Assessment of Screening Tools to Identify Substance Use Disorders Among Adolescents.

Importance: Efficient screening tools that effectively identify substance use disorders (SUDs) among youths are needed. Objective: To evaluate the psychometric properties of 3 brief substance use screening tools (Screening to Brief Intervention [S2BI]; Brief Screener for Tobacco, Alcohol, and Drugs [BSTAD]; and Tobacco, Alcohol, Prescription Medication, and Other Substances [TAPS]) with adolescents aged 12 to 17 years. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional validation study was conducted from July 1, 2020, to February 28, 2022. Participants aged 12 to 17 years were recruited virtually and in person from 3 health care settings in Massachusetts: (1) an outpatient adolescent SUD treatment program at a pediatric hospital, (2) an adolescent medicine program at a community pediatric practice affiliated with an academic institution, and (3) 1 of 28 participating pediatric primary care practices. Participants were randomly assigned to complete 1 of the 3 electronic screening tools via self-administration, followed by a brief electronic assessment battery and a research assistant-administered diagnostic interview as the criterion standard measure for Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition (DSM-5) diagnoses of SUDs. Data were analyzed from May 31 to September 13, 2022. Main Outcomes and Measures: The main outcome was a DSM-5 diagnosis of tobacco/nicotine, alcohol, or cannabis use disorder as determined by the criterion standard World Mental Health Composite International Diagnostic Interview Substance Abuse Module. Classification accuracy of the 3 substance use screening tools was assessed by examining the agreement between the criterion, using sensitivity and specificity, based on cut points for each tool for use disorder, chosen a priori from previous studies. Results: This study included 798 adolescents, with a mean (SD) age of 14.6 (1.6) years. The majority of participants identified as female (415 [52.0%]) and were White (524 [65.7%]). High agreement between screening results and the criterion standard measure was observed, with area under the curve values ranging from 0.89 to 1 for nicotine, alcohol, and cannabis use disorders for each of the 3 screening tools. Conclusions and Relevance: These findings suggest that screening tools that use questions on past-year frequency of use are effective for identifying adolescents with SUDs. Future work could examine whether these tools have differing properties when used with different groups of adolescents in different settings.

Baseline representativeness of patients in clinics enrolled in the PRimary care Opioid Use Disorders treatment (PROUD) trial: comparison of trial and non-trial clinics in the same health systems.

BACKGROUND: Pragmatic primary care trials aim to test interventions in "real world" health care settings, but clinics willing and able to participate in trials may not be representative of typical clinics. This analysis compared patients in participating and non-participating clinics from the same health systems at baseline in the PRimary care Opioid Use Disorders treatment (PROUD) trial. METHODS: This observational analysis relied on secondary electronic health record and administrative claims data in 5 of 6 health systems in the PROUD trial. The sample included patients 16-90 years at an eligible primary care visit in the 3 years before randomization. Each system contributed 2 randomized PROUD trial clinics and 4 similarly sized non-trial clinics. We summarized patient characteristics in trial and non-trial clinics in the 2 years before randomization ("baseline"). Using mixed-effect regression models, we compared trial and non-trial clinics on a baseline measure of the primary trial outcome (clinic-level patient-years of opioid use disorder (OUD) treatment, scaled per 10,000 primary care patients seen) and a baseline measure of the secondary trial outcome (patient-level days of acute care utilization among patients with OUD). RESULTS: Patients were generally similar between the 10 trial clinics (n = 248,436) and 20 non-trial clinics (n = 341,130), although trial clinics' patients were slightly younger, more likely to be Hispanic/Latinx, less likely to be white, more likely to have Medicaid/subsidized insurance, and lived in less wealthy neighborhoods. Baseline outcomes did not differ between trial and non-trial clinics: trial clinics had 1.0 more patient-year of OUD treatment per 10,000 patients (95% CI: - 2.9, 5.0) and a 4% higher rate of days of acute care utilization than non-trial clinics (rate ratio: 1.04; 95% CI: 0.76, 1.42). CONCLUSIONS: trial clinics and non-trial clinics were similar regarding most measured patient characteristics, and no differences were observed in baseline measures of trial primary and secondary outcomes. These findings suggest trial clinics were representative of comparably sized clinics within the same health systems. Although results do not reflect generalizability more broadly, this study illustrates an approach to assess representativeness of clinics in future pragmatic primary care trials.