full tool and the Screening to Brief Intervention.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

A single screening question assessing past-year frequency use for 8 commonly misused categories of substances appears to be a valid method for discriminating among clinically relevant risk categories of adolescent substance use.