Previsit Multidomain Psychosocial Screening Tools for Adolescents and Young Adults: A Systematic Review.

Adolescence and young adulthood constitute a period when exploratory behaviors can evolve into risky behaviors. Most causes of adolescent ill health are preventable; therefore, it is a priority to detect them early before they turn into health problems. Previsit multidomain psychosocial screening tools are used by professionals to detect and prioritize potentially problematic issues. In conjunction with appropriate clinician training, these tools have improved clinician screening rates in several areas of adolescent health. This article reviews existing multidomain previsit psychosocial screening tools developed in the 21st century and describes their characteristics using a systematic methodology. We reviewed 10,623 records to identify 15 different tools in use since 2000 and described their characteristics. Results show that all tools were developed in high-income countries. The tools provide sufficient coverage of many psychosocial domains relevant to young people's health. However, some psychosocial domains such as screen use and strengths are seldomly addressed. Furthermore, the tools rarely focus on young adults as a target population. Future research should assess the effectiveness, acceptability, and psychometric properties of validated psychosocial screening tools and examine how to expand their use in low- and middle-income countries.

How can primary care practitioners address substance use by adolescents? A position paper of the EUROPEAN academy of PAEDIATRICS.

The objective of this article is to review how primary care providers - paediatricians, family practitioners, nurse practitioners - could address the use of substances by adolescents and respond to problematic behaviours and situations. Given the highly addictive properties of nicotine, adolescents should be supported in avoiding any consumption of tobacco or quitting if they already do so. Screening and investigation of substance use is usually not difficult, provided that it is processed in a neutral and empathetic atmosphere and securing confidentiality if the adolescent asks for it. Any type of substance use is potentially linked with adverse events such as injuries, violence, unplanned and unsafe sexual experience, alcoholic coma, 'bad trips' or unpleasant psychological experiences. As such, substance use should be identified and openly discussed with the adolescent. Moderate intermittent recreational use of legal and illegal substances (mainly alcohol and cannabis) should be carefully monitored over time, as it can lead to problematic use. Problematic use and substance use disorder require various interventions, including motivational interviewing, family counselling and psychotherapy, especially when substance use is linked with mental health disorders. Despite the importance of confidential care, parents or caregivers should be involved in problematic situations as much as possible. What is known: • While problematic use of substances is transient amongst many adolescents, it may be a threat to health and school/professional functioning • Primary care providers (PCPs) can address queries or offer preventive interventions to adolescents who use substances What is new: • Some interview tools can assist PCPs efficiently to identify problematic users of substances • There are effective approaches that PCPs can use to address problematic use by adolescent patients.

Responding to Young People's Health Risks in Primary Care: A Cluster Randomised Trial of Training Clinicians in Screening and Motivational Interviewing.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effectiveness of a complex intervention implementing best practice guidelines recommending clinicians screen and counsel young people across multiple psychosocial risk factors, on clinicians' detection of health risks and patients' risk taking behaviour, compared to a didactic seminar on young people's health. DESIGN: Pragmatic cluster randomised trial where volunteer general practices were stratified by postcode advantage or disadvantage score and billing type (private, free national health, community health centre), then randomised into either intervention or comparison arms using a computer generated random sequence. Three months post-intervention, patients were recruited from all practices post-consultation for a Computer Assisted Telephone Interview and followed up three and 12 months later. Researchers recruiting, consenting and interviewing patients and patients themselves were masked to allocation status; clinicians were not. SETTING: General practices in metropolitan and rural Victoria, Australia. PARTICIPANTS: General practices with at least one interested clinician (general practitioner or nurse) and their 14-24 year old patients. INTERVENTION: This complex intervention was designed using evidence based practice in learning and change in clinician behaviour and general practice systems, and included best practice approaches to motivating change in adolescent risk taking behaviours. The intervention involved training clinicians (nine hours) in health risk screening, use of a screening tool and motivational interviewing; training all practice staff (receptionists and clinicians) in engaging youth; provision of feedback to clinicians of patients' risk data; and two practice visits to support new screening and referral resources. Comparison clinicians received one didactic educational seminar (three hours) on engaging youth and health risk screening. OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcomes were patient report of (1) clinician detection of at least one of six health risk behaviours (tobacco, alcohol and illicit drug use, risks for sexually transmitted infection, STI, unplanned pregnancy, and road risks); and (2) change in one or more of the six health risk behaviours, at three months or at 12 months. Secondary outcomes were likelihood of future visits, trust in the clinician after exit interview, clinician detection of emotional distress and fear and abuse in relationships, and emotional distress at three and 12 months. Patient acceptability of the screening tool was also described for the intervention arm. Analyses were adjusted for practice location and billing type, patients' sex, age, and recruitment method, and past health risks, where appropriate. An intention to treat analysis approach was used, which included multilevel multiple imputation for missing outcome data. RESULTS: 42 practices were randomly allocated to intervention or comparison arms. Two intervention practices withdrew post allocation, prior to training, leaving 19 intervention (53 clinicians, 377 patients) and 21 comparison (79 clinicians, 524 patients) practices. 69% of patients in both intervention (260) and comparison (360) arms completed the 12 month follow-up. Intervention clinicians discussed more health risks per patient (59.7%) than comparison clinicians (52.7%) and thus were more likely to detect a higher proportion of young people with at least one of the six health risk behaviours (38.4% vs 26.7%, risk difference [RD] 11.6%, Confidence Interval [CI] 2.93% to 20.3%; adjusted odds ratio [OR] 1.7, CI 1.1 to 2.5). Patients reported less illicit drug use (RD -6.0, CI -11 to -1.2; OR 0.52, CI 0.28 to 0.96), and less risk for STI (RD -5.4, CI -11 to 0.2; OR 0.66, CI 0.46 to 0.96) at three months in the intervention relative to the comparison arm, and for unplanned pregnancy at 12 months (RD -4.4; CI -8.7 to -0.1; OR 0.40, CI 0.20 to 0.80). No differences were detected between arms on other health risks. There were no differences on secondary outcomes, apart from a greater detection of abuse (OR 13.8, CI 1.71 to 111). There were no reports of harmful events and intervention arm youth had high acceptance of the screening tool. CONCLUSIONS: A complex intervention, compared to a simple educational seminar for practices, improved detection of health risk behaviours in young people. Impact on health outcomes was inconclusive. Technology enabling more efficient, systematic health-risk screening may allow providers to target counselling toward higher risk individuals. Further trials require more power to confirm health benefits. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN.com ISRCTN16059206.