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.

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

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

Barriers and facilitators to changing drinking and receiving alcohol-related care: Interviews with Veterans Health Administration primary care patients who indicated interest but did not enroll in an alcohol care management intervention trial.

Background: Most people with alcohol use disorder do not receive treatment, and primary care (PC)-based management of alcohol use disorder is a key strategy to close this gap. Understanding PC patients' perspectives on changing drinking and receiving alcohol-related care is important for this goal, particularly among those who decline alcohol-related care. This study examined perspectives on barriers and facilitators to changing drinking and receiving alcohol-related care among Veterans Health Administration (VA) PC patients who indicated interest but did not enroll in the Choosing Healthier drinking Options In primary CarE trial (CHOICE), which tested a PC-based alcohol care management intervention. Methods: VA PC patients with frequent heavy drinking who indicated interest in CHOICE but did not enroll were invited to participate. Twenty-seven patients completed in-person, semi-structured interviews. Interview transcripts were analyzed using iterative deductive and inductive content analysis. Results: Participants were mostly men (96%) and White (59%), and the mean age was 48. Seventy-four percent met criteria for alcohol use disorder, and the median number of past-week standard drinks was 41.5. Participants reported fewer alcohol-related problems, lower importance of/readiness to change drinking, and higher confidence in their ability to change than patients who enrolled in the CHOICE trial. Barriers fell into 5 domains: drinking fulfills need(s); reducing drinking or treatment is not needed; treatment is not effective/not acceptable; alcohol-related stigma; and practical barriers. Facilitators fell into 4 domains: reasons to change drinking; social support; treatment is acceptable/meets patients' needs; and practical facilitators. Participants discussed how Veteran identity and military experiences impacted drinking and willingness to receive care, which amplified multiple barriers/facilitators. Conclusions: This study identified barriers and facilitators to changing drinking and receiving alcohol-related care among VA PC patients who indicated interest but did not enroll in an alcohol care management trial. Findings can inform patient-centered interventions and support clinicians in engaging patients in care.

Approaches for Implementing App-Based Digital Treatments for Drug Use Disorders Into Primary Care: A Qualitative, User-Centered Design Study of Patient Perspectives.

BACKGROUND: Digital interventions, such as websites and smartphone apps, can be effective in treating drug use disorders (DUDs). However, their implementation in primary care is hindered, in part, by a lack of knowledge on how patients might like these treatments delivered to them. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to increase the understanding of how patients with DUDs prefer to receive app-based treatments to inform the implementation of these treatments in primary care. METHODS: The methods of user-centered design were combined with qualitative research methods to inform the design of workflows for offering app-based treatments in primary care. Adult patients (n=14) with past-year cannabis, stimulant, or opioid use disorder from 5 primary care clinics of Kaiser Permanente Washington in the Seattle area participated in this study. Semistructured interviews were recorded, transcribed, and analyzed using qualitative template analysis. The coding scheme included deductive codes based on interview topics, which primarily focused on workflow design. Inductive codes emerged from the data. RESULTS: Participants wanted to learn about apps during visits where drug use was discussed and felt that app-related conversations should be incorporated into the existing care whenever possible, as opposed to creating new health care visits to facilitate the use of the app. Nearly all participants preferred receiving clinician support for using apps over using them without support. They desired a trusting, supportive relationship with a clinician who could guide them as they used the app. Participants wanted follow-up support via phone calls or secure messaging because these modes of communication were perceived as a convenient and low burden (eg, no copays or appointment travel). CONCLUSIONS: A user-centered implementation of treatment apps for DUDs in primary care will require health systems to design workflows that account for patients' needs for structure, support in and outside of visits, and desire for convenience.

Routine Assessment of Symptoms of Substance Use Disorders in Primary Care: Prevalence and Severity of Reported Symptoms.

BACKGROUND: Most patients with substance use disorders (SUDs) never receive treatment and SUDs are under-recognized in primary care (PC) where patients can be treated or linked to treatment. Asking PC patients to directly report SUD symptoms on questionnaires might help identify SUDs but to our knowledge, this approach is previously untested. OBJECTIVE: To describe the prevalence and severity of DSM-5 SUD symptoms reported by PC patients as part of routine care. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study using secondary data. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 241,265 adult patients who visited one of 25 PC sites in an integrated health system in Washington state and had alcohol, cannabis, or other drug use screening documented in their EHRs (March 2015-July 2018) were included in main analyses if they had a positive screen for high-risk substance use defined as AUDIT-C score 7-12 points, or report of past-year daily cannabis use or any other drug use. MAIN MEASURES: The main outcome was number of SUD symptoms based on Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, 5th edition (DSM-5), reported on Symptom Checklists (0-11) for alcohol or other drugs: 2-3 mild; 4-5 moderate; 6-11 severe. RESULTS: Of screened patients, 16,776 (5.7%) reported high-risk use of alcohol (2.4%), cannabis (3.9%), and/or other drugs (1.7%), and 65.0-69.9% of those completed Symptom Checklists. Of those with high-risk alcohol use, 52.5% (95% CI 50.9-54.0%) reported ≥ 2 symptoms consistent with mild-severe alcohol use disorders. Of those reporting daily cannabis use, 29.8% (28.6-30.9%) reported ≥ 2 symptoms consistent with mild-severe SUDs. Of those reporting any other drug use, 37.5% (35.7-39.3%) reported ≥ 2 symptoms consistent with mild-severe SUDs. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Many PC patients who screened positive for high-risk substance use reported symptoms consistent with DSM-5 SUDs on self-report Symptom Checklists. Use of SUD Symptom Checklists could support PC providers in making SUD diagnoses and initiating discussions of substance use.

Reducing Sitting Time in Obese Older Adults: The I-STAND Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: The authors tested the efficacy of the "I-STAND" intervention for reducing sitting time, a novel and potentially health-promoting approach, in older adults with obesity. METHODS: The authors recruited 60 people (mean age = 68 ± 4.9 years, 68% female, 86% White; mean body mass index = 35.4). The participants were randomized to receive the I-STAND sitting reduction intervention (n = 29) or healthy living control group (n = 31) for 12 weeks. At baseline and at 12 weeks, the participants wore activPAL devices to assess sitting time (primary outcome). Secondary outcomes included fasting glucose, blood pressure, and weight. Linear regression models assessed between-group differences in the outcomes. RESULTS: The I-STAND participants significantly reduced their sitting time compared with the controls (-58 min per day; 95% confidence interval [-100.3, -15.6]; p = .007). There were no statistically significant changes in the secondary outcomes. CONCLUSION: I-STAND was efficacious in reducing sitting time, but not in changing health outcomes in older adults with obesity.

Effect of a Care Management Intervention on 12-Month Drinking Outcomes Among Patients With and Without DSM-IV Alcohol Dependence at Baseline.

BACKGROUND: The CHOICE care management intervention did not improve drinking relative to usual care (UC) for patients with frequent heavy drinking at high risk of alcohol use disorders. Patients with alcohol dependence were hypothesized to benefit most. We conducted preplanned secondary analyses to test whether the CHOICE intervention improved drinking relative to UC among patients with and without baseline DSM-IV alcohol dependence. METHODS: A total of 304 patients reporting frequent heavy drinking from 3 VA primary care clinics were randomized (stratified by DSM-IV alcohol dependence, sex, and site) to UC or the patient-centered, nurse-delivered, 12-month CHOICE care management intervention. Primary outcomes included percent heavy drinking days (%HDD) using 28-day timeline follow-back and a "good drinking outcome" (GDO)-abstaining or drinking below recommended limits and no alcohol-related symptoms on the Short Inventory of Problems at 12 months. Generalized estimating equation binomial regression models (clustered on provider) with interaction terms between dependence and intervention group were fit. RESULTS: At baseline, 59% of intervention and UC patients had DSM-IV alcohol dependence. Mean drinking outcomes improved for all subgroups. For participants with dependence, 12-month outcomes did not differ for intervention versus UC patients (%HDD 37% versus 38%, p = 0.76 and GDO 16% versus 16%, p = 0.77). For participants without dependence, %HDD did not differ between intervention (41%) and UC (31%) patients (p = 0.12), but the proportion with GDO was significantly higher among UC participants (26% versus 13%, p = 0.046). Neither outcome was significantly modified by dependence (interaction p values 0.19 for %HDD and 0.10 for GDO). CONCLUSIONS: Among participants with frequent heavy drinking, care management had no benefit relative to UC for patients with dependence, but UC may have had benefits for those without dependence. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01400581.

If You Listen, I Will Talk: the Experience of Being Asked About Suicidality During Routine Primary Care.

BACKGROUND: Routine population-based screening for depression is an essential part of evolving health care models integrating care for mental health in primary care. Depression instruments often include questions about suicidal thoughts, but how patients experience these questions in primary care is not known and may have implications for accurate identification of patients at risk. OBJECTIVES: To explore the patient experience of routine population-based depression screening/assessment followed, for some, by suicide risk assessment and discussions with providers. DESIGN: Qualitative, interview-based study. PARTICIPANTS: Thirty-seven patients from Kaiser Permanente Washington who had recently screened positive for depression on the 2-item Patient Health Questionnaire [PHQ] and completed the full PHQ-9. APPROACH: Criterion sampling identified patients who had recently completed the PHQ-9 ninth question which asks about the frequency of thoughts about self-harm. Patients completed semi-structured interviews by phone, which were recorded and transcribed. Directive and conventional content analyses were used to apply knowledge from prior research and elucidate new information from interviews; thematic analysis was used to organize key content overall and across groups based on endorsement of suicide ideation. KEY RESULTS: Four main organizing themes emerged from analyses: (1) Participants believed being asked about suicidality was contextually appropriate and valuable, (2) some participants described a mismatch between their lived experience and the PHQ-9 ninth question, (3) suicidality disclosures involved weighing hope for help against fears of negative consequences, and (4) provider relationships and acts of listening and caring facilitated discussions about suicidality. CONCLUSIONS: All participants believed being asked questions about suicidal thoughts was appropriate, though some who disclosed suicidal thoughts described experiencing stigma and sometimes distanced themselves from suicidality. Direct communication with trusted providers, who listened and expressed empathy, bolstered comfort with disclosure. Future research should consider strategies for reducing stigma and encouraging fearless disclosure among primary care patients experiencing suicidality.

Real-Time Online Demonstration for Skills Education for First-Year Nursing Students.

BACKGROUND: Few studies have investigated first-year nursing students' perspectives after they received real-time online demonstration (RTOD) for fundamental nursing skills education. METHOD: A mixed-methods study was conducted with prospective second-year nursing students after they completed a one-semester RTOD class in their first year. With permission from the original authors, an online questionnaire, the Self-Structured Questionnaire (SSQ), was administered to 277 students in undergraduate and higher-diploma programs, followed by two focus group interviews with 13 students. Survey and focus group data were analyzed using descriptive statistics and thematic analysis, respectively. RESULTS: Regarding students' barriers in administrative, individual, and technological areas, three themes emerged from the focus groups: (1) learning quality; (2) connection; and (3) impediments. CONCLUSION: RTOD contributed to fundamental nursing skills education. However, there was room for improvement. [J Nurs Educ. 2024;63(1):43-47.].

Offering nurse care management for opioid use disorder in primary care: Impact on emergency and hospital utilization in a cluster-randomized implementation trial.

BACKGROUND: Patients with opioid use disorder (OUD) have increased emergency and hospital utilization. The PROUD trial showed that implementation of office-based addiction treatment (OBAT) increased OUD medication treatment compared to usual care, but did not decrease acute care utilization in patients with OUD documented pre-randomization (clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT03407638). This paper reports secondary emergency and hospital utilization outcomes in patients with documented OUD in the PROUD trial. METHODS: This cluster-randomized implementation trial was conducted in 12 clinics from 6 diverse health systems (March 2015-February 2020). Patients who visited trial clinics and had an OUD diagnosis within 3 years pre-randomization were included in primary analyses; secondary analyses added patients with OUD who were new to the clinic or with newly-documented OUD post-randomization. Outcomes included days of emergency care and hospital utilization over 2 years post-randomization. Explanatory outcomes included measures of OUD treatment. Patient-level analyses used mixed-effect regression with clinic-specific random intercepts. RESULTS: Among 1988 patients with documented OUD seen pre-randomization (mean age 49, 53 % female), days of emergency care or hospitalization did not differ between intervention and usual care; OUD treatment also did not differ. In secondary analyses among 1347 patients with OUD post-randomization, there remained no difference in emergency or hospital utilization despite intervention patients receiving 32.2 (95 % CI 4.7, 59.7) more days of OUD treatment relative to usual care. CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of OBAT did not reduce emergency or hospital utilization among patients with OUD, even in the sample with OUD first documented post-randomization in whom the intervention increased treatment.

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.

Nurse Care Management for Opioid Use Disorder Treatment: The PROUD Cluster Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Few primary care (PC) practices treat patients with medications for opioid use disorder (OUD) despite availability of effective treatments. Objective: To assess whether implementation of the Massachusetts model of nurse care management for OUD in PC increases OUD treatment with buprenorphine or extended-release injectable naltrexone and secondarily decreases acute care utilization. Design, Setting, and Participants: The Primary Care Opioid Use Disorders Treatment (PROUD) trial was a mixed-methods, implementation-effectiveness cluster randomized clinical trial conducted in 6 diverse health systems across 5 US states (New York, Florida, Michigan, Texas, and Washington). Two PC clinics in each system were randomized to intervention or usual care (UC) stratified by system (5 systems were notified on February 28, 2018, and 1 system with delayed data use agreement on August 31, 2018). Data were obtained from electronic health records and insurance claims. An implementation monitoring team collected qualitative data. Primary care patients were included if they were 16 to 90 years old and visited a participating clinic from up to 3 years before a system's randomization date through 2 years after. Intervention: The PROUD intervention included 3 components: (1) salary for a full-time OUD nurse care manager; (2) training and technical assistance for nurse care managers; and (3) 3 or more PC clinicians agreeing to prescribe buprenorphine. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was a clinic-level measure of patient-years of OUD treatment (buprenorphine or extended-release injectable naltrexone) per 10 000 PC patients during the 2 years postrandomization (follow-up). The secondary outcome, among patients with OUD prerandomization, was a patient-level measure of the number of days of acute care utilization during follow-up. Results: During the baseline period, a total of 130 623 patients were seen in intervention clinics (mean [SD] age, 48.6 [17.7] years; 59.7% female), and 159 459 patients were seen in UC clinics (mean [SD] age, 47.2 [17.5] years; 63.0% female). Intervention clinics provided 8.2 (95% CI, 5.4-∞) more patient-years of OUD treatment per 10 000 PC patients compared with UC clinics (P = .002). Most of the benefit accrued in 2 health systems and in patients new to clinics (5.8 [95% CI, 1.3-∞] more patient-years) or newly treated for OUD postrandomization (8.3 [95% CI, 4.3-∞] more patient-years). Qualitative data indicated that keys to successful implementation included broad commitment to treat OUD in PC from system leaders and PC teams, full financial coverage for OUD treatment, and straightforward pathways for patients to access nurse care managers. Acute care utilization did not differ between intervention and UC clinics (relative rate, 1.16; 95% CI, 0.47-2.92; P = .70). Conclusions and Relevance: The PROUD cluster randomized clinical trial intervention meaningfully increased PC OUD treatment, albeit unevenly across health systems; however, it did not decrease acute care utilization among patients with OUD. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03407638.

"What Will Happen If I Say Yes?" Perspectives on a Standardized Firearm Access Question Among Adults With Depressive Symptoms.

OBJECTIVE: Addressing firearm access is recommended when patients are identified as being at risk of suicide. However, the practice of assessing firearm access is controversial, and no national guidelines exist to inform practice. This study qualitatively explored patient perspectives on a routine question about firearm access to optimize the patient centeredness of this practice in the context of suicide risk. METHODS: Electronic health record data were used to identify primary care patients reporting depressive symptoms, including suicidal thoughts, within 2 weeks of sampling. Participants completed a semistructured telephone interview (recorded and transcribed), which focused broadly on the experience of being screened for suicidality and included specific questions to elicit beliefs and opinions about being asked a standard firearm access question. Directive (deductive) and conventional (inductive) content analysis was used to analyze responses to the portion of the interview focused on firearm assessment and disclosure. RESULTS: Thirty-seven patients in Washington State ages 20-95 completed the qualitative interview by phone. Organizing themes included apprehensions about disclosing access to firearms related to privacy, autonomy, and firearm ownership rights; perceptions regarding relevance of the firearm question, informed by experiences with suicidality and common beliefs and misconceptions about the inevitability of suicide; and suggestions for connecting questions about firearms and other lethal means to suicide risk. CONCLUSIONS: Clarifying the purpose and use of routine firearm access assessment, contextualizing firearm questions within injury prevention broadly, and addressing misconceptions about suicide prevention may help encourage disclosure of firearm access and increase the patient centeredness of this practice.

PRimary Care Opioid Use Disorders treatment (PROUD) trial protocol: a pragmatic, cluster-randomized implementation trial in primary care for opioid use disorder treatment.

BACKGROUND: Most people with opioid use disorder (OUD) never receive treatment. Medication treatment of OUD in primary care is recommended as an approach to increase access to care. The PRimary Care Opioid Use Disorders treatment (PROUD) trial tests whether implementation of a collaborative care model (Massachusetts Model) using a nurse care manager (NCM) to support medication treatment of OUD in primary care increases OUD treatment and improves outcomes. Specifically, it tests whether implementation of collaborative care, compared to usual primary care, increases the number of days of medication for OUD (implementation objective) and reduces acute health care utilization (effectiveness objective). The protocol for the PROUD trial is presented here. METHODS: PROUD is a hybrid type III cluster-randomized implementation trial in six health care systems. The intervention consists of three implementation strategies: salary for a full-time NCM, training and technical assistance for the NCM, and requiring that three primary care providers have DEA waivers to prescribe buprenorphine. Within each health system, two primary care clinics are randomized: one to the intervention and one to Usual Primary Care. The sample includes all patients age 16-90 who visited the randomized primary care clinics from 3 years before to 2 years after randomization (anticipated to be > 170,000). Quantitative data are derived from existing health system administrative data, electronic medical records, and/or health insurance claims ("electronic health records," [EHRs]). Anonymous staff surveys, stakeholder debriefs, and observations from site visits, trainings and technical assistance provide qualitative data to assess barriers and facilitators to implementation. The outcome for the implementation objective (primary outcome) is a clinic-level measure of the number of patient days of medication treatment of OUD over the 2 years post-randomization. The patient-level outcome for the effectiveness objective (secondary outcome) is days of acute care utilization [e.g. urgent care, emergency department (ED) and/or hospitalizations] over 2 years post-randomization among patients with documented OUD prior to randomization. DISCUSSION: The PROUD trial provides information for clinical leaders and policy makers regarding potential benefits for patients and health systems of a collaborative care model for management of OUD in primary care, tested in real-world diverse primary care settings. Trial registration # NCT03407638 (February 28, 2018); CTN-0074 https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03407638?term=CTN-0074&draw=2&rank=1.

Cannabis use, other drug use, and risk of subsequent acute care in primary care patients.

BACKGROUND: Cannabis and other drug use is associated with adverse health events, but little is known about the association of routine clinical screening for cannabis or other drug use and acute care utilization. This study evaluated whether self-reported frequency of cannabis or other drug use was associated with subsequent acute care. METHOD: This retrospective cohort study used EHR and claims data from 8 sites in Washington State that implemented annual substance use screening. Eligible adult primary care patients (N = 47,447) completed screens for cannabis (N = 45,647) and/or other drug use, including illegal drug use and prescription medication misuse, (N = 45,255) from 3/3/15-10/1/2016. Separate single-item screens assessed frequency of past-year cannabis and other drug use: never, less than monthly, monthly, weekly, daily/almost daily. An indicator of acute care utilization measured any urgent care, emergency department visits, or hospitalizations ≤19 months after screening. Adjusted Cox proportional hazards models estimated risk of acute care. RESULTS: Patients were predominantly non-Hispanic White. Those reporting cannabis use less than monthly (Hazard Ratio [HR] = 1.12, 95 % CI = 1.03-1.21) or daily (HR = 1.24; 1.10-1.39) had greater risk of acute care during follow-up than those reporting no use. Patients reporting other drug use less than monthly (HR = 1.34; 1.13-1.59), weekly (HR = 2.21; 1.46-3.35), or daily (HR = 2.53; 1.86-3.45) had greater risk of acute care than those reporting no other drug use. CONCLUSION: Population-based screening for cannabis and other drug use in primary care may have utility for understanding risk of subsequent acute care. It is unclear whether findings will generalize to U.S. states with broader racial/ethnic diversity.

Integration of screening, assessment, and treatment for cannabis and other drug use disorders in primary care: An evaluation in three pilot sites.

BACKGROUND: This pilot study evaluated whether use of evidence-based implementation strategies to integrate care for cannabis and other drug use into primary care (PC) as part of Behavioral Health Integration (BHI) increased diagnosis and treatment of substance use disorders (SUDs). METHODS: Patients who visited the three pilot PC sites were eligible. Implementation strategies included practice coaching, electronic health record decision support, and performance feedback (3/2015-4/2016). BHI introduced annual screening for past-year cannabis and other drug use, a Symptom Checklist for DSM-5 SUDs, and shared decision-making about treatment options. Main analyses tested whether the proportions of PC patients diagnosed with, and treated for, new cannabis or other drug use disorders (CUDs and DUDs, respectively), differed significantly pre- and post-implementation. RESULTS: Of 39,599 eligible patients, 57% and 59% were screened for cannabis and other drug use, respectively. Among PC patients reporting daily cannabis use (2%) or any drug use (1%), 51% and 37%, respectively, completed an SUD Symptom Checklist. The proportion of PC patients with newly diagnosed CUD increased significantly post-implementation (5 v 17 per 10,000 patients, p < 0.0001), but not other DUDs (10 vs 13 per 10,000, p = 0.24). The proportion treated for newly diagnosed CUDs did not increase post-implementation (1 vs 1 per 10,000, p = 0.80), but did for those treated for newly diagnosed other DUDs (1 vs 3 per 10,000, p = 0.038). CONCLUSIONS: A pilot implementation of BHI to increase routine screening and assessment for SUDs was associated with increased new CUD diagnoses and a small increase in treatment of new other DUDs.

Reducing Sedentary Time for Obese Older Adults: Protocol for a Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Older adults have high rates of obesity and are prone to chronic health conditions. These conditions are in part due to high rates of sedentary time (ST). As such, reducing ST could be an innovative strategy for improving health outcomes among obese older adults. To test this theory, we developed a novel, technology-enhanced intervention to reduce sitting time (I-STAND) and pilot tested it to assess the feasibility, acceptability, and preliminary effects of the intervention on ST and biometric outcomes. OBJECTIVE: The current paper aims to describe the rationale, design, and methods of the I-STAND sitting reduction pilot trial. METHODS: Older adults with obesity (n=60) were recruited from a large health care system and randomized to receive I-STAND or a healthy living intervention. I-STAND combined personal coaching with a technology-enhanced intervention (Jawbone UP band) to cue breaks from sitting. Participants completed self-report and biometric assessments at baseline and 3 months. Additional qualitative results were collected from a subset of I-STAND participants (n=22) to further inform the feasibility and acceptability of the interventions. The primary outcome was total hours of daily sitting time measured by the activPAL device. Secondary outcomes included sit-to-stand transitions, bouts of sitting longer than 30 minutes, physical function, blood pressure, fasting glucose, cholesterol, and depressive symptoms. RESULTS: Study enrollment has ended and data processing is underway. CONCLUSIONS: Data from randomized trials on sitting reduction are needed to inform novel approaches to health promotion among older adults with obesity. Our trial will help fill this gap. The methods used in our study can guide future research on using technology-based devices to assess or prompt sedentary behavior reduction, or those interested in behavioral interventions targeting obese older adults with novel approaches. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02692560; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02692560 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/6wppLTWAl).

Study protocol: a cluster-randomized trial implementing Sustained Patient-centered Alcohol-related Care (SPARC trial).

BACKGROUND: Experts recommend that alcohol-related care be integrated into primary care (PC) to improve prevention and treatment of unhealthy alcohol use. However, few healthcare systems offer such integrated care. To address this gap, implementation researchers and clinical leaders at Kaiser Permanente Washington (KPWA) partnered to design a high-quality program of evidence-based care for unhealthy alcohol use: the Sustained Patient-centered Alcohol-related Care (SPARC) program. SPARC implements systems of clinical care designed to increase both prevention and treatment of unhealthy alcohol use. This clinical care for unhealthy alcohol use was implemented using three strategies: electronic health record (EHR) decision support, performance monitoring and feedback, and front-line support from external practice coaches with expertise in alcohol-related care ("SPARC implementation intervention" hereafter). The purpose of this report is to describe the protocol of the SPARC trial, a pragmatic, cluster-randomized, stepped-wedge implementation trial to evaluate whether the SPARC implementation intervention increased alcohol screening and brief alcohol counseling (so-called brief interventions), and diagnosis and treatment of alcohol use disorders (AUDs) in 22 KPWA PC clinics. METHODS/DESIGN: The SPARC trial sample includes all adult patients who had a visit to any of the 22 primary care sites in the trial during the study period (January 1, 2015-July 31, 2018). The 22 sites were randomized to implement the SPARC program on different dates (in seven waves, approximately every 4 months). Primary outcomes are the proportion of patients with PC visits who (1) screen positive for unhealthy alcohol use and have documented brief interventions and (2) have a newly recognized AUD and subsequently initiate and engage in alcohol-related care. Main analyses compare the rates of these primary outcomes in the pre- and post-implementation periods, following recommended approaches for analyzing stepped-wedge trials. Qualitative analyses assess barriers and facilitators to implementation and required adaptations of implementation strategies. DISCUSSION: The SPARC trial is the first study to our knowledge to use an experimental design to test whether practice coaches with expertise in alcohol-related care, along with EHR clinical decision support and performance monitoring and feedback to sites, increase both preventive care-alcohol screening and brief intervention-as well as diagnosis and treatment of AUDs. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.Gov: NCT02675777. Registered February 5, 2016, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02675777 .

Alcohol-Related Nurse Care Management in Primary Care: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Experts recommend that alcohol use disorders (AUDs) be managed in primary care, but effective approaches are unclear. Objective: To test whether 12 months of alcohol care management, compared with usual care, improved drinking outcomes among patients with or at high risk for AUDs. Design, Setting, and Participants: This randomized clinical trial was conducted at 3 Veterans Affairs (VA) primary care clinics. Between October 11, 2011, and September 30, 2014, the study enrolled 304 outpatients who reported heavy drinking (≥4 drinks per day for women and ≥5 drinks per day for men). Interventions: Nurse care managers offered outreach and engagement, repeated brief counseling using motivational interviewing and shared decision making about treatment options, and nurse practitioner-prescribed AUD medications (if desired), supported by an interdisciplinary team (CHOICE intervention). The comparison was usual primary care. Main Outcomes and Measures: Primary outcomes, assessed by blinded telephone interviewers at 12 months, were percentage of heavy drinking days in the prior 28 days measured by timeline follow-back interviews and a binary good drinking outcome, defined as abstinence or drinking below recommended limits in the prior 28 days (according to timeline follow-back interviews) and no alcohol-related symptoms in the past 3 months as measured by the Short Inventory of Problems. Results: Of 304 participants, 275 (90%) were male, 206 (68%) were white, and the mean (SD) age was 51.4 (13.8) years. At baseline, both the CHOICE intervention (n = 150) and usual care (n = 154) groups reported heavy drinking on 61% of days (95% CI, 56%-66%). During the 12-month intervention, 137 of 150 patients in the intervention group (91%) had at least 1 nurse visit, and 77 of 150 (51%) had at least 6 nurse visits. A greater proportion of patients in the intervention group than in the usual care group received alcohol-related care: 42% (95% CI, 35%-49%; 63 of 150 patients) vs 26% (95% CI, 19%-35%; 40 of 154 patients). Alcohol-related care included more AUD medication use: 32% (95% CI, 26%-39%; 48 of 150 patients in the intervention group) vs 8% (95% CI, 5%-13%; 13 of 154 patients in the usual care group). No significant differences in primary outcomes were observed at 12 months between patients in both groups. The percentages of heavy drinking days were 39% (95% CI, 32%-47%) and 35% (95% CI, 28%-42%), and the percentages of patients with a good drinking outcome were 15% (95% CI, 9%-22%; 18 of 124 patients) and 20% (95 % CI, 14%-28%; 27 of 134 patients), in the intervention and usual care groups, respectively (P = .32-.44). Findings at 3 months were similar. Conclusions and Relevance: The CHOICE intervention did not decrease heavy drinking or related problems despite increased engagement in alcohol-related care. Trial Registration: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01400581.