Association of psychiatric and substance use disorders with cannabis use and cannabis use disorder during early pregnancy in northern California.

AIMS: To estimate the strength of association between psychiatric disorders and substance use disorders (SUD), and cannabis use and cannabis use disorder (CUD) during early pregnancy. DESIGN: Observational study. SETTING: Kaiser Permanente Northern California, USA. PARTICIPANTS: 299 496 pregnancies from 227 555 individuals screened for cannabis use by self-report and a urine toxicology test at entrance to prenatal care in Kaiser Permanente Northern California during January 2011-December 2021 (excepting year 2020). The sample was 62.5% non-White, with a mean (standard deviation) age of 31.1 (5.5) years; 6.8% used cannabis; 0.2% had a CUD. MEASUREMENTS: Exposure variables included electronic health record-based psychiatric diagnoses of attention deficit hyperactivity, anxiety, bipolar, depressive, personality, posttraumatic stress and psychotic disorders; and alcohol, opioid, stimulant and tobacco use disorders, during the two years prior to pregnancy up to the day before the prenatal substance use screening date. Outcome variables were any cannabis use, frequency of self-reported cannabis use and CUD during early pregnancy. FINDINGS: Psychiatric disorder prevalence ranged from 0.2% (psychotic) to 14.3% (anxiety), and SUD ranged from 0.3% (stimulant/opioid) to 3.8% (tobacco). Psychiatric disorders were associated with cannabis use and CUD, with the strongest association for any use found for bipolar disorder (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 2.83; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 2.53-3.17) and the strongest association for CUD found for psychotic disorders (aOR = 10.01, 95% CI = 6.52-15.37). SUDs were associated with cannabis use and CUD, with the strongest association for any use found for tobacco use disorder (aOR = 4.03, 95% CI = 3.82-4.24) and the strongest association for CUD found for stimulant use disorder (aOR = 21.99, 95% CI = 16.53-29.26). Anxiety, bipolar, depressive disorders and tobacco use disorder were associated with greater odds of daily than monthly or less cannabis use. CONCLUSIONS: Psychiatric disorders and substance use disorders appear to be associated with elevated odds of any and frequent cannabis use as well as cannabis use disorder during early pregnancy. In most cases, the associations with cannabis outcomes were stronger for substance use disorders than other psychiatric disorders.

Comparing Cannabis Use for Pain to Use for Other Reasons in Primary Care Patients.

BACKGROUND: Medical cannabis is commonly used for chronic pain, but little is known about differences in characteristics, cannabis use patterns, and perceived helpfulness among primary care patients who use cannabis for pain versus nonpain reasons. METHODS: Among 1688 patients who completed a 2019 cannabis survey administered in a health system in Washington state, where recreational use is legal, participants who used cannabis for pain (n = 375) were compared with those who used cannabis for other reasons (n = 558) using survey and electronic health record data. We described group differences in participant characteristics, use patterns, and perceptions and applied adjusted multinomial logistic and modified Poisson regression. RESULTS: Participants who used cannabis for pain were significantly more likely to report using applied (50.7% vs 10.6%) and beverage cannabis products (19.2% vs 11.6%), more frequent use (47.1% vs 33.1% for use ≥2 times per day; 81.6% vs 69.7% for use 4 to 7 days per week), and smoking tobacco cigarettes (19.2% vs 12.2%) than those who used cannabis for other reasons. They were also significantly more likely to perceive cannabis as very/extremely helpful (80.5% vs 72.7%), and significantly less likely to use cannabis for nonmedical reasons (4.8% vs 58.8%) or report cannabis use disorder symptoms (51.7% vs 61.1%). DISCUSSION: Primary care patients who use cannabis for pain use it more frequently, often in applied and ingested forms, and have more co-use of tobacco, which may differentially impact safety and effectiveness. These findings suggest the need for different approaches to counseling in clinical care.

Cannabis and nicotine co-use among primary care patients in a state with legal cannabis access.

The aim of this exploratory analysis was to evaluate cannabis exposure, reasons for use and problematic cannabis use among adult primary care patients in Washington state (United States) who co-use cannabis and nicotine (tobacco cigarettes and/or nicotine vaping) compared to patients who endorse current cannabis use only. As part of a NIDA Clinical Trials Network (CTN) parent study, patients who completed a cannabis screen as part of routine primary care were randomly sampled (N = 5,000) to a receive a confidential cannabis survey. Patients were stratified and oversampled based on the frequency of past-year cannabis use and for Black, indigenous, or other persons of color. Patients who endorsed past 30-day cannabis use are included here (N = 1388). Outcomes included; prevalence of cannabis use, days of cannabis use per week and times used per day, methods of use, THC:CBD content, non-medical and/or medical use, health symptoms managed, and cannabis use disorder (CUD) symptom severity. We conducted unadjusted bivariate analyses comparing outcomes between patients with cannabis and current nicotine co-use to patients with cannabis-only use. Nicotine co-use (n = 352; 25.4 %) was associated with differences in method of cannabis use, THC:CBD content, days of use per week and times used per day, number of health symptoms managed, and CUD severity (all p < 0.001), compared to primary care patients with cannabis-only use (n = 1036). Interventions targeting cannabis and nicotine co-use in primary care are not well-established and further research is warranted given findings of more severe cannabis use patterns and the adverse health outcomes associated with co-use.

Validity of the Single-Item Screen-Cannabis (SIS-C) for Cannabis Use Disorder Screening in Routine Care.

Importance: Cannabis use is prevalent and increasing, and frequent use intensifies the risk of cannabis use disorder (CUD). CUD is underrecognized in medical settings, but a validated single-item cannabis screen could increase recognition. Objective: To evaluate the Single-Item Screen-Cannabis (SIS-C), administered and documented in routine primary care, compared with a confidential reference standard measure of CUD. Design, Setting, and Participants: This diagnostic study included a sample of adult patients who completed routine cannabis screening between January 28 and September 12, 2019, and were randomly selected for a confidential survey about cannabis use. Random sampling was stratified by frequency of past-year use and race and ethnicity. The study was conducted at an integrated health system in Washington state, where adult cannabis use is legal. Data were analyzed from May 2021 to March 2022. Exposures: The SIS-C asks about frequency of past-year cannabis use with responses (none, less than monthly, monthly, weekly, daily or almost daily) documented in patients' medical records. Main Outcomes and Measures: The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, Fifth Edition (DSM-5) Composite International Diagnostic Interview-Substance Abuse Module (CIDI-SAM) for past-year CUD was completed on a confidential survey and considered the reference standard. The SIS-C was compared with 2 or more criteria on the CIDI-SAM, consistent with CUD. All analyses were weighted, accounting for survey design and nonresponse, to obtain estimates representative of the health system primary care population. Results: Of 5000 sampled adult patients, 1688 responded to the cannabis survey (34% response rate). Patients were predominantly middle-aged (weighted mean [SD] age, 50.7 [18.1]), female or women (weighted proportion [SE], 55.9% [4.1]), non-Hispanic (weighted proportion [SE], 96.7% [1.0]), and White (weighted proportion [SE], 74.2% [3.7]). Approximately 6.6% of patients met criteria for past-year CUD. The SIS-C had an area under receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.89 (95% CI, 0.78-0.96) for identifying CUD. A threshold of less than monthly cannabis use balanced sensitivity (0.88) and specificity (0.83) for detecting CUD. In populations with a 6% prevalence of CUD, predictive values of a positive screen ranged from 17% to 34%, while predictive values of a negative screen ranged from 97% to 100%. Conclusions and Relevance: In this diagnostic study, the SIS-C had excellent performance characteristics in routine care as a screen for CUD. While high negative predictive values suggest that the SIS-C accurately identifies patients without CUD, low positive predictive values indicate a need for further diagnostic assessment following positive results when screening for CUD in primary care.

Cannabis use, other drug use, and risk of subsequent acute care in primary care patients.

BACKGROUND: Cannabis and other drug use is associated with adverse health events, but little is known about the association of routine clinical screening for cannabis or other drug use and acute care utilization. This study evaluated whether self-reported frequency of cannabis or other drug use was associated with subsequent acute care. METHOD: This retrospective cohort study used EHR and claims data from 8 sites in Washington State that implemented annual substance use screening. Eligible adult primary care patients (N = 47,447) completed screens for cannabis (N = 45,647) and/or other drug use, including illegal drug use and prescription medication misuse, (N = 45,255) from 3/3/15-10/1/2016. Separate single-item screens assessed frequency of past-year cannabis and other drug use: never, less than monthly, monthly, weekly, daily/almost daily. An indicator of acute care utilization measured any urgent care, emergency department visits, or hospitalizations ≤19 months after screening. Adjusted Cox proportional hazards models estimated risk of acute care. RESULTS: Patients were predominantly non-Hispanic White. Those reporting cannabis use less than monthly (Hazard Ratio [HR] = 1.12, 95 % CI = 1.03-1.21) or daily (HR = 1.24; 1.10-1.39) had greater risk of acute care during follow-up than those reporting no use. Patients reporting other drug use less than monthly (HR = 1.34; 1.13-1.59), weekly (HR = 2.21; 1.46-3.35), or daily (HR = 2.53; 1.86-3.45) had greater risk of acute care than those reporting no other drug use. CONCLUSION: Population-based screening for cannabis and other drug use in primary care may have utility for understanding risk of subsequent acute care. It is unclear whether findings will generalize to U.S. states with broader racial/ethnic diversity.

Identifying Problematic Substance Use in a National Sample of Adolescents Using Frequency Questions.

BACKGROUND: Brief substance use screening questions for tobacco, alcohol, cannabis, and other drugs need further validation in adolescents. In particular, optimal age-specific screening cut-points are not known, and no study has been large enough to evaluate screening questions for noncannabis illicit drug use. METHODS: Adolescent respondents to an annual national household survey were included (2008 to 2014; n = 169,986). Days of tobacco use in the past month, and days of alcohol, cannabis, other illicit drug use in the past year, were assessed as brief screens for tobacco dependence and DSM-IV alcohol (AUD), cannabis (CUD), and other illicit drug use disorders (DUD). Areas under receiver operating characteristics curves (AUCs), sensitivity and specificity were estimated separately by age group (12-15-, 16-17-, and 18-20-year-olds) and cut-points that maximized combined values of sensitivity and specificity were considered optimal. RESULTS: The prevalence of tobacco dependence, AUD, CUD, and DUD was 5.8%, 7.1%, 4.5%, and 2.0%, respectively. AUCs ranged 0.84 to 0.99. The optimal cut-points for screening for tobacco dependence and DUDs was the same for all age groups: ≥1 day. The optimal cut-points for alcohol and cannabis varied by age: ≥3 days for 12-15-year-olds and ≥12 days for older adolescents. CONCLUSIONS: Brief measures of past-year use, or past-month use for tobacco, accurately identified adolescents with problematic substance use. However, health systems should use age-specific screening cut-points for alcohol and cannabis to optimize screening performance.

Integration of screening, assessment, and treatment for cannabis and other drug use disorders in primary care: An evaluation in three pilot sites.

BACKGROUND: This pilot study evaluated whether use of evidence-based implementation strategies to integrate care for cannabis and other drug use into primary care (PC) as part of Behavioral Health Integration (BHI) increased diagnosis and treatment of substance use disorders (SUDs). METHODS: Patients who visited the three pilot PC sites were eligible. Implementation strategies included practice coaching, electronic health record decision support, and performance feedback (3/2015-4/2016). BHI introduced annual screening for past-year cannabis and other drug use, a Symptom Checklist for DSM-5 SUDs, and shared decision-making about treatment options. Main analyses tested whether the proportions of PC patients diagnosed with, and treated for, new cannabis or other drug use disorders (CUDs and DUDs, respectively), differed significantly pre- and post-implementation. RESULTS: Of 39,599 eligible patients, 57% and 59% were screened for cannabis and other drug use, respectively. Among PC patients reporting daily cannabis use (2%) or any drug use (1%), 51% and 37%, respectively, completed an SUD Symptom Checklist. The proportion of PC patients with newly diagnosed CUD increased significantly post-implementation (5 v 17 per 10,000 patients, p < 0.0001), but not other DUDs (10 vs 13 per 10,000, p = 0.24). The proportion treated for newly diagnosed CUDs did not increase post-implementation (1 vs 1 per 10,000, p = 0.80), but did for those treated for newly diagnosed other DUDs (1 vs 3 per 10,000, p = 0.038). CONCLUSIONS: A pilot implementation of BHI to increase routine screening and assessment for SUDs was associated with increased new CUD diagnoses and a small increase in treatment of new other DUDs.

Utility of routine alcohol screening for monitoring changes in alcohol consumption.

BACKGROUND: Routine alcohol screening scores are increasingly available in electronic health records (EHRs). Changes in such scores could be useful for monitoring response to brief intervention or treatment of alcohol use disorder. However, it is unclear whether changes in clinically-documented AUDIT-C alcohol screening scores reflect true changes in drinking. This study evaluated associations between changes in EHR AUDIT-C scores and changes in high density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL), a laboratory test that reflects average alcohol consumption. METHODS: National U.S. Veterans Affairs EHR data (2004-2007) were used to identify patients screened with the AUDIT-C (0-12 points), on two occasions at least a year apart, who had HDL measured in the year after each screen. First differencing linear regression estimated associations between changes in AUDIT-C score (-12 to 12 points; modeled categorically to allow for non-linear associations) and subsequent changes in HDL (mg/dL), adjusting for baseline HDL. Additional analyses evaluated whether associations between changes in AUDIT-C and changes in HDL were modified by baseline AUDIT-C. RESULTS: Among 316,712 patients, increases-but not decreases-in AUDIT-C scores were associated with commensurate changes in HDL. However, a significant interaction was observed with baseline AUDIT-C score (p < 0.00001), which revealed that decreases in AUDIT-C scores were also associated with commensurate decreases in HDL (p-values<0.05) except among the 1.5% of patients with the highest baseline AUDIT-C scores (10-12). CONCLUSIONS: Findings suggest that changes in EHR AUDIT-C scores reflect changes in drinking. These results support the use of clinically-documented alcohol screening scores for monitoring patients' alcohol use over time.

Frequency of Cannabis Use Among Primary Care Patients in Washington State.

INTRODUCTION: Over 12% of US adults report past-year cannabis use, and among those who use daily, 25% or more have a cannabis use disorder. Use is increasing as legal access expands. Yet, cannabis use is not routinely assessed in primary care, and little is known about use among primary care patients and relevant demographic and behavioral health subgroups. This study describes the prevalence and frequency of past-year cannabis use among primary care patients assessed for use during a primary care visit. METHODS: This observational cohort study included adults who made a visit to primary care clinics with annual behavioral health screening, including a single-item question about frequency past-year cannabis use (March 2015 to February 2016; n = 29,857). Depression, alcohol and other drug use were also assessed by behavioral health screening. Screening results, tobacco use, and diagnoses for past-year behavioral health conditions (e.g., mental health and substance use disorders) were obtained from EHRs. RESULTS: Among patients who completed the cannabis use question (n = 22,095; 74% of eligible patients), 15.3% (14.8% to 15.8%) reported any past-year use: 12.2% (11.8% to 12.6%) less than daily, and 3.1% (2.9%-3.3%) daily. Among 2228 patients age 18 to 29 years, 36.0% (34.0% to 38.0%) reported any cannabis use and 8.1% (7.0% to 9.3%) daily use. Daily cannabis use was common among men age 18 to 29 years who used tobacco or screened positive for depression or used tobacco: 25.5% (18.8% to 32.1%) and 31.7% (23.3% to 40.0%), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Cannabis use was common in adult primary care patients, especially among younger patients and those with behavioral health conditions. Results highlight the need for primary care approaches to address cannabis use.

Factors Underlying Quality Problems with Alcohol Screening Prompted by a Clinical Reminder in Primary Care: A Multi-site Qualitative Study.

BACKGROUND: Population-based alcohol screening is recommended in primary care, and increasingly incentivized by policies, yet is challenging to implement. The U.S. Veterans Health Administration (VA) achieved high rates of screening using a national performance measure and associated electronic clinical reminder to prompt and facilitate screening and document results. However, the sensitivity of alcohol screening for identifying unhealthy alcohol use is low in VA clinics. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to understand factors that might contribute to low sensitivity of alcohol screening. DESIGN: This was an observational, qualitative study. PARTICIPANTS: Participants included clinical staff responsible for conducting alcohol screening and nine independently managed primary care clinics of a single VA medical center in the Northwestern U.S. APPROACH: Four researchers observed clinical staff as they conducted alcohol screening. Observers took handwritten notes, which were transcribed and coded iteratively. Template analysis identified a priori and emergent themes. KEY RESULTS: We observed 72 instances of alcohol screening conducted by 31 participating staff. Observations confirmed known challenges to implementation of care using clinical reminders, including workflow and flexibility limitations. Three themes specific to alcohol screening emerged. First, most observed screening was conducted verbally, guided by the clinical reminder, although some variability in approaches to screening (e.g., paper-based or laminate-based screening) was observed. Second, specific verbal screening practices that might contribute to low sensitivity of clinical screening were identified, including conducting non-verbatim screening and making inferences, assumptions, and/or suggestions to input responses. Third, staff introduced and adapted screening questions to enhance patient comfort. CONCLUSIONS: This qualitative study in nine clinics found that implementation of alcohol screening facilitated by a clinical reminder resulted primarily in verbal screening in which questions were not asked vertbatim and were otherwise adapted. Non-verbal approaches to screening, or patient self-administration, may enhance validity and standardization of screening while simultaneously addressing limitations of the clinical reminder and issues related to perceived discomfort.

Decreasing sensitivity of clinical alcohol screening with the AUDIT-C after repeated negative screens in VA clinics.

BACKGROUND: Routine screening for unhealthy alcohol use is widely recommended in primary care settings. However, the validity of repeat screening among patients who have previously screened negative remains unknown. This study aims to evaluate the performance of a clinical alcohol screen compared to a confidential comparison alcohol screen among patients with previous negative alcohol screens. METHODS: This study included four nested samples of Veteran Health Administration (VA) outpatients with at least one (N=18,493) and up to four (N=714) prior negative annual clinical AUDIT-C screens who completed the AUDIT-C the following year, both in a VA clinic (clinical screen) and on a confidential mailed survey (comparison screen). AUDIT-C screens were categorized as either negative (0-3 points men; 0-2 women) or positive (≥4 men; ≥3 women). For each sample, the performance of the clinical screen was compared to the comparison screen, the reference measure for unhealthy alcohol use. RESULTS: The sensitivity of clinical screens decreased as the number of prior negative screens in a sample increased (40.0-17.4%) for patients with 1-4 negative screens. The positive predictive value also decreased as the number of prior negative screens in a sample increased (67.7-33.3%) while specificity was consistently high for all samples (≥97.8%). CONCLUSIONS: Repeat clinical alcohol screens became progressively less sensitive for identifying unhealthy alcohol use among patients who repeatedly screened negative over several years. Alternative approaches for assessing unhealthy alcohol use may be needed for these patients.

Inconsistencies between alcohol screening results based on AUDIT-C scores and reported drinking on the AUDIT-C questions: prevalence in two US national samples.

BACKGROUND: The AUDIT-C is an extensively validated screen for unhealthy alcohol use (i.e. drinking above recommended limits or alcohol use disorder), which consists of three questions about alcohol consumption. AUDIT-C scores ≥4 points for men and ≥3 for women are considered positive screens based on US validation studies that compared the AUDIT-C to "gold standard" measures of unhealthy alcohol use from independent, detailed interviews. However, results of screening--positive or negative based on AUDIT-C scores--can be inconsistent with reported drinking on the AUDIT-C questions. For example, individuals can screen positive based on the AUDIT-C score while reporting drinking below US recommended limits on the same AUDIT-C. Alternatively, they can screen negative based on the AUDIT-C score while reporting drinking above US recommended limits. Such inconsistencies could complicate interpretation of screening results, but it is unclear how often they occur in practice. METHODS: This study used AUDIT-C data from respondents who reported past-year drinking on one of two national US surveys: a general population survey (N = 26,610) and a Veterans Health Administration (VA) outpatient survey (N = 467,416). Gender-stratified analyses estimated the prevalence of AUDIT-C screen results--positive or negative screens based on the AUDIT-C score--that were inconsistent with reported drinking (above or below US recommended limits) on the same AUDIT-C. RESULTS: Among men who reported drinking, 13.8% and 21.1% of US general population and VA samples, respectively, had screening results based on AUDIT-C scores (positive or negative) that were inconsistent with reported drinking on the AUDIT-C questions (above or below US recommended limits). Among women who reported drinking, 18.3% and 20.7% of US general population and VA samples, respectively, had screening results that were inconsistent with reported drinking. LIMITATIONS: This study did not include an independent interview gold standard for unhealthy alcohol use and therefore cannot address how often observed inconsistencies represent false positive or negative screens. CONCLUSIONS: Up to 21% of people who drink alcohol had alcohol screening results based on the AUDIT-C score that were inconsistent with reported drinking on the same AUDIT-C. This needs to be addressed when training clinicians to use the AUDIT-C.

Probability and predictors of patients converting from negative to positive screens for alcohol misuse.

BACKGROUND: Medicare reimburses providers for annual alcohol screening. However, the benefit of rescreening patients a year after a negative screen for alcohol misuse is unknown. We hypothesized that some subgroups of patients who screen negative would have a very low probability of converting to a positive subsequent screen (e.g., <0.1%), calling into question the value of annual alcohol screening for some patient subgroups. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study estimated the probability of converting to a positive screen for alcohol misuse a year after a negative screen among outpatients from 30 Veterans Health Administration (VA) medical centers. Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test-Consumption (AUDIT-C) alcohol screening scores (range 0 to 12 points) from 2004 to 2008 were obtained from electronic health record data. Eligible patients screened negative on their initial screen (AUDIT-C scores 0 to 3 for men; 0 to 2 for women). The main outcome was a positive subsequent screen (AUDIT-C scores ≥4 men; ≥3 women). RESULTS: Among 21,081 women and 323,913 men who screened negative on an initial screen, 5.4% and 6.0%, respectively, screened positive a year later. The adjusted probability of converting to a positive subsequent screen varied from 2.1 to 38.9% depending on age, gender, and initial negative screen score. Women, older patients, and those with initial AUDIT-C scores of 0 were least likely to a convert to a positive subsequent screen, while younger men with AUDIT-C scores of 3 were most likely to a convert to a positive subsequent screen. CONCLUSIONS: The probability of a positive subsequent screen varied depending on age, gender, and initial negative screen score but exceeded 2% in all patient subgroups. Annual rescreening appears reasonable for all VA patients who had a negative screen the year prior.

Annual rescreening for alcohol misuse: diminishing returns for some patient subgroups.

BACKGROUND: Routine alcohol screening is widely recommended, and Medicare now reimburses for annual alcohol screening. Although up to 18% of patients will screen positive for alcohol misuse, the value of annual rescreening for patients who repeatedly screen negative is unknown. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the probability of converting to a positive alcohol screen at annual rescreening among VA outpatients who previously screened negative 2-4 times. RESEARCH DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SUBJECTS: A total of 179,035 VA outpatients (10,588 women) who previously screened negative on 2 and up to 4 consecutive annual alcohol screens and were rescreened the next year. MEASURES: AUDIT-C alcohol screening scores (range, 0-12) were obtained from electronic medical record data. The probability of converting to a positive screen (scores: men ≥4; women, ≥3) at rescreening after 2-4 prior negative screens was evaluated overall and across subgroups based on age, sex, and prior negative screen scores (scores: men, 0-3; women, 0-2). RESULTS: The overall probability of converting to a positive subsequent screen decreased modestly from 3.5% to 1.9% as the number of prior consecutive negative screens increased from 2 to 4, yet varied widely across subgroups based on age, sex, and prior negative screen scores (0.6%-38.7%). CONCLUSIONS: The likelihood of converting to a positive screen at annual rescreening is strongly influenced by age, sex, and scaled screening scores on prior negative alcohol screens. Algorithms for the frequency of repeat alcohol screening for patients who repeatedly screen negative should be based on these factors. These results may have implications for other routine behavioral health screenings.

Feedback from recently returned veterans on an anonymous web-based brief alcohol intervention.

BACKGROUND: Veterans of Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom (OEF/OIF) are at increased risk for alcohol misuse, and innovative methods are needed to improve their access to alcohol screening and brief interventions (SBI). This study adapted an electronic SBI (e-SBI) website shown to be efficacious in college students for OEF/OIF veterans and reported findings from interviews with OEF/OIF veterans about their impressions of the e-SBI. METHODS: Outpatient veterans of OEF/OIF who drank ≥3 days in the past week were recruited from a US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Deployment Health Clinic waiting room. Veterans privately pretested the anonymous e-SBI then completed individual semistructured audio-recorded interviews. Their responses were analyzed using template analysis to explore domains identified a priori as well as emergent domains. RESULTS: During interviews, all nine OEF/OIF veterans (1 woman and 8 men) indicated they had received feedback for risky alcohol consumption. Participants generally liked the standard-drinks image, alcohol-related caloric and monetary feedback, and the website's brevity and anonymity (a priori domains). They also experienced challenges with portions of the e-SBI assessment and viewed feedback regarding alcohol risk and normative drinking as problematic, but described potential benefits derived from the e-SBI (emergent domains). The most appealing e-SBIs would ensure anonymity and provide personalized transparent feedback about alcohol-related risk, consideration of the context for drinking, strategies to reduce drinking, and additional resources for veterans with more severe alcohol misuse. CONCLUSIONS: Results of this qualitative exploratory study suggest e-SBI may be an acceptable strategy for increasing OEF/OIF veteran access to evidenced-based alcohol SBI.

Strategies to implement alcohol screening and brief intervention in primary care settings: a structured literature review.

Although alcohol screening and brief intervention (SBI) reduces drinking in primary care patients with unhealthy alcohol use, incorporating SBI into clinical settings has been challenging. We systematically reviewed the literature on implementation studies of alcohol SBI using a broad conceptual model of implementation, the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR), to identify domains addressed by programs that achieved high rates of screening and/or brief intervention (BI). Seventeen articles from 8 implementation programs were included; studies were conducted in 9 countries and represented 533,903 patients (127,304 patients screened), 2,001 providers, and 1,805 clinics. Rates of SBI varied across articles (2-93% for screening and 0.9-73.1% for BI). Implementation programs described use of 7-25 of the 39 CFIR elements. Most programs used strategies that spanned all 5 domains of the CFIR with varying emphases on particular domains and sub-domains. Comparison of SBI rates was limited by most studies' being conducted by 2 implementation programs and by different outcome measures, scopes, and durations. However, one implementation program reported a high rate of screening relative to other programs (93%) and could be distinguished by its use of strategies that related to the Inner Setting, Outer Setting, and Process of Implementation domains of the CFIR. Future studies could assess whether focusing on Inner Setting, Outer Setting, and Process of Implementation elements of the CFIR during implementation is associated with successful implementation of alcohol screening, as well as which elements may be associated with successful, sustained implementation of BI.

Quality concerns with routine alcohol screening in VA clinical settings.

BACKGROUND: Alcohol screening questionnaires have typically been validated when self- or researcher-administered. Little is known about the performance of alcohol screening questionnaires administered in clinical settings. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to compare the results of alcohol screening conducted as part of routine outpatient clinical care in the Veterans Affairs (VA) Health Care System to the results on the same alcohol screening questionnaire completed on a mailed survey within 90 days and identify factors associated with discordant screening results. DESIGN: Cross sectional. PARTICIPANTS: A national sample of 6,861 VA outpatients (fiscal years 2007-2008) who completed the AUDIT-C alcohol screening questionnaire on mailed surveys (survey screen) within 90 days of having clinical AUDIT-C screening documented in their medical records (clinical screen). MAIN MEASURES: Alcohol screening results were considered discordant if patients screened positive (AUDIT-C ≥ 5) on either the clinical or survey screen but not both. Multivariable logistic regression was used to estimate the prevalence of discordance in different patient subgroups based on demographic and clinical characteristics, VA network and temporal factors (e.g. the order of screens). KEY RESULTS: Whereas 11.1% (95% CI 10.4-11.9%) of patients screened positive for unhealthy alcohol use on the survey screen, 5.7% (5.1- 6.2%) screened positive on the clinical screen. Of 765 patients who screened positive on the survey screen, 61.2% (57.7-64.6%) had discordant results on the clinical screen, contrasted with 1.5% (1.2-1.8%) of 6096 patients who screened negative on the survey screen. In multivariable analyses, discordance was significantly increased among Black patients compared with White, and among patients who had a positive survey AUDIT-C screen or who received care at 4 of 21 VA networks. CONCLUSION: Use of a validated alcohol screening questionnaire does not-by itself-ensure the quality of alcohol screening. This study suggests that the quality of clinical alcohol screening should be monitored, even when well-validated screening questionnaires are used.