Mid and long-term effects of a SBIRT program for at-risk drinkers attending to an emergency department. Follow-up results from a randomized controlled trial

Another Round: Influence of Alcohol-Related Conditions and Other Drug Use-Related Disorders in Emergency Department Frequent Use - A Single-Site Matched Case-Control Study in Spain

INTRODUCTION

Patients who make 5 or more visits per year to hospital emergency departments (EDs) are usually considered ED frequent users (FUs). This study aims to better characterize the influence of alcohol and other drug use-related disorders in this phenomenon in a European Mediterranean country with public, universal, tax-financed healthcare system.

METHODS

Matched case-control study. Cases were adults between 18 and 65 years old who consulted 5 or more times the ED of a tertiary hospital in Spain between December 2018 and November 2019. Each case was assigned a control of the same age and gender, who appeared to the ED on the same day, but who made 4 visits or less to the service during the study period. The electronic record of the first ED visit during this period was used to extract the variables of interest: emergency care received, clinical and social characteristics. Predictors of frequent ED use were identified with conditional logistic regression.

RESULTS

609 case-control pairs (total n = 1,218) were selected. History of alcohol-related conditions (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] = 1.82 [95% CI: 1.26-2.64] p = 0.001) and also other drug use-related disorders (AOR = 1.50 [95% CI: 1.11-2.03] p = 0.009) significantly increased the probability of frequent use of emergency services.

DISCUSSION/CONCLUSION

Alcohol-related conditions and other drug use-related disorders must be evaluated in all ED FUs. Specific action protocols to concurrently address repeated attendance and addictions in the emergency room could be a good tool to reduce frequent ED use.

Facilitators and barriers for implementing screening brief intervention and referral for health promotion in a rural hospital in Alberta: using consolidated framework for implementation research

BACKGROUND

Screening, brief intervention, and referral (SBIR) is an evidence-based, comprehensive health promotion approach commonly implemented to reduce alcohol and substance use. Implementation research on SBIR demonstrate that patients find it acceptable, reduces hospital costs, and it is effective. However, SBIR implementation in hospital settings for multiple risk factors (fruit and vegetable consumption, physical activity, alcohol and tobacco use) is still emergent. More evidence is needed to guide SBIR implementation for multiple risk factors in hospital settings.

OBJECTIVE

To explore the facilitators and barriers of SBIR implementation in a rural hospital using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR).

METHODS

We conducted a descriptive qualitative investigation consisting of both inductive and deductive analyses. We conducted virtual, semi-structured interviews, guided by the CFIR framework. All interviews were audio-recorded, and transcribed verbatim. NVivo 12 Pro was used to organize and code the raw data.

RESULTS

A total of six key informant semi-structured interviews, ranging from 45 to 60 min, were carried out with members of the implementation support team and clinical implementers. Implementation support members reported that collaborating with health departments facilitated SBIR implementation by helping (a) align health promotion risk factors with existing guidelines; (b) develop training and educational resources for clinicians and patients; and (c) foster leadership buy-in. Conversely, clinical implementers reported several barriers to SBIR implementation including, increased and disrupted workflow due to SBIR-related documentation, a lack of knowledge on patients' readiness and motivation to change, as well as perceived patient stigma in relation to SBIR risk factors.

CONCLUSION

The CFIR provided a comprehensive framework to gauge facilitators and barriers relating to SBIR implementation. Our pilot investigation revealed that future SBIR implementation must address organizational, clinical implementer, and patient readiness to implement SBIR at all phases of the implementation process in a hospital.

A conceptual analysis of SBIRT implementation alongside the continuum of PrEP awareness: domains of fit and feasibility

Screening, Brief Intervention, and Referral to Treatment (SBIRT) is a supplementary intervention that can be incorporated into the Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis (PrEP) Care Continuum, complementing initiatives and endeavors focused on Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) prevention in clinical care and community-based work. Referencing the Transtheoretical Model of Change and the PrEP Awareness Continuum, this conceptual analysis highlights how SBIRT amplifies ongoing HIV prevention initiatives and presents a distinct chance to address identified gaps. SBIRT's mechanisms show promise of fit and feasibility through (a) implementing universal Screening (S), (b) administering a Brief Intervention (BI) grounded in motivational interviewing aimed at assisting individuals in recognizing the significance of PrEP in their lives, (c) providing an affirming and supportive Referral to Treatment (RT) to access clinical PrEP care, and (d) employing client-centered and destigmatized approaches. SBIRT is uniquely positioned to help address the complex challenges facing PrEP awareness and initiation efforts. Adapting the SBIRT model to integrate and amplify HIV prevention efforts merits further examination.

Screening, brief intervention, and referral to treatment for tobacco consumption, alcohol misuse, and physical inactivity: an equity-informed rapid review

OBJECTIVE

This rapid review systematically synthesizes evidence of the effectiveness of the Screening, Brief Intervention, and Referral (SBIR/T) approach for tobacco use, alcohol misuse, and physical inactivity.

STUDY DESIGN

This was a rapid review.

METHODS

We searched primary studies between 2012 and 2022 in seven electronic databases. The search strategy used concepts related to alcohol-related disorders, intoxication, cigarette, nicotine, physical activity, exercise, sedentary, screening, therapy, and referral. We reviewed both title/abstract and full-text using a priori set inclusion and exclusion criteria to identify the eligible studies. We appraised study quality, extracted data, and summarized the characteristics of the included studies. We applied health equity lenses in the synthesis.

RESULTS

Of the 44 included studies, most focused on alcohol misuse. SBIR/T improved patients' attitudes toward alcohol behavior change, improved readiness and referral initiation for change, and effectively reduced alcohol consumption. Few studies pertained to smoking and physical inactivity. Most studies on smoking demonstrated effectiveness pertaining to patients' acceptance of referral recommendations, improved readiness and attempts to quitting smoking, and reduced or cessation of smoking. Findings were mixed about the effectiveness of SBIR/T in improving physical activity. Minimal studies exist on the impacts of SBIR/T for these three risk factors on healthcare resource use or costs. Studies considering diverse population characteristics in the design and effectiveness assessment of the SBIR/T intervention are lacking.

CONCLUSIONS

More research on the impacts of SBIR/T on tobacco use, alcohol misuse, and physical inactivity is required to inform the planning and delivery of SBIR/T for general and disadvantaged populations.

Motivational interviewing for substance use reduction

BACKGROUND

Substance use is a global issue, with around 30 to 35 million individuals estimated to have a substance-use disorder. Motivational interviewing (MI) is a client-centred method that aims to strengthen a person's motivation and commitment to a specific goal by exploring their reasons for change and resolving ambivalence, in an atmosphere of acceptance and compassion. This review updates the 2011 version by Smedslund and colleagues.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of motivational interviewing for substance use on the extent of substance use, readiness to change, and retention in treatment.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched 18 electronic databases, six websites, four mailing lists, and the reference lists of included studies and reviews. The last search dates were in February 2021 and November 2022.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials with individuals using drugs, alcohol, or both. Interventions were MI or motivational enhancement therapy (MET), delivered individually and face to face. Eligible control interventions were no intervention, treatment as usual, assessment and feedback, or other active intervention.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane, and assessed the certainty of evidence with GRADE. We conducted meta-analyses for the three outcomes (extent of substance use, readiness to change, retention in treatment) at four time points (post-intervention, short-, medium-, and long-term follow-up).

MAIN RESULTS

We included 93 studies with 22,776 participants. MI was delivered in one to nine sessions. Session durations varied, from as little as 10 minutes to as long as 148 minutes per session, across included studies. Study settings included inpatient and outpatient clinics, universities, army recruitment centres, veterans' health centres, and prisons. We judged 69 studies to be at high risk of bias in at least one domain and 24 studies to be at low or unclear risk. Comparing MI to no intervention revealed a small to moderate effect of MI in substance use post-intervention (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.48, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.07 to 0.89; I2 = 75%; 6 studies, 471 participants; low-certainty evidence). The effect was weaker at short-term follow-up (SMD 0.20, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.28; 19 studies, 3351 participants; very low-certainty evidence). This comparison revealed a difference in favour of MI at medium-term follow-up (SMD 0.12, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.20; 16 studies, 3137 participants; low-certainty evidence) and no difference at long-term follow-up (SMD 0.12, 95% CI -0.00 to 0.25; 9 studies, 1525 participants; very low-certainty evidence). There was no difference in readiness to change (SMD 0.05, 95% CI -0.11 to 0.22; 5 studies, 1495 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Retention in treatment was slightly higher with MI (SMD 0.26, 95% CI -0.00 to 0.52; 2 studies, 427 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Comparing MI to treatment as usual revealed a very small negative effect in substance use post-intervention (SMD -0.14, 95% CI -0.27 to -0.02; 5 studies, 976 participants; very low-certainty evidence). There was no difference at short-term follow-up (SMD 0.07, 95% CI -0.03 to 0.17; 14 studies, 3066 participants), a very small benefit of MI at medium-term follow-up (SMD 0.12, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.22; 9 studies, 1624 participants), and no difference at long-term follow-up (SMD 0.06, 95% CI -0.05 to 0.17; 8 studies, 1449 participants), all with low-certainty evidence. There was no difference in readiness to change (SMD 0.06, 95% CI -0.27 to 0.39; 2 studies, 150 participants) and retention in treatment (SMD -0.09, 95% CI -0.34 to 0.16; 5 studies, 1295 participants), both with very low-certainty evidence. Comparing MI to assessment and feedback revealed no difference in substance use at short-term follow-up (SMD 0.09, 95% CI -0.05 to 0.23; 7 studies, 854 participants; low-certainty evidence). A small benefit for MI was shown at medium-term (SMD 0.24, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.40; 6 studies, 688 participants) and long-term follow-up (SMD 0.24, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.41; 3 studies, 448 participants), both with moderate-certainty evidence. None of the studies in this comparison measured substance use at the post-intervention time point, readiness to change, and retention in treatment. Comparing MI to another active intervention revealed no difference in substance use at any follow-up time point, all with low-certainty evidence: post-intervention (SMD 0.07, 95% CI -0.15 to 0.29; 3 studies, 338 participants); short-term (SMD 0.05, 95% CI -0.03 to 0.13; 18 studies, 2795 participants); medium-term (SMD 0.08, 95% CI -0.01 to 0.17; 15 studies, 2352 participants); and long-term follow-up (SMD 0.03, 95% CI -0.07 to 0.13; 10 studies, 1908 participants). There was no difference in readiness to change (SMD 0.15, 95% CI -0.00 to 0.30; 5 studies, 988 participants; low-certainty evidence) and retention in treatment (SMD -0.04, 95% CI -0.23 to 0.14; 12 studies, 1945 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). We downgraded the certainty of evidence due to inconsistency, study limitations, publication bias, and imprecision.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Motivational interviewing may reduce substance use compared with no intervention up to a short follow-up period. MI probably reduces substance use slightly compared with assessment and feedback over medium- and long-term periods. MI may make little to no difference to substance use compared to treatment as usual and another active intervention. It is unclear if MI has an effect on readiness to change and retention in treatment. The studies included in this review were heterogeneous in many respects, including the characteristics of participants, substance(s) used, and interventions. Given the widespread use of MI and the many studies examining MI, it is very important that counsellors adhere to and report quality conditions so that only studies in which the intervention implemented was actually MI are included in evidence syntheses and systematic reviews. Overall, we have moderate to no confidence in the evidence, which forces us to be careful about our conclusions. Consequently, future studies are likely to change the findings and conclusions of this review.

Cross-analyzing addiction specialist and patient opinions and experiences about addictive disorder screening in primary care to identify interaction-related obstacles: a qualitative study

BACKGROUND

Promptly identifying individuals with addictive disorders reduces mortality and morbidity and improves quality of life. Although screening in primary care with the Screening, Brief Intervention and Referral Treatment strategy has been recommended since 2008, it remains underutilized. This may be due to barriers including lack of time, patient reluctance or perhaps the timing and approach for discussing addiction with their patients.

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to explore and cross-analyze patient and addiction specialist experiences and opinions about early addictive disorder screening in primary care to identify interaction-related screening obstacles.

DESIGN AND PARTICIPANTS

Qualitative study with purposive maximum variation sampling among nine addiction specialists and eight individuals with addiction disorders conducted between April 2017 and November 2019 in Val-de-Loire, France.

MAIN MEASURES

Using a grounded theory approach, verbatim data was collected from face-to-face interviews with addiction specialists and individuals with addiction disorders. These interviews explored their opinions and experiences with addiction screening in primary care. Initially, two independent investigators analyzed the coded verbatim according to the data triangulation principle. Secondly, convergences and divergences between addiction specialist and addict verbatim categories were identified, analyzed, and conceptualized.

KEY RESULTS

Four main interaction-related obstacles to early addictive disorder screening in primary care were identified and conceptualized: the new concepts of shared self-censorship and the patient's personal red line, issues not addressed during consultations, and opposition between how physicians and patients would like to approach addictive disorder screening.

CONCLUSIONS

To continue analysis of addictive disorder screening dynamics, further studies to examine the perspectives of all those involved in primary care are required. The information revealed from these studies will provide ideas to help patients and caregivers start discussing addiction and to help implement a collaborative team-based care approach.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This study is registered with the Commission Nationale de l'Informatique et des Libertés (CNIL) under No. 2017-093.