Screening and brief intervention in high schools: School nurses' practices and attitudes in Massachusetts.

BACKGROUND: Screening, brief intervention, and referral to treatment (SBIRT) is recommended as a strategy to prevent or reduce adolescent substance use. Offering SBIRT in schools may provide an opportunity to reach adolescents not accessing primary care. The objective is to assess school nurses' attitudes and practices regarding adolescent SBIRT. METHODS: The authors administered electronically and in person a questionnaire including 29 items on SBIRT attitudes and practices to school nurses registered for the Northeastern University's School Health Institute Summer Program in Massachusetts (N = 168). Survey questions were adapted from a questionnaire originally developed by the American Academy of Pediatrics. RESULTS: One hundred and forty-four nurses completed the survey for a response rate of 85.7%. More than three quarters of the respondents (77.0%) were in favor of universal alcohol screening in schools. None of the respondents reported screening their students on a regular basis. More than half (64.4%) of nurses reported screening students; however, they did so only when they suspected alcohol use. During these instances, only 17.9% used a validated screening tool and almost all (98.2%) used face-to-face clinical interviews. When addressing alcohol use by a student, the large majority of respondents reported including the following recommended clinical strategies: asking about problems related to alcohol use (56.3%), explaining the harms of alcohol use (70.1%), and advising abstinence (73.6%). On average, respondents spend 5 to 10 minutes discussing alcohol use with their students. CONCLUSION: Survey respondents were supportive of universal alcohol screening in school, although few were doing so at the time. When respondents identified students using alcohol, their interventions were closely aligned with clinical recommendations for brief intervention. Implementation of SBIRT that focuses on standardized, annual screening has the potential to deliver high-quality care in this setting.

Reaching Adolescents for Prevention: The Role of Pediatric Emergency Department Health Promotion Advocates.

OBJECTIVES: Almost 200,000 adolescents visit US emergency departments (EDs) yearly for conditions involving underage drinking but receive no follow-up referral. Other health risk behaviors resulting in sexually transmitted infections, car crashes, and assault-related injury are common among adolescents. A pediatric ED (PED) visit presents an opportunity to discuss and promote prevention. We report here on implementation of a new PED navigator/extender role, the Health Promotion Advocate (HPA). METHODS: Health Promotion Advocates surveyed patients to identify health risks, stresses, and needs. A positive screen triggered a brief conversation containing the following elements: permission to discuss risks/needs; exploration of context (a typical day in your life); brief feedback (information and norms); exploration of benefits and consequences of risk behaviors; assessment of readiness to change; calling up assets, instilling hope; discussing challenges of change; negotiating a menu of options and prescription for change; referrals to primary care, community resources; and treatment services as indicated. RESULTS: During 2009-2013, HPAs screened 2149 PED patients aged 14 to 21 years and referred 834 for an array of services (eg, primary care, mental health, insurance, personal safety, human immunodeficiency virus testing, general education diploma (GED), employment, housing, and food pantries) to address reported health risks; 785 screened positive for at-risk substance use (53% female, 36% without primary care). Among them, 636 received a brief intervention; 546 were referred to specialized substance abuse treatment. Two case studies are presented to illustrate the engagement and referral process. CONCLUSIONS: Health Promotion Advocates working as PED team members can extend PED services beyond the scope of the presenting complaint.

Association of Screening and Brief Intervention With Substance Use in Massachusetts Middle and High Schools.

Importance: Screening and brief intervention (SBI) programs in schools have the potential to provide substance use prevention messages to large numbers of adolescents. This study evaluated the association between exposure to a school-based SBI program and reductions in substance use among youths after enactment of a law that required Massachusetts schools to provide SBI to all students. Objective: To estimate the association between exposure to a school-based SBI program and changes in substance use among youths. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this mixed-method quality improvement study using an effectiveness-implementation hybrid design, stakeholder interviews were conducted to describe the operations, timing, and impressions of SBI implementation at 14 intervention schools in Massachusetts. Repeated cross-sectional surveys of youths in intervention and comparison groups were administered between December 19, 2017, and May 22, 2019, to assess substance use and associated measures of perceived risk, knowledge, and adult support before and approximately 3 months after SBI implementation among exposed groups. A difference-in-differences framework was used to estimate substance use outcomes associated with SBI exposure among students in middle school (grades 7 and 8) and high school (grades 9 and 10) using adjusted overlap-weighted generalized models to account for covariate imbalance between exposed and unexposed school grades. In addition, 14 school staff members were interviewed about implementation. Exposures: Exposure vs nonexposure to a school-based SBI program. Main Outcomes and Measures: Frequency of alcohol, cannabis, and e-cigarette use (measured in days) and any binge drinking in the past 3 months. Results: Between December 2017 and May 2019, 8771 survey responses were collected from 4587 students in grades 7 through 10 who were attending one of 23 participating school districts. The median (IQR) age was 13 (13-14) years (range, 12-17 years); 2226 students self-identified as female (48.5%), 2206 (48.1%) as male, and 155 (3.4%) as transgender or preferred not to answer. Overall, 163 students (3.6%) identified their race as Asian, 146 (3.2%) as Black or African American, 2952 (64.4%) as White, and 910 (19.8%) as mixed or other race (including American Indian or Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander); 416 students (9.1%) preferred not to answer or were missing data on race. A total of 625 students (13.6%) identified their ethnicity as Hispanic and 3962 (86.4%) as non-Hispanic. Cannabis use increased over time in both the SBI group (middle school: marginal estimated probability, 0.73 [95% CI, 0.21-2.51] at baseline vs 2.01 [95% CI, 0.60-6.70] at follow-up; high school: marginal estimated probability, 2.86 [95% CI, 0.56-14.56] at baseline vs 3.10 [95% CI, 0.57-16.96] at follow-up) and the control group (middle school: marginal estimated probability, 0.24 [95% CI, 0.05-1.03] at baseline vs 3.38 [95% CI, 0.81-14.18] at follow-up; high school: marginal estimated probability, 1.30 [95% CI, 0.27-6.29] at baseline vs 1.72 [95% CI, 0.34-8.66] at follow-up). e-cigarette use also increased over time in both the SBI group (middle school: marginal estimated probability, 0.81 [95% CI, 0.22-3.01] at baseline vs 1.94 [95% CI, 0.53-7.02] at follow-up; high school: marginal estimated probability, 3.82 [95% CI, 0.72-20.42] at baseline vs 3.51 [95% CI, 0.55-22.59] at follow-up) and the control group (middle school: marginal estimated probability, 0.51 [95% CI, 0.12-2.30] at baseline vs 3.40 [95% CI, 0.72-16.08] at follow-up; high school: marginal estimated probability, 2.29 [95% CI, 0.41-12.65] at baseline vs 3.53 [95% CI, 0.62-20.16] at follow-up). Exposure to SBI was associated with a significantly smaller increase in the rate of cannabis use among middle school students (adjusted rate ratio [aRR], 0.19; 95% CI, 0.04-0.86) and significantly smaller increases in the rates of cannabis and e-cigarette use among all female students (cannabis use: aRR, 0.17 [95% CI, 0.03-0.96]; e-cigarette use: aRR, 0.16 [95% CI, 0.03-0.82]) compared with nonexposure. No other significant differences were observed among students in grades 7 and 8, and no differences were found in any comparison between groups in grades 9 and 10. Conclusions and Relevance: In this quality improvement study, exposure to a school-based SBI program was associated with a significantly smaller increase in the rate of cannabis use among middle school students and significantly smaller increases in the rates of cannabis and e-cigarette use among all female students. These findings suggest that implementation of SBI programs in schools may help to reduce substance use among middle school and female students, and further study of these programs is warranted.

Effects of a Patient-Centered Intervention to Reduce Alcohol Use Among Youth With Chronic Medical Conditions.

PURPOSE: Alcohol poses unique risks for youth with chronic medical conditions (YCMC) yet many drink. Preventive interventions targeting YCMC are scarce. METHODS: YCMC with type 1 diabetes, juvenile idiopathic arthritis, systemic lupus erythematosus, or inflammatory bowel disease were recruited and randomized to trial the effects of a self-administered condition-tailored psychoeducational intervention on frequency in days of past 3-month alcohol use, alcohol-related risk perceptions, and knowledge. Changes in outcomes over time were measured and compared by treatment arm using multivariate mixed effects models. RESULTS: Among N = 418 participants (average age 16.0 years, 52.2% female, 84.7% white, 90.7% non-Hispanic), 24.2% reported past-year alcohol use at baseline. Alcohol-related knowledge increased overall and was greater for the intervention group (adjusted improvement in knowledge score +7.70, 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.92-12.48). By 6-month follow-up, the percentage of youth reporting any alcohol use is risky/dangerous increased among intervention arm participants from 41.5% to 45.4% at baseline and decreased from 38.9% to 37.4% among controls (adjusted intervention effect odds ratio 1.79, 95% confidence interval 1.02-3.13). Overall, frequency of drinking increased over time from 3.72 to 4.52 days on average, with no differences by treatment group. Among female drinkers, the predicted mean frequency of drinking days declined in the intervention group (4.11-3.33) and increased among controls (2.82-4.55) (adjusted intervention effect rate ratio .50, 95% confidence interval .25-.99). CONCLUSIONS: Exposure to a chronic illness-tailored psychoeducational intervention targeting alcohol use increased knowledge and perceived risk and, among females, reduced alcohol use. Promising results merit future work to optimize the model for both males and females.

Pediatric Subspecialist Alcohol Screening Rates and Concerns About Alcohol and Cannabis Use Among Their Adolescent Patients.

PURPOSE: Pediatric specialty care provides an opportunity to screen for and address patient substance use; however, little is known about providers' screening rates, their opinions regarding substance use harms, or the potential marijuana to be used as a medication. METHODS: We surveyed national convenience samples of pediatric endocrinologists (N = 142) and rheumatologists (N = 83) and used descriptive statistics and multivariate logistic regression to examine alcohol screening rates, barriers, and for medical use of marijuana, differences between subspecialist concerns. RESULTS: In all, 36.4% of providers reported screening adolescent patients annually or more, and a majority expressed concerns about impacts on disease management (80.0%/80.0%) and symptom management (69.3%/53.3%) from alcohol and marijuana, respectively. Nearly equal proportions disagreed (30.2%), were neutral (34.7%), or agreed (35.1%) that some patients would benefit from medical marijuana, although majorities were not comfortable recommending marijuana (62.7%) and did not believe marijuana is standardized enough to be used as medication (57.8%). DISCUSSION: Fewer than half of the subspecialists in our study routinely screen their adolescent patients for substance use, although many have concerns regarding the impacts of alcohol and marijuana use on their patients. Education and training on best practice could help to increase screening rates. There is agreement that marijuana is not standardized enough to be used as a medication. There is also a broad range of opinions regarding the pharmaceutical potential of marijuana and concerns about the impact of marijuana on underlying chronic medical conditions, which should be considered as marijuana policy continues to evolve.

A Phone Consultation Call Line to Support SBIRT in Pediatric Primary Care.

Background: Screening Brief Intervention Referral to Treatment (SBIRT) is recommended as a routine part of pediatric primary care, though managing patients with positive screens is challenging. To address this problem, the state of Massachusetts created a call line staffed by pediatric Addiction Medicine specialists to provide consultations to primary care providers and access to a behavioral health provider specially trained in managing adolescent substance use. Objective: To describe the uptake and outcomes of a consultation call line and virtual counseling for managing substance use disorders (SUD) in pediatric primary care. Methods: Service delivery data from consultations and counseling appointments were captured in an electronic database including substance, medication recommendations, level of care recommendations and number of counseling appointments completed for each patient. Summary data is presented here. Results: In all, there were 407 encounters to 108 unique families, including 128 consultations and 279 counseling visits in a one-year period. The most common substances mentioned by healthcare providers were cannabis (64%), nicotine (20%), alcohol (20%), vaping (9%) and opioids (5%). Management in primary care was recommended for 87 (68%) of the consultations. Medications for SUD treatment were recommended for 69 (54%) consultations including two for opioid use disorder. Conclusion: We found that both a statewide consultation call line and virtual counseling to support SBIRT in pediatric primary care were feasible. The majority of consultations resulted in recommendations for treatment in primary care.

Virtual Care in an Outpatient Subspecialty Substance Use Disorder Treatment Program.

OBJECTIVES: This article reports on the experience of an outpatient adolescent substance use disorder treatment program transitioning to virtual care during the COVID-19 pandemic. We describe the processes used to make the transition, including development of a safety protocol for patients seen virtually, present clinical volume data before and after the transition, and we describe a range of patient experiences through 3 clinical vignettes. METHODS: Using data from the electronic health record, we generated counts of the total number of scheduled and completed appointments between December 2019 and June 2020. We used simple proportions to calculate the completed visit rate. RESULTS: Both the absolute number of scheduled appointment and the percent of appointments completed increased with the initiation of virtual care, supporting the acceptability of this modality. Several patients experienced clinical improvements in conjunction with greater engagement, though challenges were also noted. CONCLUSIONS: Virtual visits are a practical mode of treatment for adolescent substance use disorders, and more evidence is needed to understand the risks and benefits of this treatment modality.

Validation of a single question for the assessment of past three-month alcohol consumption among adolescents.

BACKGROUND: Screening, Brief Intervention, and Referral to Treatment (SBIRT) for substance use is increasingly used in clinical care. Despite its endorsement by several professional societies, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force has found the evidence base for adolescent SBIRT to be insufficient. A measure of substance use that is brief enough to embed in the electronic medical record could be used in pragmatic trials that enroll large numbers of primary care patients, facilitating research in this area. METHODS: Participants aged 14-18 years (N = 492) completed an electronic survey that included a 90-day Timeline Follow Back (TLFB) Calendar, considered the criterion standard, along with three survey questions about the frequency of their alcohol use: days of use in the past three months, average days of use per week in the past three months, and average days of use per month in the past year. We calculated the correlation between the number of days reported on each of the three questions and the total number of days of use reported on the TLFB. RESULTS: The question on number of days of use in the past three months was highly correlated with alcohol consumption frequency on the 90-day TLFB assessment (rho = 0.903). Other items displayed lower but satisfactory correlation with the TLFB (rho = 0.719-0.830). CONCLUSIONS: A single question about past 3-month frequency of alcohol use was highly correlated with alcohol use frequency on the criterion standard TLFB among adolescents presenting for routine primary care.

Screening and Counseling for Alcohol Use in Adolescents With Chronic Medical Conditions in the Ambulatory Setting.

PURPOSE: We seek to determine how youth with chronic medical conditions experience alcohol screening and counseling. METHODS: Adolescents with type I diabetes, juvenile idiopathic arthritis, moderate persistent asthma, cystic fibrosis, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, or inflammatory bowel disease were surveyed. Descriptive statistics and regression analysis quantified rates of asking and counseling about alcohol. RESULTS: Of 390 participants (75.1% white/non-Hispanic, 51.8% female, average age 16.4 years), 70% reported being asked about their alcohol use by a healthcare provider, and 76% reported receiving at least one message regarding alcohol and health. Of past year drinkers, 54% disclosed use to their provider. Only 2.0% of youth reported receiving the message "I should not drink." CONCLUSIONS: Most youth with chronic medical conditions were asked and counseled about alcohol use although few heard unambiguous recommendations to avoid alcohol consumption.