Implementation and Impact of Intimate Partner Violence Screening Expansion in the Veterans Health Administration: Protocol for a Mixed Methods Evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Intimate partner violence (IPV) is a significant public health problem with far-reaching consequences. The health care system plays an integral role in the detection of and response to IPV. Historically, the majority of IPV screening initiatives have targeted women of reproductive age, with little known about men's IPV screening experiences or the impact of screening on men's health care. The Veterans Health Administration (VHA) has called for an expansion of IPV screening, providing a unique opportunity for a large-scale evaluation of IPV screening and response across all patient populations. OBJECTIVE: In this protocol paper, we describe the recently funded Partnered Evaluation of Relationship Health Innovations and Services through Mixed Methods (PRISM) initiative, aiming to evaluate the implementation and impact of the VHA's IPV screening and response expansion, with a particular focus on identifying potential gender differences. METHODS: The PRISM Initiative is guided by the Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, and Maintenance (RE-AIM) and Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR 2.0) frameworks. We will use mixed methods data from 139 VHA facilities to evaluate the IPV screening expansion, including electronic health record data and qualitative interviews with patients, clinicians, and national IPV program leadership. Quantitative data will be analyzed using a longitudinal observational design with repeated measurement periods at baseline (T0), year 1 (T1), and year 2 (T2). Qualitative interviews will focus on identifying multilevel factors, including potential implementation barriers and facilitators critical to IPV screening and response expansion, and examining the impact of screening on patients and clinicians. RESULTS: The PRISM initiative was funded in October 2023. We have developed the qualitative interview guides, obtained institutional review board approval, extracted quantitative data for baseline analyses, and began recruitment for qualitative interviews. Reports of progress and results will be made available to evaluation partners and funders through quarterly and end-of-year reports. All data collection and analyses across time points are expected to be completed in June 2026. CONCLUSIONS: Findings from this mixed methods evaluation will provide a comprehensive understanding of IPV screening expansion at the VHA, including the implementation and impact of screening and the scope of IPV detected in the VHA patient population. Moreover, data generated by this initiative have critical policy and clinical practice implications in a national health care system. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): PRR1-10.2196/59918.

Do veterans with risky substance use (RSU) use distinct pain treatment modalities?

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Risky substance use (RSU) is common among people with chronic pain and is associated with worse pain treatment outcomes. Nonopioid treatment is recommended, but it is unknown whether people with RSU use different or fewer pain treatment modalities. This study describes use of different pain treatments by veterans with and without RSU and those receiving versus not receiving opioid medication. METHODS: Veterans (N = 924) who filed service-connected disability claims related to musculoskeletal conditions and rated their pain four or higher on the Numeric Rating Scale, reported on 25 different pain services in the preceding 90 days. Recent RSU was identified via Alcohol, Smoking, and Substance Involvement Test (ASSIST) cutoffs and/or nail sample toxicology. RESULTS: Overall, RSU was not associated with number of provider-delivered or self-delivered pain modalities. Over-the-counter medications (71%), self-structured exercise (69%), and nonopioid prescription medications (38%) were the most used modalities. Veterans receiving prescribed opioids (8.4%) were more likely to see primary care, receive injections, and attend exercise and/or meditation classes, compared to those without opioid prescriptions. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: Opioid and nonopioid pain treatment utilization did not differ based on RSU, and those prescribed opioids were more likely to engage in other nonopioid pain treatments. Regardless of RSU, veterans appear willing to try provider-delivered (58%) and self-delivered (79%) pain treatment. SCIENTIFIC SIGNIFICANCE: In this first-ever evaluation of 25 different pain treatment modalities among veterans with and without RSU, people with RSU did not use less treatment modalities.

Screening for Intimate Partner Violence Experience and Use in the Veterans Health Administration.

Importance: The practice of screening women for intimate partner violence (IPV) in health care settings has been a critical part of responding to this major public health problem. Yet, IPV prevention would be enhanced with detection efforts that extend beyond screening for IPV experiences to identifying those who use violence in relationships as well. Objective: To determine rates of IPV experiences and use (ie, among perpetrators of IPV) and factors associated with disclosures among adult patients seeking mental health services at the Veterans Health Administration. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study used electronic medical record data drawn from a quality improvement initiative at 5 Veterans Health Administration medical centers conducted between November 2021 and February 2022 to examine IPV disclosures following concurrent screening for IPV experience and use. Participants included patients engaged in mental health services. Data were analyzed in April and May 2023. Exposure: Mental health clinicians were trained to screen for IPV experience and use concurrently and instructed to screen all patients encountered through routine mental health care visits during a 3-month period. Main Outcomes and Measures: Outcomes of interest were past-year prevalence of IPV use and experience, sociodemographic characteristics, and clinical diagnoses among screened patients. Results: A total of 200 patients were offered IPV screening. Of 155 participants (mean [SD] age, 52.45 [15.65] years; 124 [80.0%] men) with completed screenings, 74 (47.7%) denied past-year IPV experience and use, 76 (49.0%) endorsed past-year IPV experience, and 72 (46.4%) endorsed past-year IPV use, including 67 participants (43.2%) who reported IPV experience and use concurrently; only 9 participants (5.8%) endorsed unidirectional IPV experiences and 5 participants (3.2%) endorsed unidirectional IPV use. Patients who reported past-year IPV experience and use were younger than those who denied IPV (experience: mean difference, -7.34 [95% CI, 2.51-12.17] years; use: mean difference, -7.20 [95% CI, 2.40-12.00] years). Patients with a posttraumatic stress disorder diagnosis were more likely to report IPV use (43 patients [59.7%]) than those without a posttraumatic stress disorder diagnosis (29 patients [40.3%]; odds ratio, 2.14; [95% CI, 1.12-4.06]). No other demographic characteristics or clinical diagnoses were associated with IPV use or experience. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cross-sectional study of IPV rates and associated factors, screening for IPV found high rates of both IPV experience and use among patients receiving mental health care. These findings highlight the benefit of screening for IPV experience and use concurrently across gender and age. Additionally, the associations found between PTSD and IPV use underscore the importance of strengthening and developing additional targeted treatment for IPV.

Designing Practical Motivational Interviewing Training for Mental Health Practitioners Implementing Behavioral Lifestyle Interventions: Protocol for 3 Pilot Intervention Studies.

BACKGROUND: Motivational interviewing (MI) is an evidence-based, patient-centered communication method shown to be effective in helping persons with serious mental illness (SMI) to improve health behaviors. In clinical trials where study staff conducted lifestyle interventions incorporating an MI approach, cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk profiles of participants with SMI showed improvement. Given the disproportionate burden of CVD in this population, practitioners who provide somatic and mental health care to persons with SMI are ideally positioned to deliver patient-centered CVD risk reduction interventions. However, the time for MI training (traditionally 16-24 hours), follow-up feedback, and the coaching required to develop and maintain patient-centered skills are significant barriers to incorporating MI when scaling up these evidence-based practices. OBJECTIVE: We describe the design and development of the following 2 scalable MI training approaches for community mental health practitioners: real-time brief workshops and follow-up asynchronous avatar training. These approaches are being used in 3 different pilot implementation research projects that address weight loss, smoking cessation, and CVD risk reduction in people with SMI who are a part of ALACRITY Center, a research-to-practice translation center funded by the National Institute of Mental Health. METHODS: Clinicians and staff in community mental health clinics across Maryland were trained to deliver 3 distinct evidence-based physical health lifestyle interventions using an MI approach to persons with SMI. The real-time brief MI workshop training for ACHIEVE-D weight loss coaches was 4 hours; IMPACT smoking cessation counselors received 2-hour workshops and prescribers received 1-hour workshops; and RHYTHM CVD risk reduction program staff received 4 hours of MI. All workshop trainings occurred over videoconference. The asynchronous avatar training includes 1 common didactic instructional module for the 3 projects and 1 conversation simulation unique to each study's target behavior. Avatar training is accessible on a commercial website. We plan to assess practitioners' attitudes and beliefs about MI and evaluate the impact of the 2 MI training approaches on their MI skills 3, 6, and 12 months after training using the MI Treatment Integrity 4.2.1 coding tool and the data generated by the avatar-automated scoring system. RESULTS: The ALACRITY Center was funded in August 2018. We have implemented the MI training for 126 practitioners who are currently delivering the 3 implementation projects. We expect the studies to be complete in May 2023. CONCLUSIONS: This study will contribute to knowledge about the effect of brief real-time training augmented with avatar skills practice on clinician MI skills. If MI Treatment Integrity scoring shows it to be effective, brief videoconference trainings supplemented with avatar skills practice could be used to train busy community mental health practitioners to use an MI approach when implementing physical health interventions. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/44830.

Substance Use Disorder Detection Rates Among Providers of General Medical Inpatients.

BACKGROUND: The prevalence of substance use disorders is higher among medical inpatients than in the general population, placing inpatient providers in a prime position to detect these patients and intervene. OBJECTIVE: To assess provider detection rates of substance use disorders among medical inpatients and to identify patient characteristics associated with detection. DESIGN: Data drawn from a cluster randomized controlled trial that tested the effectiveness of three distinct implementation strategies for providers to screen patients for substance use disorders and deliver a brief intervention (Clinical Trials.gov : NCT01825057). PARTICIPANTS: A total of 1076 patients receiving care from 13 general medical inpatient units in a large teaching hospital participated in this study. MAIN MEASURES: Data sources included patient self-reported questionnaires, a diagnostic interview for substance use disorders, and patient medical records. Provider detection was determined by diagnoses documented in medical records. KEY RESULTS: Provider detection rates were highest for nicotine use disorder (72.2%) and lowest for cannabis use disorder (26.4%). Detection of alcohol use disorder was more likely among male compared to female patients (OR (95% CI) = 4.0 (1.9, 4.8)). When compared to White patients, alcohol (OR (95% CI) = 0.4 (0.2, 0.6)) and opioid (OR (95% CI) = 0.2 (0.1, 0.7)) use disorders were less likely to be detected among Black patients, while alcohol (OR (95% CI) = 0.3 (0.0, 2.0)) and cocaine (OR (95% CI) = 0.3 (0.1, 0.9)) use disorders were less likely to be detected among Hispanic patients. Providers were more likely to detect nicotine, alcohol, opioid, and other drug use disorders among patients with higher addiction severity (OR (95% CI) = 1.20 (1.08-1.34), 1.62 (1.48, 1.78), 1.46 (1.07, 1.98), 1.38 (1.00, 1.90), respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Findings indicate patient characteristics, including gender, race, and addiction severity impact rates of provider detection. Instituting formal screening for all substances may increase provider detection and inform treatment decisions.

The short-term impact on economic outcomes of SBIRT interventions implemented in reproductive health care settings.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the impact of screening, brief intervention, and referral to treatment (SBIRT) administered in reproductive health care settings on a variety of economic outcomes, including general health care utilization, criminal activity, and motor vehicle crashes. Whether and by how much SBIRT affects economic outcomes are important unanswered questions related to the economic impact of this technique. METHODS: We collected data as part of a randomized clinical trial that examined whether SBIRT delivered electronically (e-SBIRT) or by a clinician (SBIRT) is superior to enhanced usual care (EUC) for substance misuse. Participants were a convenience sample of 439 women from two reproductive health care centers who used cigarettes, risky amounts of alcohol, illicit drugs, or misused prescription medication. For each participant, we measured economic outcomes by self-report 6 months pre- and post-intervention. We used difference-in-differences regression models to estimate the impact of e-SBIRT and SBIRT, compared to EUC, on changes in each of the economic outcomes from pre- to post-intervention. RESULTS: None of the difference-in-differences estimates weas statistically significant after adjusting for multiple comparisons. CONCLUSION: In a population of women receiving routine care in reproductive health care settings, we did not find a significant effect of either e-SBIRT or SBIRT, compared to EUC, on general health care utilization, criminal activity, or motor vehicle outcomes. However, individual trials are typically underpowered to detect effects that are small but important from a public health perspective. These results may be crucial for future systematic reviews and meta-analyses to determine the economic impact of SBIRT programs from a variety of perspectives.

Screening, Brief Intervention, and Referral to Treatment for Pain Management for Veterans Seeking Service-Connection Payments for Musculoskeletal Disorders: SBIRT-PM Study Protocol.

BACKGROUND: Veterans with significant chronic pain from musculoskeletal disorders are at risk of substance misuse. Veterans whose condition is the result of military service may be eligible for a disability pension. Department of Veterans Affairs compensation examinations, which determine the degree of disability and whether it was connected to military service, represent an opportunity to engage Veterans in pain management and substance use treatments. A multisite randomized clinical trial is testing the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of Screening, Brief Intervention, and Referral to Treatment for Pain Management (SBIRT-PM) for Veterans seeking compensation for musculoskeletal disorders. This telephone-based intervention is delivered through a hub-and-spoke configuration. DESIGN: This study is a two-arm, parallel-group, 36-week, multisite randomized controlled single-blind trial. It will randomize 1,100 Veterans experiencing pain and seeking service-connection for musculoskeletal disorders to either SBIRT-PM or usual care across eight New England VA medical centers. The study balances pragmatic with explanatory methodological features. Primary outcomes are pain severity and number of substances misused. Nonpharmacological pain management and substance use services utilization are tracked in the trial. SUMMARY: Early trial enrollment targets were met across sites. SBIRT-PM could help Veterans, at the time of their compensation claims, use multimodal pain treatments and reduce existing substance misuse. Strategies to address COVID-19 pandemic impacts on the SBIRT-PM protocol have been developed to maintain its pragmatic and exploratory integrity.

Abstinence outcomes among women in reproductive health centers administered clinician or electronic brief interventions.

Treatment of substance use in women seeking reproductive healthcare is crucial for the health of both women and their offspring. Although abstinence from all substance use during pregnancy is optimal, it is difficult to achieve. This secondary analysis reports abstinence outcomes from a randomized clinical trial of screening, brief intervention, and referral to treatment (SBIRT) for substance use among women seeking reproductive healthcare services. Women who screened positive for substance use were randomly assigned to either clinician-administered SBIRT, an electronically-administered brief intervention (e-SBIRT), or an enhanced usual care condition. At a 6-month follow-up assessment, compared to enhanced usual care, the clinician-administered SBIRT increased 1-month point prevalence of abstinence from the primary substance by 7.7%, and e-SBIRT increased abstinence by 12.8%. Both brief interventions were more useful than enhanced usual care and could increase substance use abstinence rates among women in reproductive healthcare clinics. The electronic brief intervention is particularly attractive given that it appears as efficacious as, but requires fewer resources than, clinician-delivered brief interventions.

Cost-effectiveness of electronic- and clinician-delivered screening, brief intervention and referral to treatment for women in reproductive health centers.

AIMS: To determine the cost-effectiveness of electronic- and clinician-delivered SBIRT (Screening, Brief Intervention and Referral to Treatment) for reducing primary substance use among women treated in reproductive health centers. DESIGN: Cost-effectiveness analysis based on a randomized controlled trial. SETTING: New Haven, CT, USA. PARTICIPANTS: A convenience sample of 439 women seeking routine care in reproductive health centers who used cigarettes, risky amounts of alcohol, illicit drugs or misused prescription medication. INTERVENTIONS: Participants were randomized to enhanced usual care (EUC, n = 151), electronic-delivered SBIRT (e-SBIRT, n = 143) or clinician-delivered SBIRT (SBIRT, n = 145). MEASUREMENTS: The primary outcome was days of primary substance abstinence during the 6-month follow-up period. To account for the possibility that patients might substitute a different drug for their primary substance during the 6-month follow-up period, we also considered the number of days of abstinence from all substances. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios and cost-effectiveness acceptability curves determined the relative cost-effectiveness of the three conditions from both the clinic and patient perspectives. FINDINGS: From a health-care provider perspective, e-SBIRT is likely (with probability greater than 0.5) to be cost-effective for any willingness-to-pay value for an additional day of primary-substance abstinence and an additional day of all-substance abstinence. From a patient perspective, EUC is most likely to be the cost-effective intervention when the willingness to pay for an additional day of abstinence (both primary-substance and all-substance) is less than $0.18 and e-SBIRT is most likely to be the cost-effective intervention when the willingness to pay for an additional day of abstinence (both primary-substance and all-substance) is greater than $0.18. CONCLUSIONS: e-SBIRT could be a cost-effective approach, from both health-care provider and patient perspectives, for use in reproductive health centers to help women reduce substance misuse.

Assessment of an electronic and clinician-delivered brief intervention on cigarette, alcohol and illicit drug use among women in a reproductive healthcare clinic.

BACKGROUND: Women are at highest risk for development of a substance use disorder during their reproductive years. We recently evaluated the efficacy of an electronic screening, brief intervention and referral to treatment (e-SBIRT) and a clinician-delivered SBIRT (SBIRT) compared with enhanced usual care (EUC) for reducing overall substance use among women recruited from reproductive health clinics. The present study assessed the impact of the SBIRT interventions within three primary substance subgroups: cigarettes, illicit drugs, and alcohol. METHODS: This is a secondary analysis from a 3-group randomized trial comparing e-SBIRT and SBIRT to EUC. For the present study, participants (N = 439) were grouped according to their primary substance: cigarettes, alcohol, or illicit drugs. Differences in days per month of primary substance use over time between treatment groups were examined using generalized estimating equations, modelling linear as well as quadratic effects of time. RESULTS: Cigarettes were the most frequently reported primary substance (n = 251), followed by illicit drugs (n = 137) and alcohol (n = 51). For primary cigarette use the interaction between the linear effect of time and treatment was significant for SBIRT (ß (SE) = -0.067 (0.029), p = .020), but not e-SBIRT, suggesting greater reductions in cigarette use over the first 3 months following treatment with SBIRT compared to EUC. However, the significant interaction of SBIRT with time-squared (ß (SE) = 0.009 (0.004), p = .049) showed that reductions in cigarette use attenuated over time, such that after month 3, monthly reductions in cigarette use were similar between groups. Results followed a similar pattern for primary illicit drug use among the e-SBIRT group in which the interaction of e-SBIRT treatment with linear time (ß (SE) = -0.181 (0.085), p = .033) and quadratic time (ß (SE) = 0.028 (0.012), p = .018) were statistically significant suggesting greater reductions in illicit drug use with e-SBIRT versus EUC, which attenuated with time. Neither SBIRT nor e-SBIRT was associated with a significant reduction in days of alcohol use per month, as compared to EUC. CONCLUSIONS: Reproductive-age women appear to respond differently to electronic- and clinician-delivered interventions, depending on their primary substance. SBIRT reduced use of cigarettes, and e-SBIRT reduced illicit drug use. Although neither intervention reduced primary alcohol use, the sample size was small (n = 51), suggesting a need for further testing in a larger sample.

Comparing satisfaction, alliance and intervention components in electronically delivered and in-person brief interventions for substance use among childbearing-aged women.

Electronic delivery of Screening, Brief Intervention, and Referral to Treatment (e-SBIRT) may be a low-cost and high-reach method for screening and brief intervention in health care settings. However, its relative acceptability, ability to build a therapeutic alliance, and delivery of key intervention components compared to in-person SBIRT (SBIRT) is unclear. The association of these factors with intervention outcomes is also not known. We compared SBIRT and e-SBIRT on satisfaction, alliance, and receipt of intervention components, and evaluated the extent to which these intervention dimensions were related to later substance use. Data were collected as part of a randomized clinical trial (N = 439) examining SBIRT, e-SBIRT, and enhanced usual care for childbearing-aged women in two reproductive healthcare clinics (see Martino et al. (2018) for main trial findings). Participants receiving SBIRT or e-SBIRT (N = 270) rated satisfaction and alliance following a single-session, brief intervention, based on motivational interviewing that targeted hazardous substance use (tobacco, alcohol, illicit drugs and prescribed medications). Trained raters coded audio-recorded SBIRT sessions for the presence of six major intervention components, and evaluated the occurrence of these components in the e-SBIRT software. Overall, participants in both groups reported strong satisfaction (on average, "considerably" to "extremely" satisfied) and perceived working alliance (on average, "very often" to "always" allied). SBIRT participants provided higher overall alliance ratings, felt more encouraged to make their own decisions, and rated the intervention's likely helpfulness to other women higher. Fewer e-SBIRT participants received intervention components focusing on personalized feedback, developing importance of and confidence in making changes to substance use, and developing a plan to change, compared to SBIRT participants. However, e-SBIRT participants were equally or more likely to receive components seeking to help them understand their use, discussing reasons for use, and summarizing and supporting what the patients elected to do. Notably, satisfaction, alliance, and number of intervention components received were not associated with total days of substance use. Although we found no evidence that the intervention characteristics evaluated in this study were associated with outcomes, acceptability and alliance may have other important implications. Findings suggest areas for improvement with respect to e-SBIRT satisfaction and alliance formation. ClinicalTrials.govregistration number: NCT01539525.

Associations with Unprotected Sexual Behavior Among HIV-Infected Drinkers in Western Kenya.

Approximately 71% of HIV-infected individuals live in sub-Saharan Africa. Alcohol use increases unprotected sex, which can lead to HIV transmission. Little research examines risky sex among HIV-infected individuals in East Africa who are not sex workers. The study purpose was to examine associations with unprotected sex in a high-risk sample of 507 HIV-infected sexually active drinkers in western Kenya. They were enrolled in a trial to reduce alcohol use. Past-month baseline alcohol use and sexual behavior were assessed using the Timeline Followback. A zero-inflated negative binomial model examined associations with occurrence and frequency of unprotected sex. Results showed heavy drinking days were significantly associated with unprotected sex occurrence across gender, and with unprotected sex frequency among women. Among women, transactional sex, alcohol-related sexual expectations, condom use self-efficacy, drinking-and-protected-sex days and age were associated with unprotected sex occurrence while alcohol-related sexual expectations, depressive symptoms and condom use self-efficacy were associated with unprotected sex frequency. Among men, alcohol-related sexual expectations, condom use self-efficacy, and age were associated with unprotected sex occurrence, while drinking-and-protected-sex days were associated with unprotected sex occurrence and frequency. Findings suggest robust relationships between heavy drinking and unprotected sex. Further research is needed elucidating the temporal relationships between drinking and unprotected sex in this population.

A randomized controlled trial of screening and brief interventions for substance misuse in reproductive health.

BACKGROUND: Screening, brief intervention, and referral to treatment may reduce substance misuse but has received minimal study among women who are treated in reproductive health settings. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to determine whether "screening, brief intervention and referral to treatment" that is delivered either electronically or by clinician are more effective than enhanced usual care in decreasing days of primary substance use. STUDY DESIGN: Women from 2 reproductive centers who smoked cigarettes or misused alcohol, illicit drugs, or prescription medication were allocated randomly to "screening, brief intervention and referral to treatment" delivered electronically or by clinician or to enhanced usual care. Assessments were completed at baseline and at 1-, 3-, and 6-months after a baseline has been established. Coprimary outcomes were days/months of primary substance use and postintervention treatment use. A sample size of 660 women was planned; randomization was stratified by primary substance use and pregnancy status. "Screening, brief intervention and referral to treatment" groups were compared with enhanced usual care groups with the use of generalized estimation equations, and effect sizes were calculated with the use of Cohen's d. RESULTS: Between September 2011 and January 2015, women were assigned randomly to a group: 143 women (16.8% pregnant) in the electronic-delivered "screening, brief intervention and referral to treatment" group, 145 women (18.6% pregnant) in the clinician-delivered "screening, brief intervention and referral to treatment" group, and 151 women (19.2% pregnant) in the enhanced usual care group; the retention was >84%. Based on the generalized estimating equations model, predicted mean days per month of use at baseline for primary substance were 23.9 days (95% confidence interval, 22.4-25.5) for the electronic-delivered group, 22.8 days (95% confidence interval, 21.4-24.3) for the clinician-delivered group, and 23.5 days (95% confidence interval, 22.2, 24.9) for enhanced usual care, which respectively declined to 20.5 days (95% confidence interval, 19.0-22.2), 19.8 days (95% confidence interval,18.5-21.3), and 21.9 days (95% confidence interval, 20.7-23.1) at 1 month; 16.9 days (95% confidence interval, 15.0-19.0), 16.6 days (95% confidence interval, 14.8-18.6), and 19.5 days (95% confidence interval, 18.1-21.1) at 3 months; and 16.3 days (95% confidence interval, 14.3-18.7), 16.3 days (95% confidence interval, 14.4-18.5), and 17.9 days (95% confidence interval, 16.1-19.9) at 6 months. Estimated declines were greater in the electronic-delivered group (ß [standard error]=-0.090[0.034]; P=.008; Cohen's d, 0.19 at 1 month, 0.30 at 3 months, and 0.17 at 6 months) and the clinician-delivered group (ß [standard error]=-0.078[0.037]; P=.038; Cohen's d, 0.17 at 1 month, 0.22 at 3 months, and 0.06 at 6 months) compared with enhanced usual care. Treatment use did not differ between groups. CONCLUSION: "Screening, brief intervention and referral to treatment" significantly decreased days of primary substance use among women in reproductive healthcare centers; neither resulted in more treatment use than enhanced usual care.

Momentary Associations Between Reported Craving and Valuing Health in Daily Smokers.

INTRODUCTION: Research suggests that a blunted response to nondrug rewards, especially under conditions associated with strong cigarette cravings, is associated with reduced abstinence motivation in daily smokers. One limitation of previous studies is that they have largely focused on monetary rewards as broad representative of nondrug rewards. It remains unclear whether craving dampens responses to more abstract nondrug rewards, such as personal values. Personal values often have a positive valence and are frequently assumed to remain stable across time and situations. However, there may be time-varying and contextual influences on smokers' appraisal of values in daily life. Characterizing fluctuations in value importance in relation to relapse precipitants (eg, craving) may inform interventions that leverage personal values as motivation for cessation. METHODS: Daily smokers (n = 18) completed ecological momentary assessment surveys measuring the importance of specific personal values and smoking-related variables during 8 days of monetarily reinforced cigarette abstinence. We hypothesized that value ratings would demonstrate adequate within-person heterogeneity for multilevel modeling and that within-person fluctuations in craving would be negatively related to valuing personal health. RESULTS: All values demonstrated adequate within-person variability for multilevel modeling. Within-person craving was negatively related to health valuation (p = .012) and a cross-level interaction (p > .0001) suggested this effect is stronger for individuals who report greater overall craving. CONCLUSIONS: Greater craving is associated with decreased importance of personal health in the moment, particularly for those with high average levels of craving. Timely interventions that bolster importance of health during moments of elevated craving can potentially improve cessation outcomes. IMPLICATIONS: This study builds on research highlighting the positive influence of personal values in motivating behavior change. Values are an often used, but poorly studied, construct that has considerable utility in smoking cessation. Valuing personal health is frequently reported as a primary motivator for a quit attempt. Inasmuch as personal health is a distal nondrug reward used to motivate smoking abstinence, naturalistic evaluation of health importance, and motivators for continued smoking (ie, craving) could inform the timing and content of smoking treatment. This study is among the first to evaluate momentary assessment of personal values and craving within daily life.

A randomized trial for hazardous drinking and smoking cessation for callers to a quitline.

OBJECTIVE: This study evaluated whether tobacco quitline telephone coaches can be trained to counsel hazardous-drinking smokers to improve smoking cessation success and to limit or abstain from alcohol use. METHOD: Smokers (N = 1,948) who called the New York State Smokers' Quitline and reported hazardous drinking (exceeding sex-specific weekly limits [14 drinks for men, 7 drinks for women] or meeting/exceeding daily drinking limits [5 drinks for men, 4 drinks for women] at least once in the past year) were randomized to receive either brief motivational counseling to limit or abstain from alcohol plus an alcohol reduction booklet added to standard care (Alcohol + Tobacco Counseling; ATC), or only smoking cessation counseling plus a smoking cessation booklet added to standard care (Tobacco-Only Counseling; TOC). RESULTS: Acceptable coach adherence was achieved. The intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis showed that ATC was associated with a significantly higher rate of smoking abstinence at 7-month follow-up (13.5%) compared with TOC (10.3%; p = .03). The respondent analysis (ATC= 26.2%; TOC = 20.4%) paralleled the ITT findings. When controlling for treatment condition, participants who did not report any heavy drinking were significantly more likely to quit smoking than those who reported any heavy drinking (OR = 1.87, 95% CI [1.29, 2.71]; p = .001). CONCLUSIONS: A brief alcohol intervention plus standard care via a telephone quitline resulted in significantly higher smoking cessation rates for hazardous-drinking callers. Given that quitline coaches were trained to provide the intervention with acceptable adherence, the potential to extend this intervention for wide-scale implementation and impact is promising.

Implementing rapid HIV testing with or without risk-reduction counseling in drug treatment centers: results of a randomized trial.

OBJECTIVES: We examined the effectiveness of risk reduction counseling and the role of on-site HIV testing in drug treatment. METHODS: Between January and May 2009, we randomized 1281 HIV-negative (or status unknown) adults who reported no past-year HIV testing to (1) referral for off-site HIV testing, (2) HIV risk-reduction counseling with on-site rapid HIV testing, or (3) verbal information about testing only with on-site rapid HIV testing. RESULTS: We defined 2 primary self-reported outcomes a priori: receipt of HIV test results and unprotected anal or vaginal intercourse episodes at 6-month follow-up. The combined on-site rapid testing participants received more HIV test results than off-site testing referral participants (P<.001; Mantel-Haenszel risk ratio=4.52; 97.5% confidence interval [CI]=3.57, 5.72). At 6 months, there were no significant differences in unprotected intercourse episodes between the combined on-site testing arms and the referral arm (P=.39; incidence rate ratio [IRR]=1.04; 97.5% CI=0.95, 1.14) or the 2 on-site testing arms (P=.81; IRR=1.03; 97.5% CI=0.84, 1.26). CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated on-site rapid HIV testing's value in drug treatment centers and found no additional benefit from HIV sexual risk-reduction counseling.

Developing and implementing a multispecialty graduate medical education curriculum on Screening, Brief Intervention, and Referral to Treatment (SBIRT).

The authors sought to evaluate the feasibility and acceptability of initiating a Screening, Brief Intervention, and Referral to Treatment (SBIRT) for alcohol and other drug use curriculum across multiple residency programs. SBIRT project faculty in the internal medicine (traditional, primary care internal medicine, medicine/pediatrics), psychiatry, obstetrics and gynecology, emergency medicine, and pediatrics programs were trained in performing and teaching SBIRT. The SBIRT project faculty trained the residents in their respective disciplines, accommodating discipline-specific implementation issues and developed a SBIRT training Web site. Post-training, residents were observed performing SBIRT with a standardized patient. Measurements included number of residents trained, performance of SBIRT in clinical practice, and training satisfaction. One hundred and ninety-nine residents were trained in SBIRT: 98 internal medicine, 35 psychiatry, 18 obstetrics and gynecology, 21 emergency medicine, and 27 pediatrics residents. To date, 338 self-reported SBIRT clinical encounters have occurred. Of the 196 satisfaction surveys completed, the mean satisfaction score for the training was 1.60 (1 = very satisfied to 5 = very dissatisfied). Standardized patient sessions with SBIRT project faculty supervision were the most positive aspect of the training and length of training was a noted weakness. Implementation of a graduate medical education SBIRT curriculum in a multispecialty format is feasible and acceptable. Future efforts focusing on evaluation of resident SBIRT performance and sustainability of SBIRT are needed.

Randomized trial: Quitline specialist training in gain-framed vs standard-care messages for smoking cessation.

BACKGROUND: Smoking accounts for a large proportion of cancer-related mortality, creating a need for better smoking cessation efforts. We investigated whether gain-framed messages (ie, presenting benefits of quitting) will be a more persuasive method to encourage smoking cessation than standard-care messages (ie, presenting both costs of smoking [loss-framed] and benefits of quitting). METHODS: Twenty-eight specialists working at the New York State Smokers' Quitline (a free telephone-based smoking cessation service) were randomly assigned to provide gain-framed or standard-care counseling and print materials. Smokers (n = 2032) who called the New York State Smokers' Quitline between March 10, 2008, and June 13, 2008, were exposed to either gain-framed (n = 810) or standard-care (n = 1222) messages, and all medically eligible callers received nicotine replacement therapy. A subset of 400 call recordings was coded to assess treatment fidelity. All treated smokers were contacted for 2-week and 3-month follow-up interviews. All statistical tests were two-sided. RESULTS: Specialists providing gain-framed counseling used gain-framed statements statistically significantly more frequently than those providing standard-care counseling as assessed with frequency ratings for the two types of gain-framed statements, achieving benefits and avoiding negative consequences (for achieving benefits, gain-framed mean frequency rating = 3.9 vs standard-care mean frequency rating = 1.4; mean difference = -2.5; 95% confidence interval [CI] = -2.8 to -2.3; P < .001; for avoiding negative consequences, gain-framed mean frequency rating = 1.5 vs standard-card mean frequency rating = 1.0; mean difference = -0.5; 95% CI = -0.6 to -0.3; P < .001). Gain-framed counseling was associated with a statistically significantly higher rate of abstinence at the 2-week follow-up (ie, 99 [23.3%] of the 424 in the gain-framed group vs 76 [12.6%] of the 603 in the standard-care group, P < .001) but not at the 3-month follow-up (ie, 148 [28.4%] of the 522 in the gain-framed group vs 202 [26.6%] of the 760 in the standard-care group, P = .48). CONCLUSIONS: Quitline specialists can be trained to provide gain-framed counseling with good fidelity. Also, gain-framed messages appear to be somewhat more persuasive than standard-care messages in promoting early success in smoking cessation.