Noreen D Mdege1, Jenny Lang. 1. Department of Health Sciences, University of York, Heslington, York, YO10 5DD, UK. noreen.mdege@york.ac.uk
Abstract
AIM: To identify and describe screening instruments for detecting illicit drug use/abuse that are appropriate for use in general hospital wards and review evidence for reliability, validity, feasibility and acceptability. METHODS: Instruments were identified from a number of screening instrument databases/libraries and Google Scholar. They were independently assessed for eligibility by two reviewers. MEDLINE, EMBASE, PSYCINFO, and Cochrane Library were searched for articles published up to February 2010. Two reviewers independently assessed the identified articles for eligibility and extracted data from the eligible studies. RESULTS: 13 instruments, ASSIST, CAGE-AID, DAST, DHQ/PDHQ, DUDIT, DUS, NMASSIST, SIP-AD, SDS, SMAST-AID, SSI-SA, TICS and UNCOPE were included in the review. They had 2 to 28 items and took less than 10 min to administer and score. Evidence on validity, reliability, acceptability and feasibility of instruments in adult patients not known to have a substance abuse problem was scarce. Of the 21 studies included in the review, only one included participants from general hospital wards. Reported sensitivity, specificity and predictive values varied widely both between studies of the same instrument and also between different instruments. No study was identified comparing two or more of the included instruments. CONCLUSION: The review identified and described 13 instruments that could be useful in general hospital wards. There is however lack of evaluation of illicit drug use screening instruments in general hospital wards. Currently clinicians or researchers searching for a simple, reliable, general screening instrument for current drug use to guide practice or research in general hospital wards do not have enough comparative evidence to choose between the available measures.
AIM: To identify and describe screening instruments for detecting illicit drug use/abuse that are appropriate for use in general hospital wards and review evidence for reliability, validity, feasibility and acceptability. METHODS: Instruments were identified from a number of screening instrument databases/libraries and Google Scholar. They were independently assessed for eligibility by two reviewers. MEDLINE, EMBASE, PSYCINFO, and Cochrane Library were searched for articles published up to February 2010. Two reviewers independently assessed the identified articles for eligibility and extracted data from the eligible studies. RESULTS: 13 instruments, ASSIST, CAGE-AID, DAST, DHQ/PDHQ, DUDIT, DUS, NMASSIST, SIP-AD, SDS, SMAST-AID, SSI-SA, TICS and UNCOPE were included in the review. They had 2 to 28 items and took less than 10 min to administer and score. Evidence on validity, reliability, acceptability and feasibility of instruments in adult patients not known to have a substance abuse problem was scarce. Of the 21 studies included in the review, only one included participants from general hospital wards. Reported sensitivity, specificity and predictive values varied widely both between studies of the same instrument and also between different instruments. No study was identified comparing two or more of the included instruments. CONCLUSION: The review identified and described 13 instruments that could be useful in general hospital wards. There is however lack of evaluation of illicit drug use screening instruments in general hospital wards. Currently clinicians or researchers searching for a simple, reliable, general screening instrument for current drug use to guide practice or research in general hospital wards do not have enough comparative evidence to choose between the available measures.
Authors: Aleksandra Zgierska; Iliya Paul Amaza; Richard L Brown; Marlon Mundt; Michael F Fleming Journal: J Fam Pract Date: 2014-09 Impact factor: 0.493
Authors: Elizabeth A Pyatak; Kristine Carandang; Cheryl Vigen; Jeanine Blanchard; Paola A Sequeira; Jamie R Wood; Donna Spruijt-Metz; Robin Whittemore; Anne L Peters Journal: Contemp Clin Trials Date: 2017-01-05 Impact factor: 2.226
Authors: Li-Tzy Wu; Jennifer McNeely; Geetha A Subramaniam; Gaurav Sharma; Paul VanVeldhuisen; Robert P Schwartz Journal: Contemp Clin Trials Date: 2016-07-19 Impact factor: 2.226
Authors: Karen E Lasser; Christopher Shanahan; Victoria Parker; Donna Beers; Ziming Xuan; Orlaith Heymann; Allison Lange; Jane M Liebschutz Journal: J Subst Abuse Treat Date: 2015-07-15
Authors: Pritika C Kumar; Charles M Cleland; Marc N Gourevitch; John Rotrosen; Shiela Strauss; Linnea Russell; Jennifer McNeely Journal: Drug Alcohol Depend Date: 2016-06-22 Impact factor: 4.492
Authors: Jennifer McNeely; Shiela M Strauss; John Rotrosen; Arianne Ramautar; Marc N Gourevitch Journal: Addiction Date: 2015-10-26 Impact factor: 6.526