Screening for problematic opioid use in the emergency department: Comparison of two screening measures.

Study objective: Earlier intervention for opioid use disorder (OUD) may reduce long-term health implications. Emergency departments (EDs) in the United States treat millions with OUD annually who may not seek care elsewhere. Our objectives were (1) to compare two screening measures for OUD characterization in the ED and (2) to determine the proportion of ED patients screening positive for OUD and those who endorse other substance use to guide future screening programs. Methods: A cross-sectional study of randomly selected adult patients presenting to three Midwestern US EDs were enrolled, with duplicate patients excluded. Surveys were administered via research assistant and documented on tablet devices. Demographics were self-reported, and OUD positivity was assessed by the DSM 5 checklist and the WHO ASSIST 3.1. The primary outcome was the concordance between two screening measures for OUD. Our secondary outcome was the proportion of ED patients meeting OUD criteria and endorsed co-occurring substance use disorder (SUD) criteria. Results: We enrolled 1305 participants; median age of participants was 46 years (range 18-84), with 639 (49.0%) Non-Hispanic, White, and 693 (53.1%) female. Current OUD positivity was identified in 17% (222 out of 1305) of the participants via either DSM-5 (two or more criteria) or ASSIST (score of 4 or greater). We found moderate agreement between the measures (kappa = 0.56; Phi coefficient = 0.57). Of individuals screening positive for OUD, 182 (82%) endorsed criteria for co-occurring SUD. Conclusions: OUD is remarkably prevalent in ED populations, with one in six ED patients screening positive. We found a high prevalence of persons identified with OUD and co-occurring SUD, with moderate agreement between measures. Developing and implementing clinically feasible OUD screening in the ED is essential to enable intervention.

Implementation Facilitation to Promote Emergency Department-Initiated Buprenorphine for Opioid Use Disorder.

Importance: Emergency department (ED)-initiated buprenorphine for the treatment of opioid use disorder (OUD) is underused. Objective: To evaluate whether provision of ED-initiated buprenorphine with referral for OUD increased after implementation facilitation (IF), an educational and implementation strategy. Design, Setting, and Participants: This multisite hybrid type 3 effectiveness-implementation nonrandomized trial compared grand rounds with IF, with pre-post 12-month baseline and IF evaluation periods, at 4 academic EDs. The study was conducted from April 1, 2017, to November 30, 2020. Participants were ED and community clinicians treating patients with OUD and observational cohorts of ED patients with untreated OUD. Data were analyzed from July 16, 2021, to July 14, 2022. Exposure: A 60-minute in-person grand rounds was compared with IF, a multicomponent facilitation strategy that engaged local champions, developed protocols, and provided learning collaboratives and performance feedback. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcomes were the rate of patients in the observational cohorts who received ED-initiated buprenorphine with referral for OUD treatment (primary implementation outcome) and the rate of patients engaged in OUD treatment at 30 days after enrollment (effectiveness outcome). Additional implementation outcomes included the numbers of ED clinicians with an X-waiver to prescribe buprenorphine and ED visits with buprenorphine administered or prescribed and naloxone dispensed or prescribed. Results: A total of 394 patients were enrolled during the baseline evaluation period and 362 patients were enrolled during the IF evaluation period across all sites, for a total of 756 patients (540 [71.4%] male; mean [SD] age, 39.3 [11.7] years), with 223 Black patients (29.5%) and 394 White patients (52.1%). The cohort included 420 patients (55.6%) who were unemployed, and 431 patients (57.0%) reported unstable housing. Two patients (0.5%) received ED-initiated buprenorphine during the baseline period, compared with 53 patients (14.6%) during the IF evaluation period (P < .001). Forty patients (10.2%) were engaged with OUD treatment during the baseline period, compared with 59 patients (16.3%) during the IF evaluation period (P = .01). Patients in the IF evaluation period who received ED-initiated buprenorphine were more likely to be in treatment at 30 days (19 of 53 patients [35.8%]) than those who did not 40 of 309 patients (12.9%; P < .001). Additionally, there were increases in the numbers of ED clinicians with an X-waiver (from 11 to 196 clinicians) and ED visits with provision of buprenorphine (from 259 to 1256 visits) and naloxone (from 535 to 1091 visits). Conclusions and Relevance: In this multicenter effectiveness-implementation nonrandomized trial, rates of ED-initiated buprenorphine and engagement in OUD treatment were higher in the IF period, especially among patients who received ED-initiated buprenorphine. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03023930.

Genetic Variants Associated With Opioid Use Disorder.

Genetics are presumed to contribute 30-40% to opioid use disorder (OUD), allowing for the possibility that genetic markers could be used to identify personal risk for developing OUD. We aimed to test the potential association among 180 candidate single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs), 120 of which were related to the dopamine reward pathway and 60 related to pharmacokinetics. Participants were randomly recruited in 2020-2021 in a cross-sectional genetic association study. Self-reported health history including Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5) OUD criteria and buccal swabs were collected. A total of 1,301 participants were included in the analyses for this study. Of included participants, 250 met the DSM-5 criteria for ever having OUD. Logistic regression, adjusting for age and biologic sex, was used to characterize the association between each SNP and DSM-5 criteria consistent with OUD. Six SNPs found in four genes were associated with OUD: increased odds with CYP3A5 (rs15524 and rs776746) and DRD3 (rs324029 and rs2654754), and decreased odds with CYP3A4 (rs2740574) and CYP1A2 (rs2069514). Homozygotic CYP3A5 (rs15524 and rs776746) had the highest adjusted odds ratio of 2.812 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.737, 4.798) and 2.495 (95% CI 1.670, 3.835), respectively. Variants within the dopamine reward and opioid metabolism pathways have significant positive (DRD3 and CYP3A5) and negative (CYP3A4 and CYP1A2) associations with OUD. Identification of these variants provides promising possibilities for genetic prognostic and therapeutic targets for future investigation.

Cost-Effectiveness of Smoking Cessation Approaches in Emergency Departments.

INTRODUCTION: Americans of lower SES use tobacco products at disproportionately high rates and are over-represented as patients of emergency departments. Accordingly, emergency department visits are an ideal time to initiate tobacco treatment and aftercare for this vulnerable and understudied population. This research estimates the costs per quit of emergency department smoking-cessation interventions and compares them with those of other approaches. METHODS: Previously published research described the effectiveness of 2 multicomponent smoking cessation interventions, including brief negotiated interviewing, nicotine replacement therapy, quitline referral, and follow-up communication. Study 1 (collected in 2010-2012) only analyzed the combined interventions. Study 2 (collected in 2017-2019) analyzed the intervention components independently. Costs per participant and per quit were estimated separately, under distinct intervention with dedicated staff and intervention with repurposed staff assumptions. The distinction concerns whether the intervention used dedicated staff for delivery or whether time from existing staff was repurposed for intervention if available. RESULTS: Data were analyzed in 2021-2022. In the first study, the cost per participant was $860 (2018 dollars), and the cost per quit was $11,814 (95% CI=$7,641, $25,423) (dedicated) and $227 per participant and $3,121 per quit (95% CI=$1,910, $7,012) (repurposed). In Study 2, the combined effect of brief negotiated interviewing, nicotine replacement therapy, and quitline cost $808 per participant and $6,100 per quit (dedicated) (95% CI=$4,043, $12,274) and $221 per participant and $1,669 per quit (95% CI=$1,052, $3,531) (repurposed). CONCLUSIONS: Costs varied considerably per method used but were comparable with those of other smoking cessation interventions.

Successful Optimization of Tobacco Dependence Treatment in the Emergency Department: A Randomized Controlled Trial Using the Multiphase Optimization Strategy.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: Tobacco dependence treatment initiated in the hospital emergency department (ED) is effective. However, trials typically use multicomponent interventions, making it difficult to distinguish specific components that are effective. In addition, interactions between components cannot be assessed. The Multiphase Optimization Strategy allows investigators to identify these effects. METHODS: We conducted a full-factorial, 24 or 16-condition optimization trial in a busy hospital ED to examine the performance of 4 tobacco dependence interventions: a brief negotiation interview; 6 weeks of nicotine replacement therapy with the first dose delivered in the ED; active referral to a telephone quitline; and enrollment in SmokefreeTXT, a free short-messaging service program. Study data were analyzed with a novel mixed methods approach to assess clinical efficacy, cost-effectiveness, and qualitative participant feedback. The primary endpoint was tobacco abstinence at 3 months, verified by exhaled carbon monoxide using a Bedfont Micro+ Smokerlyzer. RESULTS: Between February 2017 and May 2019, we enrolled 1,056 adult smokers visiting the ED. Odd ratios (95% confidence intervals) from the primary analysis of biochemically confirmed abstinence rates at 3 months for each intervention, versus control, were: brief negotiation interview, 1.8 (1.1, 2.8); nicotine replacement therapy, 2.1 (1.3, 3.2); quitline, 1.4 (0.9, 2.2); SmokefreeTXT, 1.1 (0.7, 1.7). There were no statistically significant interactions among components. Economic and qualitative analyses are in progress. CONCLUSION: The brief negotiation interview and nicotine replacement therapy were efficacious. This study is the first to identify components of ED-initiated tobacco dependence treatment that are individually effective. Future work will address the scalability of the brief negotiation interview and nicotine replacement therapy by offering provider-delivered brief negotiation interviews and nicotine replacement therapy prescriptions.

Perspectives About Emergency Department Care Encounters Among Adults With Opioid Use Disorder.

Importance: Emergency departments (EDs) are increasingly initiating treatment for patients with untreated opioid use disorder (OUD) and linking them to ongoing addiction care. To our knowledge, patient perspectives related to their ED visit have not been characterized and may influence their access to and interest in OUD treatment. Objective: To assess the experiences and perspectives regarding ED-initiated health care and OUD treatment among US patients with untreated OUD seen in the ED. Design, Setting, and Participants: This qualitative study, conducted as part of 2 studies (Project ED Health and ED-CONNECT), included individuals with untreated OUD who were recruited during an ED visit in EDs at 4 urban academic centers, 1 public safety net hospital, and 1 rural critical access hospital in 5 disparate US regions. Focus groups were conducted between June 2018 and January 2019. Main Outcomes and Measures: Data collection and thematic analysis were grounded in the Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services (PARIHS) implementation science framework with evidence (perspectives on ED care), context (ED), and facilitation (what is needed to promote change) elements. Results: A total of 31 individuals (mean [SD] age, 43.4 [11.0] years) participated in 6 focus groups. Twenty participants (64.5%) identified as male and most 13 (41.9%) as White; 17 (54.8%) reported being unemployed. Themes related to evidence included patients' experience of stigma and perceived minimization of their pain and medical problems by ED staff. Themes about context included the ED not being seen as a source of OUD treatment initiation and patient readiness to initiate treatment being multifaceted, time sensitive, and related to internal and external patient factors. Themes related to facilitation of improved care of patients with OUD seen in the ED included a need for on-demand treatment and ED staff training. Conclusions and Relevance: In this qualitative study, patients with OUD reported feeling stigmatized and minimized when accessing care in the ED and identified several opportunities to improve care. The findings suggest that strategies to address stigma, acknowledge and treat pain, and provide ED staff training should be implemented to improve ED care for patients with OUD and enhance access to life-saving treatment.

A Brief Negotiation Interview Adherence Scale for Smoking Cessation: A psychometric evaluation.

Practitioner adherence to the Brief Negotiation Interview (BNI) for high-risk alcohol consumption and opioid use disorder can be measured using the BNI Adherence Scale, for alcohol (BAS-A) and opioids (BAS-O), respectively. However, no psychometrically validated brief intervention adherence scale for smoking cessation has been reported in the literature. Our objective was to develop and examine the psychometric properties of a BAS for smoking cessation (BASS). In the context of a clinical trial of the BNI in an emergency department (ED)-which incorporates motivational interviewing (MI), feedback, and behavioral contracting-plus nicotine replacement therapy (NRT), and a Smokers' Quitline referral and brochure (BNI), compared with brochure-only (control), we developed and examined the psychometric properties of the BAS-S, a scale that requires raters to answer whether each critical action of the BNI was implemented. Three independent raters rated three hundred and eighty-eight audio-recorded BNI sessions. The results indicated that the BAS-S had excellent internal consistency, and discriminant validity, inter-rater reliability, and construct validity. The following 3-factor (10-item) solution accounted for 43% of the variance: factor 1, "Feedback,", factor 2, "NRT Motivation," and factor 3, "Plan Negotiation." The study found predictive validity for the Feedback factor, suggesting that patients who were provided feedback on the harms of their smoking were significantly less likely to achieve biologically confirmed 7-day tobacco abstinence at their 3-month follow-up than those who were not provided such feedback (p < 0.03). The BAS-S is a psychometrically valid measure of adherence to the BNI for smoking cessation.

The design and conduct of a randomized clinical trial comparing emergency department initiation of sublingual versus a 7-day extended-release injection formulation of buprenorphine for opioid use disorder: Project ED Innovation.

ED-INNOVATION (Emergency Department-INitiated bupreNOrphine VAlidaTION) is a Hybrid Type-1 Implementation-Effectiveness multisite emergency department (ED) study funded through The Helping to End Addiction Long-termSM Initiative, or NIH HEAL InitiativeSM efforts to increase access to medications for opioid use disorder (OUD). We use components of Implementation Facilitation to enhance adoption of ED-initiated buprenorphine (BUP) at approximately 30 sites. Subsequently we compare the effectiveness of two BUP formulations, sublingual (SL-BUP) and 7-day extended-release injectable (CAM2038, XR-BUP) in a randomized clinical trial (RCT) of approximately 2000 patients with OUD on the primary outcome of engagement in formal addiction treatment at 7 days. Secondary outcomes assessed at 7 and 30 days include self-reported opioid use, craving and satisfaction, health service utilization, overdose events, and engagement in formal addiction treatment (30 days) and receipt of medications for OUD (at 7 and 30 days). A sample size of 1000 per group provides 90% power at the 2-sided significance level to detect a difference in the primary outcome of 8% and accommodates a 15% dropout rate. We will compare the cost effectiveness of the two treatments on the primary outcome using the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. We will also conduct an ancillary study in approximately 75 patients experiencing minimal to no opioid withdrawal who will undergo XR-BUP initiation. If the ancillary study demonstrates safety, we will expand the eligibility criteria for the RCT to include individuals with minimal to no opioid withdrawal. The results of these studies will inform implementation of ED-initiated BUP in diverse EDs which has the potential to improve treatment access.

Development and usability evaluation of VOICES: A digital health tool to identify elder mistreatment.

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: A major barrier for society in overcoming elder mistreatment is an inability to accurately identify victims. There are several barriers to self-reporting elder mistreatment, including fear of nursing home placement or losing autonomy or a caregiver. Existing strategies to identify elder mistreatment neglect to empower those who experience it with tools for self-reporting. In this project, we developed and evaluated the usability of VOICES, a self-administrated digital health tool that screens, educates, and motivates older adults to self-report elder mistreatment. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study with User-Centered Design (UCD) approach. SETTING: Yale School of Medicine and the Agency on Aging of South-Central Connecticut. PARTICIPANTS: Thirty eight community-dwelling and cognitively intact older adults aged 60 years and older, caregivers, clinicians, and social workers. INTERVENTION: A tablet-based self-administrated digital health tool that screens, educates, and motivates older adults to self-report elder mistreatment. MEASUREMENTS: Qualitative and quantitative data were obtained from: (1) focus groups participants including: feedback from open-ended discussion, demographics, and a post-session survey; (2) usability evaluation including: demographics, usability measures, comfortability with technology, emotional state, and open-ended feedback. RESULTS: Focus group participants (n = 24) generally favored using a tablet-based tool to screen for elder mistreatment and expressed comfort answering questions on elder mistreatment using tablets. Usability evaluation participants (n = 14) overall scored VOICES a mean System Usability Scale (SUS) score of 86.6 (median = 88.8), higher than the benchmark SUS score of 68, indicating excellent ease of use. In addition, 93% stated that they would recommend the VOICES tool to others and 100% indicated understanding of VOICES' information and content. CONCLUSION: Our findings show that older adults are capable, willing, and comfortable with using the innovative and self-administrated digital tool for elder mistreatment screening. Our future plan is to conduct a feasibility study to evaluate the use of VOICES in identifying suspicion of mistreatment.

Group-randomized trial of tailored brief shared decision-making to improve asthma control in urban black adults.

AIMS: To assess the intervention effects of BREATHE (BRief intervention to Evaluate Asthma THErapy), a novel brief shared decision-making intervention and evaluate feasibility and acceptability of intervention procedures. DESIGN: Group-randomized longitudinal pilot study. METHODS: In total, 80 adults with uncontrolled persistent asthma participated in a trial comparing BREATHE (N = 40) to a dose-matched attention control intervention (N = 40). BREATHE is a one-time shared decision-making intervention delivered by clinicians during routine office visits. Ten clinicians were randomized and trained on BREATHE or the control condition. Participants were followed monthly for 3 months post-intervention. Data were collected from December 2017 - May 2019 and included surveys, lung function tests, and interviews. RESULTS: Participants were Black/multiracial (100%) mostly female (83%) adults (mean age 45). BREATHE clinicians delivered BREATHE to all 40 participants with fidelity based on expert review of audiorecordings. While the control group reported improvements in asthma control at 1-month and 3-month follow-up, only BREATHE participants had better asthma control at each timepoint (ß = 0.77; standard error (SE)[0.17]; p ≤ 0.0001; ß = 0.71; SE[0.16]; p ≤ 0.0001; ß = 0.54; SE[0.15]; p = .0004), exceeding the minimally important difference. BREATHE participants also perceived greater shared decision-making occurred during the intervention visit (ß = 7.39; SE[3.51]; p = .03) and fewer symptoms at follow-up (e.g., fewer nights woken, less shortness of breath and less severity of symptoms) than the controls. Both groups reported improved adherence and fewer erroneous medication beliefs. CONCLUSION: BREATHE is a promising brief tailored intervention that can be integrated into office visits using clinicians as interventionists. Thus, BREATHE offers a pragmatic approach to improving asthma outcomes and shared decision-making in a health disparity population. IMPACT: The study addressed the important problem of uncontrolled asthma in a high-risk vulnerable population. Compared with the dose-matched attention control condition, participants receiving the novel brief tailored shared decision-making intervention had significant improvements in asthma outcomes and greater perceived engagement in shared decision-making. Brief interventions integrated into office visits and delivered by clinicians may offer a pragmatic approach to narrowing health disparity gaps. Future studies where other team members (e.g., office nurses, social workers) are trained in shared decision-making may address important implementation science challenges as it relates to adoption, maintenance, and dissemination. TRAIL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov # NCT03300752.

Trial study design to test a bilingual digital health tool for alcohol use disorders among Latino emergency department patients.

We describe an emergency department (ED)-based, Latino patient focused, unblinded, randomized controlled trial to empirically test if automated bilingual computerized alcohol screening and brief intervention (AB-CASI), a digital health tool, is superior to standard care (SC) on measures of alcohol consumption, alcohol-related negative behaviors and consequences, and 30-day treatment engagement. The trial design addresses the full spectrum of unhealthy drinking from high-risk drinking to severe alcohol use disorder (AUD). In an effort to surmount known ED-based alcohol screening, brief intervention, and referral to treatment process barriers, while addressing racial/ethnic alcohol-related health disparities among Latino groups, this trial will purposively use a digital health tool and seek enrollment of English and/or Spanish speaking self-identified adult Latino ED patients. Participants will be randomized (1:1) to AB-CASI or SC, stratified by AUD severity and preferred language (English vs. Spanish). The primary outcome will be the number of binge drinking days assessed using the 28-day timeline followback method at 12 months post-randomization. Secondary outcomes will include mean number of drinks/week and number of episodes of driving impaired, riding with an impaired driver, injuries, arrests, and tardiness and days absent from work/school. A sample size of 820 is necessary to provide 80% power to detect a 1.14 difference between AB-CASI and SC in the primary outcome. Showing efficacy of this promising bilingual ED-based brief intervention tool in Latino patients has the potential to widely and efficiently expand prevention efforts and facilitate meaningful contact with specialized treatment services.

Trial study design to test a bilingual digital health tool for alcohol use disorders among Latino emergency department patients.

We describe an emergency department (ED)-based, Latino patient focused, unblinded, randomized controlled trial to empirically test if automated bilingual computerized alcohol screening and brief intervention (AB-CASI), a digital health tool, is superior to standard care (SC) on measures of alcohol consumption, alcohol-related negative behaviors and consequences, and 30-day treatment engagement. The trial design addresses the full spectrum of unhealthy drinking from high-risk drinking to severe alcohol use disorder (AUD). In an effort to surmount known ED-based alcohol screening, brief intervention, and referral to treatment process barriers, while addressing racial/ethnic alcohol-related health disparities among Latino groups, this trial will purposively use a digital health tool and seek enrollment of English and/or Spanish speaking self-identified adult Latino ED patients. Participants will be randomized (1:1) to AB-CASI or SC, stratified by AUD severity and preferred language (English vs. Spanish). The primary outcome will be the number of binge drinking days assessed using the 28-day timeline followback method at 12 months post-randomization. Secondary outcomes will include mean number of drinks/week and number of episodes of driving impaired, riding with an impaired driver, injuries, arrests, and tardiness and days absent from work/school. A sample size of 820 is necessary to provide 80% power to detect a 1.14 difference between AB-CASI and SC in the primary outcome. Showing efficacy of this promising bilingual ED-based brief intervention tool in Latino patients has the potential to widely and efficiently expand prevention efforts and facilitate meaningful contact with specialized treatment services.

Implementation facilitation to promote emergency department-initiated buprenorphine for opioid use disorder: protocol for a hybrid type III effectiveness-implementation study (Project ED HEALTH).

BACKGROUND: Patients with opioid use disorder (OUD) frequently present to the emergency department (ED) after overdose, or seeking treatment for general medical conditions, their addiction, withdrawal symptoms, or complications of injection drug use, such as soft tissue infections. ED-initiated buprenorphine has been shown to be effective in increasing patient engagement in treatment compared with brief intervention with a facilitated referral or referral alone. However, adoption into practice has lagged behind need. To address this implementation challenge, we are evaluating the impact of implementation facilitation (IF) on the adoption of ED-initiated buprenorphine for OUD into practice. METHODS: This protocol describes a study that is being conducted through the National Institute on Drug Abuse's Center for the Clinical Trials Network. A hybrid type III effectiveness-implementation study design is used to evaluate the effectiveness of a standard educational dissemination strategy versus IF on implementation (primary) and effectiveness (secondary) outcomes in four urban, academic EDs. Sites start with a standard 60-min "Grand Rounds" educational intervention describing the prevalence of ED patients with OUD, the evidence for opioid agonist treatment and for innovative interventions with ED-initiated buprenorphine; followed by a 1-year baseline evaluation period. Using a modified stepped wedge design, sites are randomly assigned to the IF intervention which is guided by the Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services (PARiHS) framework to assess evidence, context, and facilitation-related factors impacting the adoption of ED-initiated buprenorphine. During the 6 months of IF through the 1-year IF evaluation period, external facilitators work with local stakeholders to tailor and refine a bundle of activities to meet the site's needs. The primary analyses compare the baseline evaluation period to the IF evaluation period (n = 120 patients with untreated OUD enrolled during each period) on (1) rates of provision of ED-initiated buprenorphine by ED providers with referral for ongoing medication (implementation outcome) and (2) rates of patient engagement in addiction treatment on the 30th day after the ED visit (effectiveness outcome). Finally, we will perform a cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) to determine if the effectiveness benefits are worth the additional costs. DISCUSSION: Results will generate novel information regarding the impact of IF as a strategy to promote ED-initiated buprenorphine. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03023930 first posted 1/10/2017, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03023930?term=0069&rank=1.

Use of non-face-to-face modalities for emergency department screening, brief intervention, and referral to treatment (ED-SBIRT) for high-risk alcohol use: A scoping review.

Background: The purpose of this review was to examine and chart the "scope" of strategies reported in ED-SBIRT (emergency department-based screening, brief intervention and referral to treatment) studies that employ non-face-to-face (nFtF) modalities for high-risk alcohol use (i.e., risk for alcohol-related injury, medical condition, use disorder) and to identify research gaps in the scientific literature. Methods: The scoping review population included study participants with high-risk alcohol use patterns as well as study participants targeted for primary public health prevention (e.g., adolescent ED patients). Core concepts included SBIRT components among intervention studies that incorporated some form of nFtF modality (e.g., computer-assisted brief intervention). The context encompassed ED-based studies or trauma center studies, regardless of geographic location. After screening a total of 1526 unique references, reviewers independently assessed 58 full-text articles for eligibility. Results: A total of 30 full-text articles were included. Articles covered a period of 14 years (2003-2016) and 19 journal titles. Authors reported the use of a wide range of nFtF modalities across all 3 ED-SBIRT components: "screening" (e.g., computer tablet screening), "brief intervention" (e.g., text message-based brief interventions), and "referral to treatment" (e.g., computer-generated feedback with information about alcohol treatment services). The most frequently used nFtF modality was computerized screening and/or baseline assessment. The main results were mixed with respect to showing evidence of ED-SBIRT intervention effects. Conclusions: There is an opportunity for substance use disorder researchers to explore the specific needs of several populations (e.g., ED patients with co-occurring problems such as substance use disorder and violence victimization) and on several methodological issues (e.g., ED-SBIRT theory of change). Substance use disorder researchers should take the lead on establishing guidelines for the reporting of ED-SBIRT studies-including categorization schemes for various nFtF modalities. This would facilitate both secondary research (e.g., meta-analyses) and primary research design.

Shared decision-making in the BREATHE asthma intervention trial: A research protocol.

AIM: To evaluate the preliminary effectiveness of the BRief Evaluation of Asthma THerapy intervention, a 7-min primary care provider-delivered shared decision-making protocol that uses motivational interviewing to address erroneous asthma disease and medication beliefs. DESIGN: A multi-centre masked two-arm group-randomized clinical trial. METHODS: This 2-year pilot study is funded (September 2016) by the National Institute of Nursing Research. Eight providers will be randomized to one of two arms: the active intervention (N = 4) or a dose-matched attention control (N = 4). Providers will deliver the intervention to which they were randomized to 10 Black adult patients with uncontrolled asthma (N = 80). Patients will be followed three months postintervention to test the preliminary intervention effects on asthma control (primary outcome) and on medication adherence, lung function, and asthma-related quality of life (secondary outcomes). DISCUSSION: This study will evaluate the preliminary impact of a novel shared decision-making intervention delivered in a real world setting to address erroneous disease and medication beliefs as a means of improving asthma control in Black adults. Results will inform a future, large-scale randomized trial with sufficient power to test the intervention's effectiveness. IMPACT: Shared decision-making is an evidence-based intervention with proven effectiveness when implemented in the context of labour- and time-intensive research protocols. Medication adherence is linked with the marked disparities evident in poor and minority adults with asthma. Addressing this requires a novel multifactorial approach as we have proposed. To ensure sustainability, shared decision-making interventions must be adapted to and integrated into real-world settings. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Registered at clincialtrials.gov as NCT03036267 and NCT03300752.

Evaluation of a Pediatric Resident Skills-Based Screening, Brief Intervention and Referral to Treatment (SBIRT) Curriculum for Substance Use.

PURPOSE: To evaluate a screening, brief intervention and referral to treatment curriculum for alcohol and other substance use developed, implemented and integrated into a pediatric residency program. METHODS: During a 1-month adolescent medicine rotation, pediatric, and medicine/pediatric residents in an urban teaching hospital completed a 2 1/2-hour formal curriculum including a didactic lecture, a 40-minute video describing the Brief Negotiation Interview (BNI), and a skill-based session practicing the BNI and receiving individualized feedback. Access to a website with didactic material was provided. Outcome measures were pre- and post-training knowledge, BNI performance measured with a standardized patient using a validated BNI adherence scale, satisfaction with training, and adoption of BNI into clinical practice. RESULTS: Of the 106 residents trained, 92(87%) completed both pre- and post-test evaluations. Significant improvements were found in pre- versus post-test scores of knowledge, (20.0 [2.4 SD] vs. 24.1 [3.5 SD], p <.001) and BNI performance comparing pre- and post BNI adherence scale total scores, (5.14 [1.8 S.D.] vs. 11.5 [.96], p<.001). Residents reported high satisfaction with training, [1.4, SD .5, immediately and 1.6, SD .6, 30-days post training)with scores ranging from 1 to 5 with lower score=greater satisfaction. During the 12-month follow-up period, we received 83 responses from residents reporting a total of 129 BNIs in actual clinical settings. CONCLUSIONS: A screening, brief intervention and referral to treatment curriculum was successfully integrated into an adolescent medicine elective in a pediatric residency program. Residents demonstrated significant improvements in knowledge and skills performing the BNI, with high satisfaction and adoption of the BNI into clinical practice.

Past-year Prescription Drug Monitoring Program Opioid Prescriptions and Self-reported Opioid Use in an Emergency Department Population With Opioid Use Disorder.

BACKGROUND: Despite increasing reliance on prescription drug monitoring programs (PDMPs) as a response to the opioid epidemic, the relationship between aberrant drug-related behaviors captured by the PDMP and opioid use disorder is incompletely understood. How PDMP data should guide emergency department (ED) assessment has not been studied. OBJECTIVES: The objective was to evaluate a relationship between PDMP opioid prescription records and self-reported nonmedical opioid use of prescription opioids in a cohort of opioid-dependent ED patients enrolled in a treatment trial. METHODS: PDMP opioid prescription records during 1 year prior to study enrollment on 329 adults meeting Diagnostic and Statistical Manual IV criteria for opioid dependence entering a randomized clinical trial in a large, urban ED were cross-tabulated with data on 30-day nonmedical prescription opioid use self-report. The association among these two types of data was assessed by the Goodman and Kruskal's gamma; a logistic regression was used to explore characteristics of participants who had PDMP record of opioid prescriptions. RESULTS: During 1 year prior to study enrollment, 118 of 329 (36%) patients had at least one opioid prescription (range = 1-51) in our states' PDMP. Patients who reported ≥15 of 30 days of nonmedical prescription opioid use were more likely to have at least four PDMP opioid prescriptions (20/38; 53%) than patients reporting 1 to 14 days (14/38, 37%) or zero days of nonmedical prescription opioid use (4/38, 11%; p = 0.002). Female sex and having health insurance were significantly more represented in the PDMP (p < 0.05 for both). CONCLUSION: PDMPs may be helpful in identifying patients with certain aberrant drug-related behavior, but are unable to detect many patients with opioid use disorder. The majority of ED patients with opioid use disorder were not captured by the PDMP, highlighting the importance of using additional methods such as screening and clinical history to identify opioid use disorders in ED patients and the limitations of PDMPs to detect opioid use disorders.

Tobacco dependence treatment in the emergency department: A randomized trial using the Multiphase Optimization Strategy.

BACKGROUND: Tobacco dependence remains the leading preventable cause of death in the developed world. Smokers are disproportionately from lower socioeconomic groups, and may use the hospital emergency department (ED) as an important source of care. A recent clinical trial demonstrated the efficacy of a multicomponent intervention to help smokers quit, but the independent contributions of those components is unknown. METHODS: This is a full-factorial (16-arm) randomized trial in a busy hospital ED of 4 tobacco dependence interventions: brief motivational interviewing, nicotine replacement therapy, referral to a telephone quitline, and a texting program. The trial utilizes the Multiphase Optimization Strategy (MOST) and a novel mixed methods analytic design to assess clinical efficacy, cost effectiveness, and qualitative participant feedback. The primary endpoint is tobacco abstinence at 3months, verified by participants' exhaled carbon monoxide. RESULTS: Study enrollment began in February 2017. As of April 2017, 52 of 1056 planned participants (4.9%) were enrolled. Telephone-based semi-structured participant interviews and in-person biochemical verification of smoking abstinence are completed at the 3-month follow-up. Efficacy and cost effectiveness analyses will be conducted after follow-up is completed. DISCUSSION: The goal of this study is to identify a clinically efficacious, cost-effective intervention package for the initial treatment of tobacco dependence in ED patients. The efficacy of this combination can then be tested in a subsequent confirmatory trial. Our approach incorporates qualitative feedback from study participants in evaluating which intervention components will be tested in the future trial. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Trial (NCT02896400) registered in ClinicalTrials.gov on September 6, 2016.

Cost-effectiveness of emergency department-initiated treatment for opioid dependence.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: In a recent randomized trial, patients with opioid dependence receiving brief intervention, emergency department (ED)-initiated buprenorphine and ongoing follow-up in primary care with buprenorphine (buprenorphine) were twice as likely to be engaged in addiction treatment compared with referral to community-based treatment (referral) or brief intervention and referral (brief intervention). Our aim was to evaluate the relative cost-effectiveness of these three methods of intervening on opioid dependence in the ED. DESIGN: Measured health-care use was converted to dollar values. We considered a health-care system perspective and constructed cost-effectiveness acceptability curves that indicate the probability each treatment is cost-effective under different thresholds of willingness-to-pay for outcomes studied. SETTING: An urban ED in the United States. PARTICIPANTS: Opioid-dependent patients aged 18 years or older. MEASUREMENTS: Self-reported 30-day assessment data were used to construct cost-effectiveness acceptability curves for patient engagement in formal addiction treatment at 30 days and the number of days illicit opioid-free in the past week. FINDINGS: Considering only health-care system costs, cost-effectiveness acceptability curves indicate that at all positive willingness-to-pay values, ED-initiated buprenorphine treatment was more cost-effective than brief intervention or referral. For example, at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $1000 for 30-day treatment engagement, we are 79% certain ED-initiated buprenorphine is most cost-effective compared with other studied treatments. Similar results were found for days illicit opioid-free in the past week. Results were robust to secondary analyses that included patients with missing cost data, included crime and patient time costs in the numerator, and to changes in unit price estimates. CONCLUSION: In the United States, emergency department-initiated buprenorphine intervention for patients with opioid dependence provides high value compared with referral to community-based treatment or combined brief intervention and referral.

An interventionist adherence scale for a specialized brief negotiation interview focused on treatment engagement for opioid use disorders.

BACKGROUND: No psychometrically validated instrument for evaluating the extent to which interventionists correctly implement brief interventions designed to motivate treatment engagement for opioid use disorders has been reported in the literature. The objective of this study was to develop and examine the psychometric properties of the Brief Negotiation Interview (BNI) Adherence Scale for Opioid Use Disorders (BAS-O). METHODS: In the context of a randomized controlled trial evaluating the efficacy of 3 models of emergency department care for opioid use disorders, the authors developed and subsequently examined the psychometric properties of the BAS-O, a 38-item scale that required raters to answer whether or not ("Yes" or "No") each of the critical actions of the BNI was correctly implemented by the research interventionist. BAS-O items pertained to the BNI's 4 steps: (1) Raise the Subject, (2) Provide Feedback, (3) Enhance Motivation, and (4) Negotiate and Advise. A total of 215 audio-recorded BNI and 88 control encounters were rated by 3 trained raters who were independent of the study team and blind to study hypotheses, treatment, and assignment. RESULTS: The results indicated the BAS-O has fair to excellent psychometric properties, in terms of good internal consistency, excellent interrater reliability, discriminant validity, and construct validity, and fair predictive validity. A 13-item, 2-factor solution accounted for nearly 80% of the variance, where factor 1 addressed "Autonomy and Planning" (7 items) and factor 2 addressed "Motivation and Problems" (6 items). However, predictive validity was found for only one of the BAS-O factor items (i.e., Telling patients that treatment will address a range of issues related to their opioid use disorder). CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that the BAS-O is a psychometrically valid measure of adherence to the specialized BNI for motivating treatment engagement in patients with opioid use disorders, thus providing a brief (13-item), objective method of evaluating BNI skill performance.