Cross-Site Evaluation of Alcohol Screening and Brief Intervention Implementation Programs in Healthcare Systems Serving Individuals of Reproductive Age.

BACKGROUND: With US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention funding, from 2018 to 2022, 4 large healthcare systems (n = 53 health centers across 7 states) serving people of reproductive age trained staff and provided implementation support for alcohol screening and brief intervention (SBI). This cross-site evaluation explores each healthcare system's implementation approach to implement SBI, reduce excessive alcohol use, and prevent prenatal alcohol exposure (PAE) and fetal alcohol spectrum disorders. METHODS: The SBIRT (Screening, Brief Intervention, and Referral to Treatment) Program Matrix framed the multilevel strategies to implement alcohol SBI programs from 2018 to 2022. Qualitative and quantitative data sources examined outcomes, guided by one logic model, through systems-level process data and provider-level performance metrics. Data analyses utilized frequencies and means for quantitative data and themes for qualitative data according to an established framework. RESULTS: Successful approaches within systems included using electronic health records, flexible implementation and workflow protocols, customized training and technical assistance programs, quality assurance feedback loops, and stakeholder buy-in. Centralized management structures were efficient in standardizing implementation across health centers. Decentralized management structures used tailored approaches, enhancing provider/staff SBI acceptance. Across systems, 1259 staff (eg, clinicians, medical assistants) were trained to provide alcohol SBI services and reported pre-post training increases in self-efficacy in performing brief intervention; skills in PAE counseling; and confidence in screening. Fifty-three (48 providing data) health centers implemented alcohol SBI, screening 106 826 patients over the study period with most of the 10 087 patients who screened positive for excessive alcohol use receiving a BI. CONCLUSIONS: Maximizing the use of technology, employing flexibility in program delivery, and institutionalizing processes and protocols improved workflow, efficiency, and program reach. Ongoing partnership and stakeholder communication identify areas for ongoing improvement, engagement, and best practices for sustainability around substance use screening, which are essential with increases in substance use since the pandemic.

Identifying Patients at Risk for Alcohol-Exposed Pregnancies: The Importance of Addressing Multiple Risk Factors.

BACKGROUND: The increasing prevalence of fetal alcohol spectrum disorders is a critical public health issue. Two behaviors, consuming alcohol and using less effective pregnancy prevention, may result in alcohol-exposed pregnancies (AEPs) in individuals who can become pregnant. In the context of alcohol screening and brief intervention (SBI) services, cutoff scores on widely used alcohol risk assessments (eg, Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test, U.S. version [USAUDIT]) may fail to identify individuals whose relatively low alcohol consumption may still put them at risk for an AEP due to their pregnancy prevention method. METHODS: To identify this gap in alcohol SBI service delivery, we examined data from 2 reproductive healthcare systems implementing alcohol SBI, to explore the prevalence of individuals who met both of the following risk conditions: reported any alcohol use on the USAUDIT and a pregnancy prevention method less than 88% effective. Electronic health records for individuals aged 18 to 49 presenting for preventive care in 2021 were analyzed. RESULTS: Of 11 567 screened, 7638 reported some alcohol use, but screened at a lower-risk level and were not flagged to receive an alcohol-focused brief intervention (BI). Of these, 1477 were using a method of pregnancy prevention that was less than 88% effective. In addition, 118 of the 1676 who screened positive on the USAUDIT were using less effective contraception and did not receive a BI. In summary, the number of individuals at risk of an AEP who did not receive an alcohol BI was 1595 (13.8%) of the total patients screened for at-risk alcohol use. CONCLUSIONS: There is a need for system modifications to assess multiple behaviors simultaneously and alert providers when a combination of behaviors increases a specific health risk, such as an AEP. Tailored alcohol BIs that include the risks/benefits of various pregnancy prevention methods to reduce AEPs provide opportunities to enhance the reach of standard alcohol SBI services.

Reliability and Validity of a Two-Question Version of the World Health Organization's Alcohol, Smoking and Substance Involvement Screening Test: The ASSIST-FC.

OBJECTIVE: The Alcohol, Smoking and Substance Involvement Screening Test (ASSIST), developed for the World Health Organization (WHO), screens for risks associated with the use of tobacco, alcohol, and seven categories of drugs. Although the ASSIST has acceptable psychometric properties, it is relatively long for a screening test. This study was designed to identify a subset of questions from the full ASSIST instrument having comparable psychometric properties for the classification of low-, moderate-, and high-risk substance use. METHOD: The study used three data sets from prior studies using the WHO ASSIST. Samples 1 and 3 were obtained from WHO multisite studies conducted in seven countries. Sample 2 included patient data from a U.S.-based screening and brief intervention program that incorporated the ASSIST into its clinical protocol. Samples 1 and 2 were used to conduct psychometric analyses for combinations of ASSIST items. Sample 3 was used to estimate sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive value for a two-item ASSIST. RESULTS: Based on correlation statistics, reliability metrics, and validation analyses, a new, two-item version is proposed. The ASSIST-FC contains one question about the frequency (F) of current use and a second question about current or past concern (C) expressed by others. The ASSIST-FC demonstrates no substantial loss in reliability, validity, and predictive ability when statistically compared with the full-length ASSIST. CONCLUSIONS: The ASSIST-FC has advantages for clinical applications in settings where a brief, efficient, reliable screening test is needed to identify patients with hazardous and harmful substance use who would benefit from a brief intervention. It can also be used to identify patients who are manifesting symptoms of substance dependence that would require further diagnostic evaluation.

Development of the SBIRT checklist for observation in real-time (SCORe).

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Screening, Brief Intervention and Referral to Treatment (SBIRT) programs have been implemented widely in medical settings, with little attention focused on how well providers adhere to evidence-based service delivery in everyday practice. The purposes of this paper were to: (1) introduce a flexible, relatively simple methodology, the SBIRT Checklist for Observation in Real-time (SCORe), to assess adherence to evidence-based practice and provide preliminary evidence supporting its criterion validity; and (2) illustrate the feasibility and potential utility of the SCORe by analyzing observations of providers within four large-scale SBIRT programs in the United States. METHODS: Eighteen potential adherence judges were trained to recognize SBIRT service elements presented in realistic taped portrayals constructed to serve as criterion coding standards. Across the four SBIRT programs, 76 providers were observed performing 388 services in three types of medical settings; emergency departments (n = 10), hospital out-patient/ambulatory clinics (n = 16) and hospital in-patient settings (n = 5). RESULTS: Across two exercises, trainees identified 81% of screening and 75% of brief intervention (BI) elements correctly; for the six FRAMES components (Feedback, Responsibility, Advice, Menu of options, Empathy, Self-efficacy), agreement ranged from 69% to 91%. Across programs, 56% of screening, 54% of brief intervention (BI) (81% of FRAMES) and 53% of referral to treatment elements were observed. Programs differed significantly in adherence [screening, P = 0.024; BI, P < 0.001; FRAMES, P < 0.001; referral to treatment (RT), P < 0.001]; medical setting differences were minimal. CONCLUSIONS: The Screening, Brief Intervention and Referral to Treatment Checklist for Observation in Real-time provides a flexible method for assessing adherence to evidence-based Screening, Brief Intervention and Referral to Treatment service protocols. Preliminary evidence supports the criterion validity, feasibility and potential utility of the Screening, Brief Intervention and Referral to Treatment Checklist for Observation in Real-time protocol.

Screening, brief intervention and referral to treatment (SBIRT): implementation barriers, facilitators and model migration.

AIMS: To identify barriers and facilitators associated with initial implementation of a US alcohol and other substance use Screening, Brief Intervention, and Referral to Treatment (SBIRT) grant program, and to identify modifications in program design that addressed implementation challenges. DESIGN: A mixed-method approach used quantitative and qualitative data, including SBIRT provider ratings of implementation barriers and facilitators, staff interview responses and program documentation. SETTING: Multiple sites within the first seven programs funded in a national demonstration program in the United States. PARTICIPANTS: One hundred and two SBIRT providers were surveyed; 221 SBIRT stakeholders and staff were interviewed. MEASUREMENTS: Mean ratings of barriers and facilitators were calculated using provider survey responses. An inductive content analysis of interview responses identified factors perceived to support and challenge implementation; program modifications that occurred over time were recorded. FINDINGS: Providers rated pre-selected implementation facilitators higher than barriers. Content analysis of interview responses revealed six themes: committed leaders; intra- and inter-organizational communication/collaboration; provider buy-in and model acceptance; contextual factors; quality assurance; and grant requirements. Over time, programs tended to: adopt more efficient 'pre-screen' item sets; screen for risk factors in addition to alcohol/substance use; use contracted specialists to deliver SBIRT services; conduct services in high-volume emergency department and trauma center settings; and implement on-site and telephonic treatment delivery. CONCLUSIONS: Screening, Brief Intervention and Referral to Treatment program implementation in the United States is facilitated by committed leadership and the use of substance use specialists, rather than medical generalists, to deliver services. Many implementation challenges can be addressed by an adequate start-up phase focused on comprehensive education and training, and on the development of intra- and inter-organizational communication and collaboration; opinion leader support; and practitioner and host site buy-in.

The SBIRT program matrix: a conceptual framework for program implementation and evaluation.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Screening, Brief Intervention and Referral to Treatment (SBIRT) is a comprehensive, integrated, public health approach to the delivery of services to those at risk for the adverse consequences of alcohol and other drug use, and for those with probable substance use disorders. Research on successful SBIRT implementation has lagged behind studies of efficacy and effectiveness. This paper (1) outlines a conceptual framework, the SBIRT Program Matrix, to guide implementation research and program evaluation and (2) specifies potential implementation outcomes. METHODS: Overview and narrative description of the SBIRT Program Matrix. RESULTS: The SBIRT Program Matrix has five components, each of which includes multiple elements: SBIRT services; performance sites; provider attributes; patient/client populations; and management structure and activities. Implementation outcomes include program adoption, acceptability, appropriateness, feasibility, fidelity, costs, penetration, sustainability, service provision and grant compliance. CONCLUSIONS: The Screening, Brief Intervention and Referral to Treatment Program Matrix provides a template for identifying, classifying and organizing the naturally occurring commonalities and variations within and across SBIRT programs, and for investigating which variables are associated with implementation success and, ultimately, with treatment outcomes and other impacts.

Program- and service-level costs of seven screening, brief intervention, and referral to treatment programs.

This paper examines the costs of delivering screening, brief intervention, and referral to treatment (SBIRT) services within the first seven demonstration programs funded by the US Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. Service-level costs were estimated and compared across implementation model (contracted specialist, inhouse specialist, inhouse generalist) and service delivery setting (emergency department, hospital inpatient, outpatient). Program-level costs were estimated and compared across grantee recipient programs. Service-level data were collected through timed observations of SBIRT service delivery. Program-level data were collected during key informant interviews using structured cost interview guides. At the service level, support activities that occur before or after engaging the patient comprise a considerable portion of the cost of delivering SBIRT services, especially short duration services. At the program level, average costs decreased as more patients were screened. Comparing across program and service levels, the average annual operating costs calculated at the program level often exceeded the cost of actual service delivery. Provider time spent in support of service provision may comprise a large share of the costs in some cases because of potentially substantial fixed and quasifixed costs associated with program operation. The cost structure of screening, brief intervention, and referral to treatment is complex and discontinuous of patient flow, causing annual operating costs to exceed the costs of actual service provision for some settings and implementation models.

A randomized controlled trial of a brief intervention for illicit drugs linked to the Alcohol, Smoking and Substance Involvement Screening Test (ASSIST) in clients recruited from primary health-care settings in four countries.

AIMS: This study evaluated the effectiveness of a brief intervention (BI) for illicit drugs (cannabis, cocaine, amphetamine-type stimulants and opioids) linked to the World Health Organization (WHO) Alcohol, Smoking and Substance Involvement Screening Test (ASSIST). The ASSIST screens for problem or risky use of 10 psychoactive substances, producing a score for each substance that falls into either a low-, moderate- or high-risk category. DESIGN: Prospective, randomized controlled trial in which participants were either assigned to a 3-month waiting-list control condition or received brief motivational counselling lasting an average of 13.8 minutes for the drug receiving the highest ASSIST score. SETTING: Primary health-care settings in four countries: Australia, Brazil, India and the United States. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 731 males and females scoring within the moderate-risk range of the ASSIST for cannabis, cocaine, amphetamine-type stimulants or opioids. MEASUREMENTS: ASSIST-specific substance involvement scores for cannabis, stimulants or opioids and ASSIST total illicit substance involvement score at baseline and 3 months post-randomization. FINDINGS: Omnibus analyses indicated that those receiving the BI had significantly reduced scores for all measures, compared with control participants. Country-specific analyses showed that, with the exception of the site in the United States, BI participants had significantly lower ASSIST total illicit substance involvement scores at follow-up compared with the control participants. The sites in India and Brazil demonstrated a very strong brief intervention effect for cannabis scores (P < 0.005 for both sites), as did the sites in Australia (P < 0.005) and Brazil (P < 0.01) for stimulant scores and the Indian site for opioid scores (P < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: The Alcohol, Smoking and Substance Involvement Screening Test-linked brief intervention aimed at reducing illicit substance use and related risks is effective, at least in the short term, and the effect generalizes across countries.

Correlates of pre-treatment drop-out among persons with marijuana dependence.

AIMS: Our objective was to identify client characteristics and other factors associated with pre-treatment drop-out by people with marijuana dependence. DESIGN AND PARTICIPANTS: Data from the Marijuana Treatment Project's screening assessment were used to examine correlates of pre-treatment drop-out. Information from all eligible study participants (n = 813) (i.e. those who were interested in receiving treatment for their marijuana dependence and were determined to be eligible for the randomized treatment efficacy trial) was used to examine differences between the 450 participants who initiated treatment (by enrolling in the trial) and the 363 individuals who declined enrollment. SETTING: The study was conducted at three community-based outpatient treatment facilities in Farmington, CT, Seattle, WA and Miami, FL. MEASUREMENTS: The information gathered in the screening interview included demographic characteristics, residential stability variables, employment and education history and referral source. Substance use variables included the number of days and the number of times per day marijuana was used, self-perceived dependence on marijuana, alcohol or other drugs, other drug use history and current treatment (i.e. substance abuse, medical, psychiatric) situation. FINDINGS: Stepwise logistic regression was conducted to confirm variables associated with treatment initiation in bivariate analyses. Pre-treatment drop-out was associated with being younger, unmarried, unemployed, less educated and Asian American or Native American. It was also associated with self-perceived dependence on marijuana and use of other drugs. CONCLUSIONS: By recognizing demographic and substance use factors that may serve as barriers for individuals accessing treatment for marijuana dependence, clinicians may target clients with these characteristics proactively to encourage treatment initiation and subsequent attendance.

Cognitive functioning of long-term heavy cannabis users seeking treatment.

CONTEXT: Cognitive impairments are associated with long-term cannabis use, but the parameters of use that contribute to impairments and the nature and endurance of cognitive dysfunction remain uncertain. OBJECTIVE: To examine the effects of duration of cannabis use on specific areas of cognitive functioning among users seeking treatment for cannabis dependence. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Multisite retrospective cross-sectional neuropsychological study conducted in the United States (Seattle, Wash; Farmington, Conn; and Miami, Fla) between 1997 and 2000 among 102 near-daily cannabis users (51 long-term users: mean, 23.9 years of use; 51 shorter-term users: mean, 10.2 years of use) compared with 33 nonuser controls. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Measures from 9 standard neuropsychological tests that assessed attention, memory, and executive functioning, and were administered prior to entry to a treatment program and following a median 17-hour abstinence. RESULTS: Long-term cannabis users performed significantly less well than shorter-term users and controls on tests of memory and attention. On the Rey Auditory Verbal Learning Test, long-term users recalled significantly fewer words than either shorter-term users (P =.001) or controls (P =.005); there was no difference between shorter-term users and controls. Long-term users showed impaired learning (P =.007), retention (P =.003), and retrieval (P =.002) compared with controls. Both user groups performed poorly on a time estimation task (P<.001 vs controls). Performance measures often correlated significantly with the duration of cannabis use, being worse with increasing years of use, but were unrelated to withdrawal symptoms and persisted after controlling for recent cannabis use and other drug use. CONCLUSIONS: These results confirm that long-term heavy cannabis users show impairments in memory and attention that endure beyond the period of intoxication and worsen with increasing years of regular cannabis use.