Computer-Facilitated Substance Use Screening and Brief Advice for Teens in Primary Care: An International Trial
ABSTRACT Primary care providers need effective strategies for substance use screening and brief counseling of adolescents. We examined the effects of a new computer-facilitated screening and provider brief advice (cSBA) system.
We used a quasi-experimental, asynchronous study design in which each site served as its own control. From 2005 to 2008, 12- to 18-year-olds arriving for routine care at 9 medical offices in New England (n = 2096, 58% females) and 10 in Prague, Czech Republic (n = 589, 47% females) were recruited. Patients completed measurements only during the initial treatment-as-usual study phase. We then conducted 1-hour provider training, and initiated the cSBA phase. Before seeing the provider, all cSBA participants completed a computerized screen, and then viewed screening results, scientific information, and true-life stories illustrating substance use harms. Providers received screening results and "talking points" designed to prompt 2 to 3 minutes of brief advice. We examined alcohol and cannabis use, initiation, and cessation rates over the past 90 days at 3-month follow-up, and over the past 12 months at 12-month follow-up.
Compared with treatment as usual, cSBA patients reported less alcohol use at follow-up in New England (3-month rates 15.5% vs 22.9%, adjusted relative risk ratio [aRRR] = 0.54, 95% confidence interval 0.38-0.77; 12-month rates 29.3% vs 37.5%, aRRR = 0.73, 0.57-0.92), and less cannabis use in Prague (3-month rates 5.5% vs 9.8%, aRRR = 0.37, 0.17-0.77; 12-month rates 17.0% vs 28.7%, aRRR = 0.47, 0.32-0.71).
Computer-facilitated screening and provider brief advice appears promising for reducing substance use among adolescent primary care patients.
Full-textDOI: · Available from: Ladislav Csemy, Sep 23, 2014
SourceAvailable from: Pierluigi Struzzo[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Alcohol-related health problems are important public health issues and alcohol remains one of the leading risk factors of chronic health conditions. In addition, only a small proportion of those who need treatment access it, with figures ranging from 1 in 25 to 1 in 7. In this context, screening and brief interventions (SBI) have proven to be effective in reducing alcohol consumption and alcohol-related problems in primary health care (PHC) and are very cost effective, or even cost-saving, in PHC. Even if the widespread implementation of SBI has been prioritized and encouraged by the World Health Organization, in the global alcohol strategy, the evidence on long term and population-level effects is still weak. This review study will summarize the SBI programs implemented by six European countries with different socio-economic contexts. Similar components at health professional level but differences at organizational level, especially on the measures to support clinical practice, incentives, and monitoring systems developed were adopted. In Italy, cost-effectiveness analyses and Internet trials shed new light on limits and facilitators of renewed, evidence-based approaches to better deal with brief intervention in PHC. The majority of the efforts were aimed at overcoming individual barriers and promoting health professionals' involvement. The population screened has been in general too low to be able to detect any population-level effect, with a negative impact on the acceptability of the program to all stakeholders. This paper will present a different point of view based on a strategic broadening of the implemented actions to real inter-sectoriality and a wider holistic approach. Effective alcohol policies should strive for quality provision of health services and the empowerment of the individuals in a health system approach.Frontiers in Psychiatry 11/2014; 5:161. DOI:10.3389/fpsyt.2014.00161
Journal of Adolescent Health 03/2015; 56(3):257-8. DOI:10.1016/j.jadohealth.2014.12.012 · 2.75 Impact Factor
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:Brief interventions delivered by family physicians to address excessive alcohol use among adult patients are effective. We conducted a study to determine whether such an intervention would be similarly effective in reducing binge drinking and excessive cannabis use among young people. METHODS:We conducted a cluster randomized controlled trial involving 33 family physicians in Switzerland. Physicians in the intervention group received training in delivering a brief intervention to young people during the consultation in addition to usual care. Physicians in the control group delivered usual care only. Consecutive patients aged 15-24 years were recruited from each practice and, before the consultation, completed a confidential questionnaire about their general health and substance use. Patients were followed up at 3, 6 and 12 months after the consultation. The primary outcome measure was self-reported excessive substance use (≥ 1 episode of binge drinking, or ≥ 1 joint of cannabis per week, or both) in the past 30 days. RESULTS:Of the 33 participating physicians, 17 were randomly allocated to the intervention group and 16 to the control group. Of the 594 participating patients, 279 (47.0%) identified themselves as binge drinkers or excessive cannabis users, or both, at baseline. Excessive substance use did not differ significantly between patients whose physicians were in the intervention group and those whose physicians were in the control group at any of the follow-up points (odds ratio [OR] and 95% confidence interval [CI] at 3 months: 0.9 [0.6-1.4]; at 6 mo: 1.0 [0.6-1.6]; and at 12 mo: 1.1 [0.7-1.8]). The differences between groups were also nonsignificant after we re stricted the analysis to patients who reported excessive substance use at baseline (OR 1.6, 95% CI 0.9-2.8, at 3 mo; OR 1.7, 95% CI 0.9-3.2, at 6 mo; and OR 1.9, 95% CI 0.9-4.0, at 12 mo). INTERPRETATION:Training family physicians to use a brief intervention to address excessive substance use among young people was not effective in reducing binge drinking and excessive cannabis use in this patient population. Trial registration: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, no. ACTRN12608000432314.Canadian Medical Association Journal 03/2014; 186(8). DOI:10.1503/cmaj.131301 · 5.81 Impact Factor