Equivalence of Alcohol Use Disorder Symptom Assessments in Routine Clinical Care When Completed Remotely via Online Patient Portals Versus In Clinic via Paper Questionnaires: Psychometric Evaluation.

BACKGROUND: The National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA) recommends the paper-based or computerized Alcohol Symptom Checklist to assess alcohol use disorder (AUD) symptoms in routine care when patients report high-risk drinking. However, it is unknown whether Alcohol Symptom Checklist response characteristics differ when it is administered online (eg, remotely via an online electronic health record [EHR] patient portal before an appointment) versus in clinic (eg, on paper after appointment check-in). OBJECTIVE: This study evaluated the psychometric performance of the Alcohol Symptom Checklist when completed online versus in clinic during routine clinical care. METHODS: This cross-sectional, psychometric study obtained EHR data from the Alcohol Symptom Checklist completed by adult patients from an integrated health system in Washington state. The sample included patients who had a primary care visit in 2021 at 1 of 32 primary care practices, were due for annual behavioral health screening, and reported high-risk drinking on the behavioral health screen (Alcohol Use Disorder Identification Test-Consumption score ≥7). After screening, patients with high-risk drinking were typically asked to complete the Alcohol Symptom Checklist-an 11-item questionnaire on which patients self-report whether they had experienced each of the 11 AUD criteria listed in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition (DSM-5) over a past-year timeframe. Patients could complete the Alcohol Symptom Checklist online (eg, on a computer, smartphone, or tablet from any location) or in clinic (eg, on paper as part of the rooming process at clinical appointments). We examined sample and measurement characteristics and conducted differential item functioning analyses using item response theory to examine measurement consistency across these 2 assessment modalities. RESULTS: Among 3243 patients meeting eligibility criteria for this secondary analysis (2313/3243, 71% male; 2271/3243, 70% White; and 2014/3243, 62% non-Hispanic), 1640 (51%) completed the Alcohol Symptom Checklist online while 1603 (49%) completed it in clinic. Approximately 46% (752/1640) and 48% (764/1603) reported ≥2 AUD criteria (the threshold for AUD diagnosis) online and in clinic (P=.37), respectively. A small degree of differential item functioning was observed for 4 of 11 items. This differential item functioning produced only minimal impact on total scores used clinically to assess AUD severity, affecting total criteria count by a maximum of 0.13 criteria (on a scale ranging from 0 to 11). CONCLUSIONS: Completing the Alcohol Symptom Checklist online, typically prior to patient check-in, performed similarly to an in-clinic modality typically administered on paper by a medical assistant at the time of the appointment. Findings have implications for using online AUD symptom assessments to streamline workflows, reduce staff burden, reduce stigma, and potentially assess patients who do not receive in-person care. Whether modality of DSM-5 assessment of AUD differentially impacts treatment is unknown.

Assessing Substance Use Disorder Symptoms with a Checklist among Primary Care Patients with Opioid Use Disorder and/or Long-Term Opioid Treatment: An Observational Study.

BACKGROUND: Primary care (PC) offers an opportunity to treat opioid use disorders (OUD). The Substance Use Symptom Checklist ("Checklist") can assess DSM-5 substance use disorder (SUD) symptoms in PC. OBJECTIVE: To test the psychometric properties of the Checklist among PC patients with OUD or long-term opioid therapy (LTOT) in Kaiser Permanente Washington (KPWA). DESIGN: Observational study using item response theory (IRT) and differential item functioning (DIF) analyses of measurement consistency across age, sex, race and ethnicity, and receipt of treatment. PATIENTS: Electronic health records (EHR) data were extracted for all adult PC patients visiting KPWA 3/1/15-8/30/2020 who had ≥ 1 Checklist documented and indication of either (a) clinically-recognized OUD (i.e., documented OUD diagnosis and/or OUD medication treatment) or (b) LTOT in the year prior to the checklist. MAIN MEASURE: The Checklist includes 11 items reflecting DSM-5 criteria for SUD. We described the prevalence of 2 SUD symptoms reported on the Checklist (consistent with mild-severe DSM-5 SUD). Analyses were conducted in the overall sample and in two subsamples (clinically-recognized OUD and LTOT only). KEY RESULTS: Among 2007 eligible patients, 39.9% endorsed ≥ 2 SUD symptoms (74.3% in the clinically-recognized OUD subsample and 13.1% in LTOT subsample). IRT indicated that a unidimensional model for the 11 checklist items had excellent fit (comparative fit index = 0.998) with high item-level discrimination parameters for the overall sample and both subsamples. DIF across age, race and ethnicity, and treatment was observed for one item each, but had minimal impact on expected number of criteria (0-11) patients endorse. CONCLUSIONS: The Substance Use Symptom Checklist measured SUD symptoms consistent with DSM-5 conceptualization (scaled, unidimensional) in patients with clinically-recognized OUD and LTOT and had similar measurement properties across demographic subgroups. The Checklist may support symptom assessment in patients with OUD and diagnosis in patients with LTOT.

Validation of human immunodeficiency virus diagnosis codes among women enrollees of a U.S. health plan.

BACKGROUND: Efficiently identifying patients with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) using administrative health care data (e.g., claims) can facilitate research on their quality of care and health outcomes. No prior study has validated the use of only ICD-10-CM HIV diagnosis codes to identify patients with HIV. METHODS: We validated HIV diagnosis codes among women enrolled in a large U.S. integrated health care system during 2010-2020. We examined HIV diagnosis code-based algorithms that varied by type, frequency, and timing of the codes in patients' claims data. We calculated the positive predictive values (PPVs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) of the algorithms using a medical record-confirmed diagnosis of HIV as the gold standard. RESULTS: A total of 272 women with ≥ 1 HIV diagnosis code in the administrative claims data were identified and medical records were reviewed for all 272 women. The PPV of an algorithm classifying women as having HIV as of the first HIV diagnosis code during the observation period was 80.5% (95% CI: 75.4-84.8%), and it was 93.9% (95% CI: 90.0-96.3%) as of the second. Little additional increase in PPV was observed when a third code was required. The PPV of an algorithm based on ICD-10-CM-era codes was similar to one based on ICD-9-CM-era codes. CONCLUSION: If the accuracy measure of greatest interest is PPV, our findings suggest that use of ≥ 2 HIV diagnosis codes to identify patients with HIV may perform well. However, health care coding practices may vary across settings, which may impact generalizability of our results.

Test-retest reliability of DSM-5 substance use symptom checklists used in primary care and mental health care settings.

INTRODUCTION: Substance use disorders (SUDs) are underdiagnosed in healthcare settings. The Substance Use Symptom Checklist (SUSC) is a practical, patient-report questionnaire that has been used to assess SUD symptoms based on Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders-5th edition (DSM-5) criteria. This study evaluates the test-retest reliability of SUSCs completed in primary and mental health care settings. METHODS: We identified 1194 patients who completed two SUSCs 1-21 days apart as part of routine care after reporting daily cannabis use and/or any past-year other drug use on behavioral health screens. Test-retest reliability of SUSC scores was evaluated within the full sample, subsamples who completed both checklists in primary care (n=451) or mental health clinics (n=512) where SUSC implementation differed, and subgroups defined by sex, insurance status, age, and substance use reported on behavioral health screens. RESULTS: In the full sample, test-retest reliability was high for indices reflecting the number of SUD symptoms endorsed (ICC=0.75, 95% CI:0.72-0.77) and DSM-5 SUD severity (kappa=0.72, 95% CI:0.69-0.75). These reliability estimates were higher in primary care (ICC=0.81, 95% CI:0.77-0.84; kappa=0.79, 95% CI:0.75-0.82, respectively) than in mental health clinics (ICC=0.74, 95% CI:0.70-0.78; kappa=0.73, 95% CI:0.68-0.77). Reliability differed by age and substance use reported on behavioral health screens, but not by sex or insurance status. CONCLUSIONS: The SUSC has good-to-excellent test-retest reliability when completed as part of routine primary or mental health care. Symptom checklists can reliably measure symptoms consistent with DSM-5 SUD criteria, which may aid SUD-related care in primary care and mental health settings.

Comparing Cannabis Use for Pain to Use for Other Reasons in Primary Care Patients.

BACKGROUND: Medical cannabis is commonly used for chronic pain, but little is known about differences in characteristics, cannabis use patterns, and perceived helpfulness among primary care patients who use cannabis for pain versus nonpain reasons. METHODS: Among 1688 patients who completed a 2019 cannabis survey administered in a health system in Washington state, where recreational use is legal, participants who used cannabis for pain (n = 375) were compared with those who used cannabis for other reasons (n = 558) using survey and electronic health record data. We described group differences in participant characteristics, use patterns, and perceptions and applied adjusted multinomial logistic and modified Poisson regression. RESULTS: Participants who used cannabis for pain were significantly more likely to report using applied (50.7% vs 10.6%) and beverage cannabis products (19.2% vs 11.6%), more frequent use (47.1% vs 33.1% for use ≥2 times per day; 81.6% vs 69.7% for use 4 to 7 days per week), and smoking tobacco cigarettes (19.2% vs 12.2%) than those who used cannabis for other reasons. They were also significantly more likely to perceive cannabis as very/extremely helpful (80.5% vs 72.7%), and significantly less likely to use cannabis for nonmedical reasons (4.8% vs 58.8%) or report cannabis use disorder symptoms (51.7% vs 61.1%). DISCUSSION: Primary care patients who use cannabis for pain use it more frequently, often in applied and ingested forms, and have more co-use of tobacco, which may differentially impact safety and effectiveness. These findings suggest the need for different approaches to counseling in clinical care.

High test-retest reliability of the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test-Consumption (AUDIT-C) questionnaire completed by primary care patients in routine care.

BACKGROUND: The Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test-Consumption (AUDIT-C) is a three-item screening measure of unhealthy alcohol use that is widely used in healthcare settings. Evidence shows high test-retest reliability of the AUDIT-C in research samples, but most studies had limited external validity and used small samples that could not be used to evaluate reliability across demographic subgroups and/or screening modalities. This study evaluates the test-retest reliability of the AUDIT-C completed in routine care in a large primary care sample, including across demographic subgroups defined by age, sex, race, ethnicity, and screening modality (i.e., completed in-clinic or online). METHODS: We used electronic health record (EHR) data from Kaiser Permanente Washington. The sample included 18,491 adult primary care patients who completed two AUDIT-C screens 1-21 days apart as part of routine care in 2021. Test-retest reliability was evaluated for AUDIT-C total scores (0-12) and for a binary measure indicating unhealthy alcohol use (scores ≥3 women, ≥4 men). Using previously established cutoffs, we interpreted reliability coefficients >0.75 as indicating "excellent" reliability. RESULTS: AUDIT-C screens completed in routine care and documented in EHRs had excellent test-retest reliability for total scores (ICC = 0.87, 95% CI: 0.87-0.87) and the binary indicator of unhealthy alcohol use (κ = 0.79, 95% CI: 0.78-0.80). Reliability coefficients were good to excellent across all demographic groups and for in-clinic and online modalities. Higher reliability was seen when both screens were completed through online patient portals (ICC = 0.93, 95% CI: 0.93-0.93) versus in-clinic (ICC = 0.81, 95% CI: 0.79-0.82) or when one screen was completed using each modality (ICC = 0.83, 95% CI: 0.82-0.83). Lower reliability was seen in American Indian/Alaska Native (ICC = 0.82, 95% CI: 0.75-0.87) and multiracial individuals (ICC = 0.82, 95% 0.80-0.84). CONCLUSIONS: In real-world routine care conditions, AUDIT-C screens have excellent test-retest reliability across demographic subgroups and modalities (online and in-clinic). Future research should examine why reliability varies slightly across modalities and demographic subgroups.

Association between cannabis use disorder symptom severity and probability of clinically-documented diagnosis and treatment in a primary care sample.

BACKGROUND: Brief cannabis screening followed by standardized assessment of symptoms may support diagnosis and treatment of cannabis use disorder (CUD). This study tested whether the probability of a medical provider diagnosing and treating CUD increased with the number of substance use disorder (SUD) symptoms documented in patients' EHRs. METHODS: This observational study used EHR and claims data from an integrated healthcare system. Adult patients were included who reported daily cannabis use and completed the Substance Use Symptom Checklist, a scaled measure of DSM-5 SUD symptoms (0-11), during routine care 3/1/2015-3/1/2021. Logistic regression estimated associations between SUD symptom counts and: 1) CUD diagnosis; 2) CUD treatment initiation; and 3) CUD treatment engagement, defined based on Healthcare Effectiveness Data and Information Set (HEDIS) ICD-codes and timelines. We tested moderation across age, gender, race, and ethnicity. RESULTS: Patients (N=13,947) were predominantly middle-age, male, White, and non-Hispanic. Among patients reporting daily cannabis use without other drug use (N=12,568), the probability of CUD diagnosis, treatment initiation, and engagement increased with each 1-unit increase in Symptom Checklist score (p's<0.001). However, probabilities of diagnosis, treatment, and engagement were low, even among those reporting ≥2 symptoms consistent with SUD: 14.0% diagnosed (95% CI: 11.7-21.6), 16.6% initiated treatment among diagnosed (11.7-21.6), and 24.3% engaged in treatment among initiated (15.8-32.7). Only gender moderated associations between Symptom Checklist and diagnosis (p=0.047) and treatment initiation (p=0.012). Findings were similar for patients reporting daily cannabis use with other drug use (N=1379). CONCLUSION: Despite documented symptoms, CUD was underdiagnosed and undertreated in medical settings.

Prevalence of Cannabis Use Disorder and Reasons for Use Among Adults in a US State Where Recreational Cannabis Use Is Legal.

Importance: Medical and nonmedical cannabis use and cannabis use disorders (CUD) have increased with increasing cannabis legalization. However, the prevalence of CUD among primary care patients who use cannabis for medical or nonmedical reasons is unknown for patients in states with legal recreational use. Objective: To estimate the prevalence and severity of CUD among patients who report medical use only, nonmedical use only, and both reasons for cannabis use in a state with legal recreational use. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional survey study took place at an integrated health system in Washington State. Among 108 950 adult patients who completed routine cannabis screening from March 2019 to September 2019, 5000 were selected for a confidential cannabis survey using stratified random sampling for frequency of past-year cannabis use and race and ethnicity. Among 1688 respondents, 1463 reporting past 30-day cannabis use were included in the study. Exposure: Patient survey-reported reason for cannabis use in the past 30 days: medical use only, nonmedical use only, and both reasons. Main Outcomes and Measures: Patient responses to the Composite International Diagnostic Interview-Substance Abuse Module for CUD, corresponding to Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition CUD severity (0-11 symptoms) were categorized as any CUD (≥2 symptoms) and moderate to severe CUD (≥4 symptoms). Adjusted analyses were weighted for survey stratification and nonresponse for primary care population estimates and compared prevalence of CUD across reasons for cannabis use. Results: Of 1463 included primary care patients (weighted mean [SD] age, 47.4 [16.8] years; 748 [weighted proportion, 61.9%] female) who used cannabis, 42.4% (95% CI, 31.2%-54.3%) reported medical use only, 25.1% (95% CI, 17.8%-34.2%) nonmedical use only, and 32.5% (95% CI, 25.3%-40.8%) both reasons for use. The prevalence of CUD was 21.3% (95% CI, 15.4%-28.6%) and did not vary across groups. The prevalence of moderate to severe CUD was 6.5% (95% CI, 5.0%-8.6%) and differed across groups: 1.3% (95% CI, 0.0%-2.8%) for medical use, 7.2% (95% CI, 3.9%-10.4%) for nonmedical use, and 7.5% (95% CI, 5.7%-9.4%) for both reasons for use (P = .01). Conclusions and Relevance: In this cross-sectional study of primary care patients in a state with legal recreational cannabis use, CUD was common among patients who used cannabis. Moderate to severe CUD was more prevalent among patients who reported any nonmedical use. These results underscore the importance of assessing patient cannabis use and CUD symptoms in medical settings.

Changes in alcohol consumption reported on routine healthcare screenings are associated with changes in depression symptoms.

BACKGROUND: The Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test-Consumption version (AUDIT-C) has been robustly validated as a point-in-time screen for unhealthy alcohol use, but less is known about the significance of changes in AUDIT-C scores from routine screenings over time. Unhealthy alcohol use and depression commonly co-occur, and changes in drinking often co-occur with changes in depression symptoms. We assess the associations between changes in AUDIT-C scores and changes in depression symptoms reported on brief screens completed in routine care. METHODS: The study sample included 198,335 primary care patients who completed two AUDIT-C screens 11 to 24 months apart and the Patient Health Questionnaire-2 (PHQ-2) depression screen on the same day as each AUDIT-C. Both screening measures were completed as part of routine care within a large health system in Washington state. AUDIT-C scores were categorized to reflect five drinking levels at both time points, resulting in 25 subgroups with different change patterns. For each of the 25 subgroups, within-group changes in the prevalence of positive PHQ-2 depression screens were characterized using risk ratios (RRs) and McNemar's tests. RESULTS: Patient subgroups with increases in AUDIT-C risk categories generally experienced increases in the prevalence of positive depression screens (RRs ranging from 0.95 to 2.00). Patient subgroups with decreases in AUDIT-C risk categories generally experienced decreases in the prevalence of positive depression screens (RRs ranging from 0.52 to 1.01). Patient subgroups that did not have changes in AUDIT-C risk categories experienced little or no change in the prevalence of positive depression screens (RRs ranging from 0.98 to 1.15). CONCLUSIONS: As hypothesized, changes in alcohol consumption reported on AUDIT-C screens completed in routine care were associated with changes in depression screening results. Results support the validity and clinical utility of monitoring changes in AUDIT-C scores over time as a meaningful measure of changes in drinking.

Psychometric Performance of a Substance Use Symptom Checklist to Help Clinicians Assess Substance Use Disorder in Primary Care.

Importance: Substance use disorders (SUDs) are underrecognized in primary care, where structured clinical interviews are often infeasible. A brief, standardized substance use symptom checklist could help clinicians assess SUD. Objective: To evaluate the psychometric properties of the Substance Use Symptom Checklist (hereafter symptom checklist) used in primary care among patients reporting daily cannabis use and/or other drug use as part of population-based screening and assessment. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study was conducted among adult primary care patients who completed the symptom checklist during routine care between March 1, 2015, and March 1, 2020, at an integrated health care system. Data analysis was conducted from June 1, 2021, to May 1, 2022. Main Outcomes and Measures: The symptom checklist included 11 items corresponding to SUD criteria in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual for Mental Disorders (Fifth Edition) (DSM-5). Item response theory (IRT) analyses tested whether the symptom checklist was unidimensional and reflected a continuum of SUD severity and evaluated item characteristics (discrimination and severity). Differential item functioning analyses examined whether the symptom checklist performed similarly across age, sex, race, and ethnicity. Analyses were stratified by cannabis and/or other drug use. Results: A total of 23 304 screens were included (mean [SD] age, 38.2 [5.6] years; 12 554 [53.9%] male patients; 17 439 [78.8%] White patients; 20 393 [87.5%] non-Hispanic patients). Overall, 16 140 patients reported daily cannabis use only, 4791 patients reported other drug use only, and 2373 patients reported both daily cannabis and other drug use. Among patients with daily cannabis use only, other drug use only, or both daily cannabis and other drug use, 4242 (26.3%), 1446 (30.2%), and 1229 (51.8%), respectively, endorsed 2 or more items on the symptom checklist, consistent with DSM-5 SUD. For all cannabis and drug subsamples, IRT models supported the unidimensionality of the symptom checklist, and all items discriminated between higher and lower levels of SUD severity. Differential item functioning was observed for some items across sociodemographic subgroups but did not result in meaningful change (<1 point difference) in the overall score (0-11). Conclusions and Relevance: In this cross-sectional study, a symptom checklist, administered to primary care patients who reported daily cannabis and/or other drug use during routine screening, discriminated SUD severity as expected and performed well across subgroups. Findings support the clinical utility of the symptom checklist for standardized and more complete SUD symptom assessment to help clinicians make diagnostic and treatment decisions in primary care.

Association between clinical measures of unhealthy alcohol use and subsequent year hospital admissions in a primary care population.

BACKGROUND: Screening for unhealthy alcohol use in primary care may help identify patients at risk for negative health outcomes. AIMS: This study examined the associations between 1) screening with the AUDIT-C (alcohol consumption) and 2) an Alcohol Symptom Checklist (symptoms of alcohol use disorder) and subsequent-year hospitalizations. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study was conducted in 29 primary care clinics in Washington State. Patients were screened in routine care (10/1/2016-2/1/2019) with the AUDIT-C (0-12) and administered the Alcohol Symptom Checklist (0-11) if they had AUDIT-C score ≥ 7. All-cause hospitalizations were measured within 1 year of the AUDIT-C and Alcohol Symptom Checklist. AUDIT-C and Alcohol Symptom Checklist scores were categorized based on previously used cut-points. FINDINGS: Of 305,376 patients with AUDIT-Cs, 5.3% of patients were hospitalized in the following year. AUDIT-C scores had a J-shaped relationship with hospitalizations, with risk for all-cause hospitalizations higher for patients with the AUDIT-C scores 9-12 (12.1%; 95% CI: 10.6-13.7%, relative to a comparison group of those with AUDIT-C scores 1-2 (female)/1-3 (male) (3.7%; 95% CI: 3.6-3.8%), adjusted for socio-demographics. Patients with AUDIT-C ≥ 7 and Alcohol Symptom Checklist scores reflecting severe AUD were at increased risk of hospitalization (14.6%, 95% CI: 11.9-17.9%) relative to those with lower scores. CONCLUSIONS: Higher AUDIT-C scores were associated with higher incidence of hospitalizations except among people with low-level drinking. Among patients with AUDIT-C ≥ 7, the Alcohol Symptom Checklist identified patients at increased risk of hospitalization. This study helps demonstrate the potential clinical utility of the AUDIT-C and Alcohol Symptom Checklist.

Integrating Alcohol-Related Prevention and Treatment Into Primary Care: A Cluster Randomized Implementation Trial.

Importance: Unhealthy alcohol use is common and affects morbidity and mortality but is often neglected in medical settings, despite guidelines for both prevention and treatment. Objective: To test an implementation intervention to increase (1) population-based alcohol-related prevention with brief interventions and (2) treatment of alcohol use disorder (AUD) in primary care implemented with a broader program of behavioral health integration. Design, Setting, and Participants: The Sustained Patient-Centered Alcohol-Related Care (SPARC) trial was a stepped-wedge cluster randomized implementation trial, including 22 primary care practices in an integrated health system in Washington state. Participants consisted of all adult patients (aged ≥18 years) with primary care visits from January 2015 to July 2018. Data were analyzed from August 2018 to March 2021. Interventions: The implementation intervention included 3 strategies: practice facilitation; electronic health record decision support; and performance feedback. Practices were randomly assigned launch dates, which placed them in 1 of 7 waves and defined the start of the practice's intervention period. Main Outcomes and Measures: Coprimary outcomes for prevention and AUD treatment were (1) the proportion of patients who had unhealthy alcohol use and brief intervention documented in the electronic health record (brief intervention) for prevention and (2) the proportion of patients who had newly diagnosed AUD and engaged in AUD treatment (AUD treatment engagement). Analyses compared monthly rates of primary and intermediate outcomes (eg, screening, diagnosis, treatment initiation) among all patients who visited primary care during usual care and intervention periods using mixed-effects regression. Results: A total of 333 596 patients visited primary care (mean [SD] age, 48 [18] years; 193 583 [58%] female; 234 764 [70%] White individuals). The proportion with brief intervention was higher during SPARC intervention than usual care periods (57 vs 11 per 10 000 patients per month; P < .001). The proportion with AUD treatment engagement did not differ during intervention and usual care (1.4 vs 1.8 per 10 000 patients; P = .30). The intervention increased intermediate outcomes: screening (83.2% vs 20.8%; P < .001), new AUD diagnosis (33.8 vs 28.8 per 10 000; P = .003), and treatment initiation (7.8 vs 6.2 per 10 000; P = .04). Conclusions and Relevance: In this stepped-wedge cluster randomized implementation trial, the SPARC intervention resulted in modest increases in prevention (brief intervention) but not AUD treatment engagement in primary care, despite important increases in screening, new diagnoses, and treatment initiation. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02675777.

Validity of the Single-Item Screen-Cannabis (SIS-C) for Cannabis Use Disorder Screening in Routine Care.

Importance: Cannabis use is prevalent and increasing, and frequent use intensifies the risk of cannabis use disorder (CUD). CUD is underrecognized in medical settings, but a validated single-item cannabis screen could increase recognition. Objective: To evaluate the Single-Item Screen-Cannabis (SIS-C), administered and documented in routine primary care, compared with a confidential reference standard measure of CUD. Design, Setting, and Participants: This diagnostic study included a sample of adult patients who completed routine cannabis screening between January 28 and September 12, 2019, and were randomly selected for a confidential survey about cannabis use. Random sampling was stratified by frequency of past-year use and race and ethnicity. The study was conducted at an integrated health system in Washington state, where adult cannabis use is legal. Data were analyzed from May 2021 to March 2022. Exposures: The SIS-C asks about frequency of past-year cannabis use with responses (none, less than monthly, monthly, weekly, daily or almost daily) documented in patients' medical records. Main Outcomes and Measures: The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, Fifth Edition (DSM-5) Composite International Diagnostic Interview-Substance Abuse Module (CIDI-SAM) for past-year CUD was completed on a confidential survey and considered the reference standard. The SIS-C was compared with 2 or more criteria on the CIDI-SAM, consistent with CUD. All analyses were weighted, accounting for survey design and nonresponse, to obtain estimates representative of the health system primary care population. Results: Of 5000 sampled adult patients, 1688 responded to the cannabis survey (34% response rate). Patients were predominantly middle-aged (weighted mean [SD] age, 50.7 [18.1]), female or women (weighted proportion [SE], 55.9% [4.1]), non-Hispanic (weighted proportion [SE], 96.7% [1.0]), and White (weighted proportion [SE], 74.2% [3.7]). Approximately 6.6% of patients met criteria for past-year CUD. The SIS-C had an area under receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.89 (95% CI, 0.78-0.96) for identifying CUD. A threshold of less than monthly cannabis use balanced sensitivity (0.88) and specificity (0.83) for detecting CUD. In populations with a 6% prevalence of CUD, predictive values of a positive screen ranged from 17% to 34%, while predictive values of a negative screen ranged from 97% to 100%. Conclusions and Relevance: In this diagnostic study, the SIS-C had excellent performance characteristics in routine care as a screen for CUD. While high negative predictive values suggest that the SIS-C accurately identifies patients without CUD, low positive predictive values indicate a need for further diagnostic assessment following positive results when screening for CUD in primary care.

An Alcohol Symptom Checklist identifies high rates of alcohol use disorder in primary care patients who screen positive for depression and high-risk drinking.

BACKGROUND: Although alcohol use disorder can complicate depression management, there is no standard process for assessing AUD symptoms (i.e., AUD diagnostic criteria) in primary care for patients who screen positive for depression. This study characterizes the association between depressive symptoms and high-risk drinking reported by primary care patients on screening measures in routine care. Then, using data from a novel clinical program, this study characterizes the association between depressive symptoms and AUD symptoms reported by primary care patients with high-risk drinking via an Alcohol Symptom Checklist. METHODS: In this cross-sectional study, electronic health record data were obtained from patients who visited 33 Kaiser Permanente Washington primary care clinics between 03/2018 and 02/2020 and completed depression (PHQ-2) and alcohol consumption (AUDIT-C) screening measures as part of routine care (N = 369,943). Patients who reported high-risk drinking (AUDIT-C scores 7-12) also completed an Alcohol Symptom Checklist where they reported the presence or absence of 11 AUD criteria as defined by the DSM-5 (N = 8,184). Generalized linear models estimated and compared the prevalence of high-risk drinking (AUDIT-C scores 7-12) and probable AUD (2-11 AUD symptoms on Alcohol Symptom Checklists) for patients with and without positive depression screens. RESULTS: Patients who screened positive for depression had a 131% higher prevalence of high-risk drinking than those who screened negative (5.2% vs. 2.2%; p < 0.001). Among patients with high-risk drinking, positive depression screens were associated with a significantly higher prevalence of probable AUD (69.8% vs. 48.0%; p < 0.001), with large differences in the prevalence of probable AUD observed with increasing PHQ-2 scores (e.g., probable AUD prevalence of 37.6%, 55.3% and 65.2%, for PHQ-2 scores of 0, 1, and 2, respectively). Although the overall prevalence of high-risk drinking was higher for male patients, similar patterns of association between depression screens, high-risk drinking, and AUD symptoms were observed for male and female patients. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with positive depression screens are more likely to have high-risk drinking. Large percentages of patients with positive depression screens and high-risk drinking report symptoms consistent with AUD to healthcare providers when given the opportunity to do so using an Alcohol Symptom Checklist.

Evaluating and Improving Cancer Screening Process Quality in a Multilevel Context: The PROSPR II Consortium Design and Research Agenda.

BACKGROUND: Cancer screening is a complex process involving multiple steps and levels of influence (e.g., patient, provider, facility, health care system, community, or neighborhood). We describe the design, methods, and research agenda of the Population-based Research to Optimize the Screening Process (PROSPR II) consortium. PROSPR II Research Centers (PRC), and the Coordinating Center aim to identify opportunities to improve screening processes and reduce disparities through investigation of factors affecting cervical, colorectal, and lung cancer screening in U.S. community health care settings. METHODS: We collected multilevel, longitudinal cervical, colorectal, and lung cancer screening process data from clinical and administrative sources on >9 million racially and ethnically diverse individuals across 10 heterogeneous health care systems with cohorts beginning January 1, 2010. To facilitate comparisons across organ types and highlight data breadth, we calculated frequencies of multilevel characteristics and volumes of screening and diagnostic tests/procedures and abnormalities. RESULTS: Variations in patient, provider, and facility characteristics reflected the PROSPR II health care systems and differing target populations. PRCs identified incident diagnoses of invasive cancers, in situ cancers, and precancers (invasive: 372 cervical, 24,131 colorectal, 11,205 lung; in situ: 911 colorectal, 32 lung; precancers: 13,838 cervical, 554,499 colorectal). CONCLUSIONS: PROSPR II's research agenda aims to advance: (i) conceptualization and measurement of the cancer screening process, its multilevel factors, and quality; (ii) knowledge of cancer disparities; and (iii) evaluation of the COVID-19 pandemic's initial impacts on cancer screening. We invite researchers to collaborate with PROSPR II investigators. IMPACT: PROSPR II is a valuable data resource for cancer screening researchers.

Comparison of Medical Cannabis Use Reported on a Confidential Survey vs Documented in the Electronic Health Record Among Primary Care Patients.

Importance: Patients who use cannabis for medical reasons may benefit from discussions with clinicians about health risks of cannabis and evidence-based treatment alternatives. However, little is known about the prevalence of medical cannabis use in primary care and how often it is documented in patient electronic health records (EHR). Objective: To estimate the primary care prevalence of medical cannabis use according to confidential patient survey and to compare the prevalence of medical cannabis use documented in the EHR with patient report. Design, Setting, and Participants: This study is a cross-sectional survey performed in a large health system that conducts routine cannabis screening in Washington state where medical and nonmedical cannabis use are legal. Among 108 950 patients who completed routine cannabis screening (between March 28, 2019, and September 12, 2019), 5000 were randomly selected for a confidential survey about cannabis use, using stratified random sampling for frequency of past-year use and patient race and ethnicity. Data were analyzed from November 2020 to December 2021. Exposures: Survey measures of patient-reported past-year cannabis use, medical cannabis use (ie, explicit medical use), and any health reason(s) for use (ie, implicit medical use). Main Outcomes and Measures: Survey data were linked to EHR data in the year before screening. EHR measures included documentation of explicit and/or implicit medical cannabis use. Analyses estimated the primary care prevalence of cannabis use and compared EHR-documented with patient-reported medical cannabis use, accounting for stratified sampling and nonresponse. Results: Overall, 1688 patients responded to the survey (34% response rate; mean [SD] age, 50.7 [17.5] years; 861 female [56%], 1184 White [74%], 1514 non-Hispanic [97%], and 1059 commercially insured [65%]). The primary care prevalence of any past-year patient-reported cannabis use on the survey was 38.8% (95% CI, 31.9%-46.1%), whereas the prevalence of explicit and implicit medical use were 26.5% (95% CI, 21.6%-31.3%) and 35.1% (95% CI, 29.3%-40.8%), respectively. The prevalence of EHR-documented medical cannabis use was 4.8% (95% CI, 3.45%-6.2%). Compared with patient-reported explicit medical use, the sensitivity and specificity of EHR-documented medical cannabis use were 10.0% (95% CI, 4.4%-15.6%) and 97.1% (95% CI, 94.4%-99.8%), respectively. Conclusions and Relevance: These findings suggest that medical cannabis use is common among primary care patients in a state with legal use, and most use is not documented in the EHR. Patient report of health reasons for cannabis use identifies more medical use compared with explicit questions about medical use.

Clinical documentation of patient-reported medical cannabis use in primary care: Toward scalable extraction using natural language processing methods.

Background: Most states have legalized medical cannabis, yet little is known about how medical cannabis use is documented in patients' electronic health records (EHRs). We used natural language processing (NLP) to calculate the prevalence of clinician-documented medical cannabis use among adults in an integrated health system in Washington State where medical and recreational use are legal. Methods: We analyzed EHRs of patients ≥18 years old screened for past-year cannabis use (November 1, 2017-October 31, 2018), to identify clinician-documented medical cannabis use. We defined medical use as any documentation of cannabis that was recommended by a clinician or described by the clinician or patient as intended to manage health conditions or symptoms. We developed and applied an NLP system that included NLP-assisted manual review to identify such documentation in encounter notes. Results: Medical cannabis use was documented for 16,684 (5.6%) of 299,597 outpatient encounters with routine screening for cannabis use among 203,489 patients seeing 1,274 clinicians. The validated NLP system identified 54% of documentation and NLP-assisted manual review the remainder. Language documenting reasons for cannabis use included 125 terms indicating medical use, 28 terms indicating non-medical use and 41 ambiguous terms. Implicit documentation of medical use (e.g., "edible THC nightly for lumbar pain") was more common than explicit (e.g., "continues medical cannabis use"). Conclusions: Clinicians use diverse and often ambiguous language to document patients' reasons for cannabis use. Automating extraction of documentation about patients' cannabis use could facilitate clinical decision support and epidemiological investigation but will require large amounts of gold standard training data.

Practical assessment of DSM-5 alcohol use disorder criteria in routine care: High test-retest reliability of an Alcohol Symptom Checklist.

BACKGROUND: Alcohol use disorder (AUD) is underdiagnosed and undertreated in medical settings, in part due to a lack of AUD assessment instruments that are reliable and practical for use in routine care. This study evaluates the test-retest reliability of a patient-report Alcohol Symptom Checklist questionnaire when it is used in routine care, including primary care and mental health specialty settings. METHODS: We performed a pragmatic test-retest reliability study using electronic health record (EHR) data from Kaiser Permanente Washington, an integrated health system in Washington state. The sample included 454 patients who reported high-risk drinking on a behavioral health screen and completed two Alcohol Symptom Checklists 1 to 21 days apart. Subgroups of these patients who completed both checklists in primary care (n = 271) or mental health settings (n = 79) were also examined. The primary measure was an Alcohol Symptom Checklist on which patients self-reported whether they experienced each of the 11 AUD criteria within the past year, as defined by the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders-5th edition (DSM-5). RESULTS: Alcohol Symptom Checklists completed in routine care and documented in EHRs had excellent test-retest reliability for measuring AUD criterion counts (ICC = 0.79, 95% CI: 0.76 to 0.82). Test-retest reliability estimates were also high and not significantly different for the subsamples of patients who completed both checklists in primary care (ICC = 0.82, 95% CI: 0.77 to 0.85) or mental health settings (ICC = 0.74, 95% CI: 0.62 to 0.83). Test-retest reliability was not moderated by having a past two-year AUD diagnosis, nor by the age or sex of the patient completing it. CONCLUSIONS: Alcohol Symptom Checklists can reliably and pragmatically assess AUD criteria in routine care among patients who screen positive for high-risk drinking. The Alcohol Symptom Checklist may be a valuable tool in supporting AUD-related care and monitoring AUD criteria longitudinally in routine primary care and mental health settings.

Practical Assessment of Alcohol Use Disorder in Routine Primary Care: Performance of an Alcohol Symptom Checklist.

BACKGROUND: Alcohol use disorder (AUD) is highly prevalent but underrecognized and undertreated in primary care settings. Alcohol Symptom Checklists can engage patients and providers in discussions of AUD-related care. However, the performance of Alcohol Symptom Checklists when they are used in routine care and documented in electronic health records (EHRs) remains unevaluated. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the psychometric performance of an Alcohol Symptom Checklist in routine primary care. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study using item response theory (IRT) and differential item functioning analyses of measurement consistency across age, sex, race, and ethnicity. PATIENTS: Patients seen in primary care in the Kaiser Permanente Washington Healthcare System who reported high-risk drinking on the Alcohol Use Disorder Identification Test Consumption screening measure (AUDIT-C ≥ 7) and subsequently completed an Alcohol Symptom Checklist between October 2015 and February 2020. MAIN MEASURE: Alcohol Symptom Checklists with 11 items assessing AUD criteria defined in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual for Mental Disorders, 5th edition (DSM-5), completed by patients during routine medical care and documented in EHRs. KEY RESULTS: Among 11,464 patients who screened positive for high-risk drinking and completed an Alcohol Symptom Checklist (mean age 43.6 years, 30.5% female), 54.1% reported ≥ 2 DSM-5 AUD criteria (threshold for AUD diagnosis). IRT analyses demonstrated that checklist items measured a unidimensional continuum of AUD severity. Differential item functioning was observed for some demographic subgroups but had minimal impact on accurate measurement of AUD severity, with differences between demographic subgroups attributable to differential item functioning never exceeding 0.42 points of the total symptom count (of a possible range of 0-11). CONCLUSIONS: Alcohol Symptom Checklists used in routine care discriminated AUD severity consistently with current definitions of AUD and performed equitably across age, sex, race, and ethnicity. Integrating symptom checklists into routine care may help inform clinical decision-making around diagnosing and managing AUD.

Utility of item 9 of the patient health questionnaire in the prospective identification of adolescents at risk of suicide attempt.

INTRODUCTION: Previous studies report that item 9 of the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ9) is useful for stratifying risk of suicide attempt in adults. This study re-produced the utility of item 9 of PHQ9 in assessing risk of suicide attempt in adolescents. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Individuals aged 13 to 17 years in 4 health systems with a diagnosis of depression and history of treatment were included. We estimated time to first observed fatal or non-fatal suicide attempt in the 2 years following completion of a PHQ9, stratified by response to item 9. RESULTS: There were 51,807 PHQ9 questionnaires for 20,363 youth and 861 instances of suicide attempt. Cumulative probability of suicide attempt ranged from approximately 3.3% (95% CI, 3.0 to 3.5%) for those responding "not at all" on item 9 to 10.8% (95% CI, 9.2 to 12.4%) for those responding "nearly every day". These probabilities are more than 3 times higher than previously reported in adults. CONCLUSION: PHQ item 9 is useful for stratifying risk of suicide attempt in the 2 years following completion of the questionnaire. Monitoring PHQ item 9 over time for patients in treatment for depression can be useful for population health management of adolescents with depression.