BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Several studies have found that brief interventions (BIs) for drug misuse have superior effectiveness to no-treatment controls. However, many health centers do not provide BIs for drug use consistently due to insufficient behavioral health staff capacity. Computerized BIs for drug use are a promising approach, but their effectiveness compared with in-person BIs has not been established. This study compared the effectiveness of a computerized brief intervention (CBI) to an in-person brief intervention (IBI) delivered by a behavioral health counselor. METHODS: Two-arm randomized clinical trial, conducted in two health centers in New Mexico, United States. Participants were 360 adult primary care patients with moderate-risk drug scores on the Alcohol, Smoking, and Substance Involvement Screening Test (ASSIST) who were randomly assigned on a 1 : 1 basis to acomputerized brief intervention (CBI) or to an in-person brief intervention (IBI) delivered by a behavioral health counselor. Assessments were conducted at baseline and 3-month follow-up, and included the ASSIST and drug testing on hair samples. RESULTS: The IBI and CBI conditions did not differ at 3 months on global ASSIST drug scores [b = -1.79; 95% confidence interval (CI) = -4.37, 0.80] or drug-positive hair tests [odds ratio (OR) = 0.97; 95% CI = 0.47, 2.02]. There was a statistically significant advantage of CBI over IBI in substance-specific ASSIST scores for marijuana (b = -1.73; 95% CI = -2.91, -0.55; Cohen's d = 0.26; P = 0.004) and cocaine (b = -4.48; 95% CI = -8.26, -0.71; Cohen's d = 0.50; P = 0.021) at 3 months. CONCLUSIONS: Computerized brief intervention can be an effective alternative to in-person brief intervention for addressing moderate drug use in primary care.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Several studies have found that brief interventions (BIs) for drug misuse have superior effectiveness to no-treatment controls. However, many health centers do not provide BIs for drug use consistently due to insufficient behavioral health staff capacity. Computerized BIs for drug use are a promising approach, but their effectiveness compared with in-personBIs has not been established. This study compared the effectiveness of a computerized brief intervention (CBI) to an in-person brief intervention (IBI) delivered by a behavioral health counselor. METHODS: Two-arm randomized clinical trial, conducted in two health centers in New Mexico, United States. Participants were 360 adult primary care patients with moderate-risk drug scores on the Alcohol, Smoking, and Substance Involvement Screening Test (ASSIST) who were randomly assigned on a 1 : 1 basis to a computerized brief intervention (CBI) or to an in-person brief intervention (IBI) delivered by a behavioral health counselor. Assessments were conducted at baseline and 3-month follow-up, and included the ASSIST and drug testing on hair samples. RESULTS: The IBI and CBI conditions did not differ at 3 months on global ASSIST drug scores [b = -1.79; 95% confidence interval (CI) = -4.37, 0.80] or drug-positive hair tests [odds ratio (OR) = 0.97; 95% CI = 0.47, 2.02]. There was a statistically significant advantage of CBI over IBI in substance-specific ASSIST scores for marijuana (b = -1.73; 95% CI = -2.91, -0.55; Cohen's d = 0.26; P = 0.004) and cocaine (b = -4.48; 95% CI = -8.26, -0.71; Cohen's d = 0.50; P = 0.021) at 3 months. CONCLUSIONS: Computerized brief intervention can be an effective alternative to in-person brief intervention for addressing moderate drug use in primary care.
Authors: Clayton Neighbors; Joseph W LaBrie; Justin F Hummer; Melissa A Lewis; Christine M Lee; Sruti Desai; Jason R Kilmer; Mary E Larimer Journal: Psychol Addict Behav Date: 2010-09
Authors: Mary E Larimer; Debra L Kaysen; Christine M Lee; Jason R Kilmer; Melissa A Lewis; Tiara Dillworth; Heidi D Montoya; Clayton Neighbors Journal: J Stud Alcohol Drugs Suppl Date: 2009-07
Authors: Bertha K Madras; Wilson M Compton; Deepa Avula; Tom Stegbauer; Jack B Stein; H Westley Clark Journal: Drug Alcohol Depend Date: 2008-10-16 Impact factor: 4.492
Authors: Paul Gilbert; Daniel Ciccarone; Stuart A Gansky; David R Bangsberg; Kathleen Clanon; Stephen J McPhee; Sophia H Calderón; Alyssa Bogetz; Barbara Gerbert Journal: PLoS One Date: 2008-04-23 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Megan E Patrick; Jeffrey A Boatman; Nicole Morrell; Anna C Wagner; Grace R Lyden; Inbal Nahum-Shani; Cheryl A King; Erin E Bonar; Christine M Lee; Mary E Larimer; David M Vock; Daniel Almirall Journal: Contemp Clin Trials Date: 2020-07-25 Impact factor: 2.226
Authors: Sara Kalkhoran; Nicole A Appelle; Anna M Napoles; Ricardo F Munoz; Paula J Lum; Nicholas Alvarado; Steven E Gregorich; Jason M Satterfield Journal: J Subst Abuse Treat Date: 2015-06-06
Authors: Derek D Satre; Amy S Leibowitz; Wendy Leyden; Sheryl L Catz; C Bradley Hare; Hannah Jang; Jennifer O Lam; Kendall J Bryant; Constance M Weisner; Stacy A Sterling; Michael Horberg; Paul Volberding; Michael J Silverberg Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2019-06-11 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Jan Gryczynski; Robert P Schwartz; Shannon Gwin Mitchell; Kevin E O'Grady; Steven J Ondersma Journal: Drug Alcohol Depend Date: 2014-05-17 Impact factor: 4.492
Authors: Jan Gryczynski; Kevin E O'Grady; Shannon Gwin Mitchell; Steven J Ondersma; Robert P Schwartz Journal: J Addict Med Date: 2016 Sep-Oct Impact factor: 3.702