The Relationship between Vaping Cannabis and Frequency of Cannabis Use and Cannabis-Related Problems among Urban High School Students.

Background: Vaping, including vaping cannabis, is increasing among adolescents. In this longitudinal study, we examined the relationship between vaping cannabis and frequency of cannabis use and related problems over 6 months among adolescents. Material and Methods: Data were from 233 participants (46.8% male, 93.1% African American, mean age = 16.4 years) reporting cannabis use. The Alcohol, Smoking and Substance Involvement Screening Test (ASSIST) assessed frequency of past 30-day cannabis use and cannabis-related problems at baseline, 3- and 6-months post-baseline. We used latent growth curve modeling to compare vaping to non-vaping adolescents on trends in cannabis use frequency and ASSIST cannabis scores. Results: Adolescents who vaped cannabis (11.7%) had higher past 30-day frequency (mean = 17.89 days, SD = 10.49) of cannabis use at baseline compared to adolescents who had not vaped (mean = 12.1 days, SD = 10.93), but reported a significantly sharper decline in frequency of cannabis use (b = -0.34, p = 0.017). A significantly steeper decrease existed in the mean cannabis ASSIST scores for the vaping group than for the non-vaping group (b = -0.34, p = 0.014). Mean ASSIST scores on the cannabis subscale between the two groups were significantly different at 6-month follow-up (Vape mean = 6.00, SD = 8.12 vs. Non-vape mean = 9.6, SD = 9.39; p < 0.021). Conclusions: In a sample of cannabis-using adolescents, adolescents with experience vaping cannabis, compared to adolescents without vaping experience, on average reported sharper decreases in frequency of cannabis use and cannabis-related problems such as health or social problems.

The Spanish language version of the TAPS tool: protocol for a validation and implementation study in primary care.

BACKGROUND: The TAPS Tool ("Tobacco, Alcohol, Prescription drug, and illicit Substance use") is a screening and brief assessment for detecting unhealthy substance use in healthcare settings that was developed by the National Institute on Drug Abuse Clinical Trials Network and validated in a multisite study. Our team developed a Spanish language version of the TAPS Tool that supports provider- and self-administration screening using a mobile/web-based platform, the TAPS Electronic Spanish Platform (TAPS-ESP). METHODS: This article describes the protocol and rationale for a study to validate the TAPS-ESP in a sample of Spanish-speaking primary care patients recruited from a network of community-based clinics in Texas (target N = 1,000). The TAPS-ESP will be validated against established substance use disorder diagnostic measures, alternative screening tools, and substance use biomarkers. The study will subsequently examine barriers and facilitators to screening with the TAPS-ESP from a provider workflow perspective using qualitative interviews with providers. DISCUSSION: Validating a Spanish language version of the TAPS Tool could expand access to evidence-based, linguistically accurate, and culturally relevant substance use screening and brief assessment for an underserved health disparity population. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study was registered with www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov : NCT05476588, 07/22/2022.

A Brief Screening and Assessment Tool for Opioid Use in Adults: Results from a Validation Study of the Tobacco, Alcohol, Prescription Medication, and Other Substances Tool.

OBJECTIVES: This secondary analysis evaluated opioid-specific validation results of the Tobacco, Alcohol, Prescription Medication, and Other Substances (TAPS) tool for screening in primary care. METHODS: This study is a secondary data analysis of the TAPS validation study. Performance of the TAPS tool for screening for unhealthy opioid use (with a score of 1+ for heroin and/or prescription opioids representing a positive screen) was evaluated. Discriminative ability was examined in comparison with reference standard measures across the spectrum of unhealthy opioid use: timeline follow-back with and without oral fluid testing identifying past-month use and the modified Composite International Diagnostic Interview for past-year problem use, opioid use disorder (OUD), and moderate-severe OUD. RESULTS: In a sample of 2000 primary care patients, 114 screened positive for opioids on the TAPS tool. With a TAPS cutoff equal to 1+, the TAPS accurately identified past-month use, problem use, any OUD, and moderate-severe OUD (sensitivities = 68%-85%, specificities = 97%-98%, area under the curve = 0.80-0.91). When past-month use was expanded to include timeline follow-back with oral fluid testing, accuracy declined (52% sensitivity [95% confidence interval, 43%-60%], 98% specific [95% confidence interval, 97%-98%]). CONCLUSIONS: While further testing in a larger population sample may be warranted, given their brevity, simplicity, and accuracy when self-administered, the TAPS opioid items can be used in primary care settings for a spectrum of unhealthy opioid use; however, self-disclosure remains an issue in primary care settings.

Sustainability of Adolescent Screening and Brief Intervention Services in Primary Care After Removal of Implementation Supports.

OBJECTIVE: Although many health care organizations have sought to increase the integration of substance use services into clinical practice, such practice changes can prove difficult to sustain. METHOD: Seven primary care clinics participated in an implementation study of screening and brief intervention (BI) services for adolescent patients (ages 12-17). All sites delivered screening and brief advice (BA) for low-risk use using a uniform protocol. Clinics were randomized to deliver BI using generalist (provider-delivered) or specialist (behavioral health clinician-delivered) models. Implementation was facilitated by multiple supporting activities (e.g., trainings, local "champion," electronic health record [EHR] integration of screening and documentation, individualized feedback, project-specific materials, etc.). Data on the penetration of screening, BA, and BI delivery (N = 14,486 adolescent patient visits) were abstracted from the EHR for the 20-month implementation phase and a 12-month sustainability phase (during which implementation supports were removed). RESULTS: Penetration of screening continued to slowly increase across the implementation-to-sustainability phases (62% vs. 70%; p = .04). Although uptake during implementation was low for BA (29%) and BI (22%), there was no significant decrease in service provision during the sustainability phase. Although overall delivery of BI was significantly higher in generalist compared with specialist sites (p < .001), sustainability did not differ by generalist versus specialist conditions. There were considerable differences in penetration across clinic sites. CONCLUSIONS: Clinics sustained a high level of substance use screening. Uptake of intervention services was low but did not decrease further following the cessation of implementation supports. This study illustrates the challenges of successfully implementing and sustaining substance use services in adolescent primary care.

Costs and Implementation Effectiveness of Generalist Versus Specialist Models for Adolescent Screening and Brief Intervention in Primary Care.

OBJECTIVE: This study analyzed the marginal service and program costs, and conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) of two models of implementation of adolescent substance screening, brief intervention, and referral to treatment (SBIRT). METHOD: SBIRT was implemented at seven clinics in a multisite, cluster-randomized trial, through a Specialist model (behavioral health counselor-delivered brief intervention), and a Generalist model (primary care provider-delivered brief intervention). The CEA calculated marginal costs using an activity-based costing methodology for direct SBIRT services, and effectiveness was measured by the proportion of brief interventions delivered among patients who screened positive for alcohol, tobacco, or other drugs. Site-level program costs comprised start-up and maintenance (training and technical assistance). Costs were estimated in 2017 U.S. dollars. RESULTS: The marginal cost of SBIRT per patient with a positive screen for brief intervention was $6.72 in the Specialist model and $6.05 in the Generalist model. Implementation effectiveness was 7.2% (SE = 2.9%) in the Specialist model and 37.7% (SE = 5.6%) in the Generalist model. The program costs to provide SBIRT for 1 year per site were $13,548 for the Specialist site and $12,081 for the Generalist. CONCLUSIONS: The Generalist model was more effective in implementing brief intervention and less expensive than the Specialist model. Results were robust to sensitivity analysis. Brief intervention delivered by primary care providers rather than by handoff to a behavioral health counselor may ensure greater penetration and a lower cost of these services in primary care settings.

Sexually Transmitted Infection Testing After Brief Intervention for Risk Behaviors in School-Based Health Centers.

PURPOSE: The initiation and escalation of substance use and sex behaviors is prevalent during adolescence. School-based health centers (SBHCs) are well-equipped to provide interventions for risky behaviors and offer sexually transmitted infection (STI) testing services. This study examined receipt of STI testing following brief intervention (BI) among sexually active adolescents. METHODS: This is a secondary analysis of data from a randomized trial comparing computer versus nurse practitioner-delivered BI approaches among adolescents (ages 14-18) with risky alcohol and/or cannabis use at two SBHCs within two urban high schools. Associations were examined among receipt of STI testing and participant characteristics, BI format, site, and frequency of substance use/sexual behaviors. RESULTS: Among sexually active participants (N = 254), 64.2% received STI testing at their SBHC within 6 months of receiving a BI. Participants receiving nurse practitioner-delivered BI had higher odds of getting STI testing than participants receiving computer-delivered BI (adjusted odds ratio 2.51, 95% confidence interval 1.41-4.47, p = .002). Other variables associated with STI testing in multivariable logistic regression included female sex (p = .001), being in a serious relationship (p = .018), and SBHC site (p < .001). Frequency of substance use and sexual risk behaviors were not independently associated with receipt of STI testing services. CONCLUSION: Sexually active adolescents who received in-person BI from a nurse practitioner were more likely to get STI testing than adolescents who received BI via computer. Nurse practitioners working in SBHCs can successfully engage adolescents in additional sexual health services subsequent to BI for risky behaviors.

Organizational Acceptability of Implementing SBIRT for Adolescents in Primary Care.

INTRODUCTION: Adolescent illicit drug, tobacco, and alcohol use can result in sudden and long-term negative health consequences. Primary care environments present the optimal opportunity for screening and brief interventions that target prevention and curtailing use. Screening, Brief Intervention, and Referral to Treatment (SBIRT) is a service delivery method that could potentially be well-integrated into primary care settings and used to serve a high volume of adolescents. Methods: This qualitative analysis of clinic staff interviews (N = 20), collected during a large cluster-randomized trial to implement two models of adolescent SBIRT, examined barriers and facilitating factors to overall acceptability of SBIRT. This study was conducted in a large, urban Federally Qualified Health Center (FQHC) at 7 sites throughout Baltimore City, Maryland, USA. Participants from each clinic included a range of various roles and responsibilities including: medical assistants (n = 3), nurses (n = 3), primary care providers (n = 4), behavioral health counselors (n = 4), and administrators (n = 6). Results: Results indicate both barriers and facilitating factors for acceptability of SBIRT in terms of (1) universal screening, (2) provider time demands, (3) behavioral health collaboration, and (4) behavioral health caseloads. Discussion: Universal screening was acceptable to participants across organizational roles, but brief interventions and referrals to treatment were found substantially less acceptable.

Extended-release naltrexone for youth with opioid use disorder.

BACKGROUND: Few published research studies have examined the effectiveness of extended-release naltrexone (XR-NTX) for the treatment of opioid use disorder (OUD) among adolescents and young adults. METHODS: This two-group randomized controlled trial recruited 288 youth, ages 15-21, with moderate/severe OUD from a residential addiction treatment program in Baltimore, Maryland. The study randomized the youth within the first week of treatment entry to receive either XR-NTX or treatment-as-usual (TAU; either buprenorphine maintenance treatment or treatment without OUD medication following medically managed withdrawal) prior to discharge, with continued treatment in the community for 6 months. However, due to various reasons spanning patients' and caregivers' preferences and constraints, considerable participant nonadherence to randomized condition occurred (i.e., only 30% of the participants randomized to XR-NTX received an initial injection, while 27% of participants randomized to TAU received an XR-NTX injection at treatment discharge, instead of their assigned treatment). The study used generalized linear mixed modeling (GLiMM) to examine self-reported 90-day opioid, cocaine, marijuana, and alcohol use as well as DSM-5 OUD criteria on "intention-to-treat" (as randomized), "as-received" (XR-NTX vs. not XR-NTX), and "as-medicated" (XR-NTX vs. buprenorphine vs. no medication) bases. RESULTS: The condition x time interactions in the intention-to-treat analyses failed to reach significance for past-90-day self-reported use of illicit opioids, cocaine, marijuana, or alcohol, or in meeting DSM-5 OUD criteria at 3 or 6 months [all ps > 0.05]. However, these findings are of limited interpretive value due to participant nonadherence to their randomized condition. When the study analyzed results by the treatment received at discharge, the "as-received" group x time interaction for illicit opioid use was significant [p = .003], with the XR-NTX group reporting less opioid use in the past 90 days at 3 and 6 months. Participants who received their first XR-NTX dose at inpatient discharge (n = 82) received, on average, 1.3 subsequent injections in the community over the 6-month study follow-up period. Only 2 of the 82 study participants received XR-NTX continuously through the 6-month postdischarge follow-up period. Twelve serious adverse events (SAEs) occurred during the study, but the study determined that only 1 was possibly study related (hepatitis C/elevated liver function test results). CONCLUSION: None of the condition x time interactions in the intention-to-treat analyses reached significance. Participants' nonadherence may have contributed to the failure to reject the null hypothesis. Irrespective of randomized condition, participants who received XR-NTX for OUD demonstrated low retention in treatment, receiving an average of only 1.3 subsequent injections, yet reported less opioid use at follow-up than participants who did not received XR-NTX. Treatment programs should consider XR-NTX as a treatment option for youth motivated to receive it. Future research should focus on building developmentally informed strategies to improve uptake of and adherence to relapse prevention medication in this population.

De-Implementing Opioid Use and Implementing Optimal Pain Management Following Dental Extractions (DIODE): Protocol for a Cluster Randomized Trial.

BACKGROUND: Overdose deaths from prescription opioid analgesics are a continuing crisis in the United States. Opioid analgesics are among the most frequently prescribed drugs by dentists. An estimated 5 million people undergo third-molar extractions in the United States each year, resulting in postoperative pain. Studies show that, in most cases, the combination of ibuprofen and acetaminophen is an effective alternative to commonly prescribed opioid analgesics for the management of postextraction pain. Nevertheless, many dentists routinely prescribe opioids after dental extractions. OBJECTIVE: We describe the rationale, design, and methods for a randomized trial of interventions designed to de-implement opioid prescribing by dentists while implementing effective nonopioid analgesics following dental extractions. METHODS: Using a prospective, 3-arm, cluster randomized trial design with dentists as the unit randomized and patient-level prescribing data as the primary outcome, we will compare different strategies to reduce the reliance on opioids and increase the use of alternative pain management approaches utilizing information support tools aimed at both providers and their patients. The study will test the efficacy of 2 interventions to decrease opioid prescribing following dental extractions: clinical decision support with (CDS-E) and without patient education (CDS). Providers will be randomized to CDS, CDS-E, or standard practice. Patient-level outcomes will be determined via review of comprehensive electronic health records. We will compare study arms on differential change in prescribing patterns from pre- to postimplementation of the intervention. The primary outcome of interest is a binary indicator of whether or not the patient received an opioid prescription on the day of the extraction encounter. We will also examine recommendations or prescriptions for nonopioid analgesics, patients' perceptions of shared decision making, and patients' pain experiences following the extraction. RESULTS: The HealthPartners Institutional Review Board approved the study. All study materials including the CDS and patient education materials have been developed and pilot tested, and the protocol has been approved by the National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research. The intervention was implemented in February 2020, with 51 dentists who were randomized to 1 of the 3 arms. CONCLUSIONS: If the intervention strategies are shown to be effective, they could be implemented more broadly in dental settings with high levels of opioid prescribing. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03584789, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03584789. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/24342.

A Brief Screening Tool for Opioid Use Disorder: EMPOWER Study Expert Consensus Protocol.

Growing concerns about the safety of long-term opioid therapy and its uncertain efficacy for non-cancer pain have led to relatively rapid opioid deprescribing in chronic pain patients who have been taking opioid for years. To date, empirically supported processes for safe and effective opioid tapering are lacking. Opioid tapering programs have shown high rates of dropouts and increases in patient distress and suicidal ideation. Therefore, safe strategies for opioid deprescribing that are more likely to succeed are urgently needed. In response to this demand, the EMPOWER study has been launched to examine the effectiveness of behavioral medicine strategies within the context of patient-centered opioid tapering in outpatient settings (https://empower.stanford.edu/). The EMPOWER protocol requires an efficient process for ensuring that collaborative opioid tapering would be offered to the most appropriate patients while identifying patients who should be offered alternate treatment pathways. As a first step, clinicians need a screening tool to identify patients with Opioid Use Disorder (OUD) and to assess for OUD severity. Because such a tool is not available, the study team composed of eight chronic pain and/or addiction experts has extended a validated screening instrument to develop a brief and novel consensus screening tool to identify OUD and assess for OUD severity for treatment stratification. Our screening tool has the potential to assist busy outpatient clinicians to assess OUD among patients receiving long-term opioid therapy for chronic pain.

Computer- vs. nurse practitioner-delivered brief intervention for adolescent marijuana, alcohol, and sex risk behaviors in school-based health centers.

BACKGROUND: This study examined approaches to delivering brief interventions (BI) for risky substance use and sexual behaviors in school-based health centers (SBHCs). METHODS: 300 Adolescents (ages 14-18; 54 % female) with risky marijuana and/or alcohol use identified via CRAFFT screening (scores >1) were recruited from two SBHCs and randomized to computer-delivered BI (CBI) or nurse practitioner-delivered BI (NBI). Both BIs included motivational and didactic content targeting marijuana, alcohol, and risky sexual behaviors. Assessments at baseline, 3-month, and 6-month follow-up included past 30-day frequency of marijuana use, alcohol use, binge drinking, unprotected sex, and sex while intoxicated; marijuana and alcohol problems; and health-related quality-of-life (HRQoL). A focused cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted. An historical 'assessment-only' cohort (N=50) formed a supplementary quasi-experimental comparison group. RESULTS: There were no significant differences between NBI and CBI on any outcomes considered (e.g., days of marijuana use; p=.26). From a cost-effectiveness perspective, CBI was 'dominant' for HRQoL and marijuana use. Participants' satisfaction with BI was significantly higher for NBI than CBI. Compared to the assessment-only cohort, participants who received a BI had lower frequency of marijuana (3-months: Incidence Rate Ratio [IRR] = .74 [.57, .97], p=.03), alcohol (3-months: IRR = .43 [.29, .64], p<.001; 6-months: IRR = .58 [.34, .98], p = .04), alcohol-specific problems (3-months: IRR = .63 [.45, .89], p=.008; 6-months: IRR = .63 [.41, .97], p = .04), and sex while intoxicated (6-months: IRR = .42 [.21, .83], p = .013). CONCLUSIONS: CBI and NBI did not yield different risk behavior outcomes in this randomized trial. Supplementary quasi-experimental comparisons suggested potential superiority over assessment-only. Both NBI and CBI could be useful in SBHCs.

Development and Feasibility of a Spanish Language Version of the Tobacco, Alcohol, Prescription Drug, and Illicit Substance Use (TAPS) Tool.

OBJECTIVES: The Tobacco, Alcohol, Prescription drug, and illicit Substance use (TAPS) Tool is a validated two-stage screening and brief assessment in primary care for unhealthy substance use. We developed a Spanish language version of the TAPS Tool and conducted a small study of its feasibility, acceptability, and preliminary validity. METHODS: Participants were adult primary care patients ages 18 or older with Spanish as their primary language (N = 10 for development/refinement using qualitative congnitive interviewing; N = 100 for the preliminary validation study). The Spanish language TAPS Tool was administered in both interviewer- and selfadministered tablet format (in random order). We examined disclosure of substance use on the TAPS by administration format, and compared it with established measures for identifying substance use and substance use disorders. RESULTS: The Spanish language TAPS was feasible to use and participants reported high levels of acceptability. The rates of past 12-month substance use were 11% for tobacco, 28% for risky alcohol, 4% for illicit drugs, 1% for nonmedical prescription drugs and substance use disorders rates were 7% for tobacco, 2% for alcohol, and 1% for other substances. The selfadministered TAPS elicited 1, 3, and 1 additional disclosures of tobacco, risky, alcohol, and marijuana use than the interviewer-administered TAPS, respectively. Rates of disclosure on the TAPS were similar to those on established measures for past 12-month and 3-month time frames. CONCLUSIONS: The current study represents a starting point for expanding the availability of the TAPS Tool beyond its original English language version into Spanish. The Spanish language TAPS Tool could expand options for substance use screening in primary care settings with Spanish-dominant/preferred populations. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The studies were registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov: NCT03879785, March 19, 2019.

Adolescent SBIRT implementation: Generalist vs. Specialist models of service delivery in primary care.

BACKGROUND: Drug, alcohol, and tobacco use among adolescents pose significant short- and long-term health consequences and are associated with more severe use as adults. Screening, brief intervention, and referral to treatment in primary care settings has the potential to deliver preventive interventions to a diverse range of adolescents, but optimal implementation of these services needs to be determined. The purpose of this study was to compare implementation of two different SBIRT service delivery models in primary care settings. METHODS: This cluster-randomized trial assigned 7 primary care clinics of a federally qualified health center to implement brief interventions (BI) using a Generalist model (4 sites), in which BIs were delivered by the primary care provider (PCP), or a Specialist model (3 sites), in which BIs were delivered by a behavioral health counselor (BHC) for adolescent patients ages 12-17 years. Implementation was tracked through the clinic's electronic health record, spanning 9639 clinic visits over 20 months. Multilevel logistic regression modeling was used to compare Generalist and Specialist strategies on penetration of BI for patients scoring ≥2 on the CRAFFT substance use screen, delivered by the PCP in the Generalist sites, and via warm hand-off to a BHC in the Specialist sites. RESULTS: Approximately 62% of adolescent patient visits were screened with the CRAFFT (with <4% screening positive with a CRAFFT score ≥ 2). The Generalist Condition had significantly higher self-reported penetration of BI delivery than the Specialist Condition (38% vs. 8%; Adjusted Odds Ratio = 6.53; p = .005). DISCUSSION: Despite having co-located behavioral health services at all sites, a Specialist approach to providing BI was less effectively implemented than a Generalist approach in this FQHC. BI delivered by PCPs rather than by hand-off to a BHC may ensure greater penetration of these services in primary care settings. Both implementation models provided a framework for identifying and intervening with adolescent primary care patients whose substance use might have otherwise gone undetected.

Application of System Dynamics to Inform a Model of Adolescent SBIRT Implementation in Primary Care Settings.

System dynamics (SD) modeling is used to compare and contrast strategies for effective implementation of an evidence-based adolescent behavioral health treatment in primary care settings. With qualitative and quantitative data from an on-going cluster-randomized trial in 7 federally qualified health center sites, two implementation conditions were compared: generalist vs. specialist. In the generalist approach, the primary care provider (PCP) delivered brief intervention (BI) for substance misuse (n = 4 clinics). In the specialist approach, BIs were delivered by behavioral health counselors (BHCs) (n = 3 clinics). The resultant SD model compared 'basecase' dynamics to strategic approaches to deploying continuous technical assistance (TA) and performance feedback reporting (PFR). The basecase effectively represented the SBIRT intervention, which reflected actual monthly volume of adolescent primary care visits (N = 9639), screenings (N = 5937), positive screenings (N = 246), and brief interventions (BIs; N = 50) over the 20-month implementation period. Insights gained suggest that implementation outcomes are sensitive to frequency of PFR, with bimonthly events generating the most rapid and sustained screening results. Simulated trends indicated that availability of the BHC directly impacts success of the specialist model. Similarly, understanding PCPs' perception of severity of need for intervention is key to outcomes in either condition.

E-Cigarette Use Among Adult Primary Care Patients: Results from a Multisite Study.

BACKGROUND: Primary care settings provide opportunities to identify electronic-cigarette (e-cigarette) use and to implement strategies for changing tobacco use behavior. However, a better understanding of the extent and associated characteristics of e-cigarette use among primary care patients are needed to inform such efforts. OBJECTIVE: To describe patient demographic and substance use characteristics by e-cigarette use status among a large sample of primary care patients. To examine the prevalence and correlates of e-cigarette use among tobacco users in the sample. DESIGN: Cross-sectional analysis from a multisite validation study of a substance use screening instrument. PARTICIPANTS: Adult primary care patients aged 18 and older (n = 2000) recruited across 5 primary care clinics in the Eastern USA from 2014 to 2015. MAIN MEASURES: Patients reported past 3-month e-cigarette use, sociodemographics, tobacco use, and other substance use. Current nicotine dependence and DSM-5 criteria for past-year substance use disorders were also assessed. KEY RESULTS: Among the total sample, 7.7% (n = 154) adults reported past 3-month e-cigarette use. Adults who reported e-cigarette use (vs. no use) were more likely to be younger, white, or have frequent tobacco use, nicotine dependence, or past-year illicit drug use/disorders. Among past 3-month tobacco users, 16.3% reported e-cigarette use. Adjusted logistic regression indicated that odds of e-cigarette use were greater among tobacco users who had some college education or more (vs. < high school) or were daily/almost daily tobacco users (vs. not); odds were lower among Blacks/African-Americans (vs. whites). E-cigarette use among tobacco users was associated with increased odds of current nicotine dependence or tobacco use disorder as well as more severe dependence/disorder. CONCLUSIONS: Enhanced surveillance of e-cigarette use among adult tobacco users in primary care, particularly among those who use tobacco frequently, may have implications for helping patients with tobacco cessation using established approaches including behavioral support, pharmacotherapy, or referral to specialized care.

Electronic self-administered screening for substance use in adult primary care patients: feasibility and acceptability of the tobacco, alcohol, prescription medication, and other substance use (myTAPS) screening tool.

BACKGROUND: The TAPS Tool is a substance use screening and brief assessment instrument that was developed for use in primary care medical settings. It is one of the first screening instruments to provide rapid assessment of all commonly used substance classes, including illicit and prescription opioids, and is one of the only available screeners designed and validated in an electronic self-administered format (myTAPS). This secondary analysis of data from the TAPS Tool validation study describes the feasibility and acceptability of the myTAPS among primary care patients. METHODS: Adult patients (N = 2000) from five primary care clinics completed the TAPS Tool on a tablet computer (myTAPS), and in an interviewer-administered format. Requests for assistance and time required were tracked, and participants completed a survey on ease of use, utilization of audio guidance, and format preference. Logistic regression was used to examine outcomes in defined subpopulations, including groups that may have greater difficulty completing an electronic screener, and those that may prefer an electronic self-administered approach. RESULTS: Almost all participants (98.3%) reported that the myTAPS was easy to use. The median time to complete myTAPS screening was 4.0 min (mean 4.48, standard deviation 2.57). More time was required by participants who were older, Hispanic, Black, or reported non-medical prescription drug use, while less time was required by women. Assistance was requested by 25% of participants, and was more frequently requested by those who with lower education (OR = 2.08, 95% CI 1.62-2.67) or age > 65 years (OR = 2.79, 95% CI 1.98-3.93). Audio guidance was utilized by 18.3%, and was more frequently utilized by participants with lower education (OR = 2.01, 95% CI 1.54-2.63), age > 65 years (OR = 1.79, 95% CI 1.22-2.61), or Black race (OR = 1.30, 95% 1.01-1.68). The myTAPS format was preferred by women (OR = 1.29, 95% CI 1.00-1.66) and individuals with drug use (OR = 1.43, 95% CI 1.09-1.88), while participants with lower education preferred the interviewer-administered format (OR = 2.75, 95% CI 2.00-3.78). CONCLUSIONS: Overall, myTAPS screening was feasible and well accepted by adult primary care patients. Clinics adopting electronic screening should be prepared to offer assistance to some patients, particularly those who are older or less educated, and should have the capacity to use an interviewer-administered approach when required.

A Comparison of Screening Practices for Adolescents in Primary Care After Implementation of Screening, Brief Intervention, and Referral to Treatment.

PURPOSE: The American Academy of Pediatrics recommends screening adolescents for substance use at all well-child and appropriate acute-care visits. However, many pediatric practices aim for such screenings annually at well-child visits. METHODS: As part of a larger study, 7 urban Federally Qualified Health Center clinics implemented universal screening for risky alcohol and drug use using the Car, Relax, Alone, Forget, Friends, Trouble (CRAFFT) screening tool. The present study compared uptake of screening and screening results at well-child versus acute-care visits. RESULTS: Over a period of 13 months for which encounter-level electronic medical records data were available, there were 6,346 clinic visits by 3,475 unique patients aged 12-17 years, at which 76.6% (n = 4,865) of visits had a screening for problematic substance use conducted. Rates of screening were 95.1% (2,750/2,891 involving 2,629 unique adolescents) for well-child visits and 61.2% (2,115/3,455 involving 1,535 unique adolescents) for acute-care visits. Rates of positive screening results were 9.0% (248/2,750 involving 245 unique adolescents) for well-child visits and 7.8% (164/2,115 involving 126 unique adolescents) for acute-care visits. Of the 469 unique adolescents screened only during an acute-care visit during that same period, 40 unique adolescents had positive screening results for a positive screening rate of 8.5%. CONCLUSIONS: Nearly 10% of adolescent patients screened only at acute-care visits would not have been screened if screening was implemented solely at well-child visits, and 40 adolescents reporting substance use would have been missed. The findings highlight the benefits of screening adolescents at every primary care visit to better detect and intervene in adolescents' substance use.

Prevalence and patterns of opioid misuse and opioid use disorder among primary care patients who use tobacco.

BACKGROUND: Current data suggest that opioid misuse or opioid use disorder (OUD) may be over represented among tobacco users. However, this association remains understudied in primary care settings. A better understanding of the extent of heterogeneity in opioid misuse among primary care patients who use tobacco may have implications for improved primary care-based screening, prevention, and intervention approaches. METHODS: Data were derived from a sample of 2000 adult (aged ≥18) primary care patients across 5 distinct clinics. Among past-year tobacco users (n = 882), we assessed the prevalence of opioid misuse and OUD by sociodemographic characteristics and past-year polysubstance use. Latent class analysis (LCA) was used to identify heterogeneous subgroups of tobacco users according to past-year polysubstance use patterns. Multinomial logistic regression was used to examine variables associated with LCA-defined class membership. RESULTS: Past-year tobacco use was reported by >84% of participants who reported past-year opioid misuse or OUD. Among those reporting past-year tobacco use, the prevalence of past-year opioid misuse and OUD was 14.0% and 9.5%, respectively. The prevalence of opioid misuse or OUD was highest among tobacco users who were male or unemployed. Three LCA-defined classes among tobacco users were identified including a tobacco-minimal drug use group (78.0%), a tobacco-cannabis use group (10.1%), and a tobacco-opioid/polydrug use group (11.9%). Class membership differed by sociodemographic characteristics. CONCLUSIONS: Results from this study support the benefit of more comprehensive assessment of and/or monitoring for opioid misuse among primary care patients who use tobacco, particularly for those who are male, unemployed, or polydrug users.

Re-engineering methadone-Cost-effectiveness analysis of a patient-centered approach to methadone treatment.

Methadone maintenance treatment has proven effectiveness in the treatment of opioid use disorder, but significant barriers remain to treatment retention. In a randomized clinical trial, 300 newly-admitted methadone patients were randomly assigned to patient-centered methadone (PCM) v. treatment-as-usual (TAU). In PCM, participants were treated under revised program rules which permitted voluntary attendance at counseling and other changes focused on reducing involuntary discharge, and different staff roles which shifted disciplinary responsibility from the participant's counselor to the supervisor. The study found no significant differences in treatment retention, measures of opioid use, or other patient outcomes. This paper employs an activity-based costing approach to estimate the cost and cost-effectiveness of the two study conditions. We found that service use and costs were similar between PCM and TAU. Specifically, the average cost for PCM patients was $2396 compared to $2292 for standard methadone, while the average length of stay was 2 weeks longer for PCM patients. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) for self-reported heroin use, opioid positive urine screens, and meeting DSM-IV criteria for opioid dependence were mixed, with TAU achieving non-significantly better outcomes at lower treatment episode costs (i.e., economically dominating) for opioid positive urine screens. PCM patients reported slightly more days abstinent from heroin and fewer meet the opioid dependence criteria. While these differences are small and not statistically significant, we can still examine the cost-effectiveness implications. For days, abstinent from heroin, the ICER was $242 for one additional day of abstinence, however, there was notable uncertainty around this estimate. For opioid dependence criteria, the ICER was $1160 for a one-percentage point increase in the probability that a participant no longer met criteria for opioid dependence at follow-up. This economic study finds that patient choice concepts can be introduced into methadone treatment without significant impacts on costs or patient outcomes.

Start-Up Costs of SBIRT Implementation for Adolescents in Urban U.S. Federally Qualified Health Centers.

OBJECTIVE: Understanding the costs to implement Screening, Brief Intervention, and Referral to Treatment (SBIRT) for adolescent substance use in primary care settings is important for providers in planning for services and for decision makers considering dissemination and widespread implementation of SBIRT. We estimated the start-up costs of two models of SBIRT for adolescents in a multisite U.S. Federally Qualified Health Center (FQHC). In both models, screening was performed by a medical assistant, but models differed on delivery of brief intervention, with brief intervention delivered by a primary care provider in the generalist model and a behavioral health specialist in the specialist model. METHOD: SBIRT was implemented at seven clinics in a multisite, cluster randomized trial. SBIRT implementation costs were calculated using an activity-based costing methodology. Start-up activities were defined as (a) planning activities (e.g., changing existing electronic medical record system and tailoring service delivery protocols); and (b) initial staff training. Data collection instruments were developed to collect staff time spent in start-up activities and quantity of nonlabor resources used. RESULTS: The estimated average costs to implement SBIRT were $5,182 for the specialist model and $3,920 for the generalist model. Planning activities had the greatest impact on costs for both models. Overall, more resources were devoted to planning and training activities in specialist sites, making the specialist model costlier to implement. CONCLUSIONS: The initial investment required to implement SBIRT should not be neglected. The level of resources necessary for initial implementation depends on the delivery model and its integration into current practice.