Michael P Bogenschutz1, Dennis M Donovan2, Raul N Mandler3, Harold I Perl3, Alyssa A Forcehimes1, Cameron Crandall4, Robert Lindblad5, Neal L Oden5, Gaurav Sharma5, Lisa Metsch6, Michael S Lyons7, Ryan McCormack8, Wendy Macias-Konstantopoulos9, Antoine Douaihy10. 1. Department of Psychiatry, University of New Mexico Health Sciences Center, Albuquerque2Center on Alcoholism, Substance Abuse, and Addictions, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque. 2. Alcohol & Drug Abuse Institute, University of Washington, Seattle4Department of Psychiatry & Behavioral Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle. 3. National Institute on Drug Abuse, Bethesda, Maryland. 4. Department of Emergency Medicine, University of New Mexico Health Sciences Center, Albuquerque. 5. The EMMES Corporation, Rockville, Maryland. 6. Department of Public Health Sciences, Miller School of Medicine, University of Miami, Miami, Florida. 7. Department of Emergency Medicine, University of Cincinnati College of Medicine, Cincinnati, Ohio. 8. Department of Emergency Medicine, New York University School of Medicine, New York. 9. Department of Emergency Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston12Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts. 10. University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
Abstract
IMPORTANCE: Medical treatment settings such as emergency departments (EDs) present important opportunities to address problematic substance use. Currently, EDs do not typically intervene beyond acute medical stabilization. OBJECTIVE: To contrast the effects of a brief intervention with telephone boosters (BI-B) with those of screening, assessment, and referral to treatment (SAR) and minimal screening only (MSO) among drug-using ED patients. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Between October 2010 and February 2012, 1285 adult ED patients from 6 US academic hospitals, who scored 3 or greater on the 10-item Drug Abuse Screening Test (indicating moderate to severe problems related to drug use) and who were currently using drugs, were randomized to MSO (n = 431), SAR (n = 427), or BI-B (n = 427). Follow-up assessments were conducted at 3, 6, and 12 months by blinded interviewers. INTERVENTIONS: Following screening, MSO participants received only an informational pamphlet. The SAR participants received assessment plus referral to addiction treatment if indicated, and the BI-B participants received assessment and referral as in SAR, plus a manual-guided counseling session based on motivational interviewing principles and up to 2 "booster" sessions by telephone during the month following the ED visit. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Outcomes evaluated at follow-up visits included self-reported days using the patient-defined primary problem drug, days using any drug, days of heavy drinking, and drug use based on analysis of hair samples. The primary outcome was self-reported days of use of the patient-defined primary problem drug during the 30-day period preceding the 3-month follow-up. RESULTS: Follow-up rates were 89%, 86%, and 81% at 3, 6, and 12 months, respectively. For the primary outcome, estimated differences in number of days of use (95% CI) were as follows: MSO vs BI-B, 0.72 (-0.80 to 2.24), P (adjusted) = .57; SAR vs BI-B, 0.70 (-0.83 to 2.23), P (adjusted) = .57; SAR vs MSO, -0.02 (-1.53 to 1.50), P (adjusted) = .98. There were no significant differences between groups in self-reported days using the primary drug, days using any drug, or heavy drinking days at 3, 6, or 12 months. At the 3-month follow-up, participants in the SAR group had a higher rate of hair samples positive for their primary drug of abuse (265 of 280 [95%]) than did participants in the MSO group (253 of 287 [88%]) or the BI-B group (244 of 275 [89%]). Hair analysis differences between groups at other time points were not significant. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In this sample of drug users seeking emergency medical treatment, a relatively robust brief intervention did not improve substance use outcomes. More work is needed to determine how drug use disorders may be addressed effectively in the ED. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier:NCT01207791.
RCT Entities:
IMPORTANCE: Medical treatment settings such as emergency departments (EDs) present important opportunities to address problematic substance use. Currently, EDs do not typically intervene beyond acute medical stabilization. OBJECTIVE: To contrast the effects of a brief intervention with telephone boosters (BI-B) with those of screening, assessment, and referral to treatment (SAR) and minimal screening only (MSO) among drug-using ED patients. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Between October 2010 and February 2012, 1285 adult ED patients from 6 US academic hospitals, who scored 3 or greater on the 10-item Drug Abuse Screening Test (indicating moderate to severe problems related to drug use) and who were currently using drugs, were randomized to MSO (n = 431), SAR (n = 427), or BI-B (n = 427). Follow-up assessments were conducted at 3, 6, and 12 months by blinded interviewers. INTERVENTIONS: Following screening, MSOparticipants received only an informational pamphlet. The SARparticipants received assessment plus referral to addiction treatment if indicated, and the BI-Bparticipants received assessment and referral as in SAR, plus a manual-guided counseling session based on motivational interviewing principles and up to 2 "booster" sessions by telephone during the month following the ED visit. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Outcomes evaluated at follow-up visits included self-reported days using the patient-defined primary problem drug, days using any drug, days of heavy drinking, and drug use based on analysis of hair samples. The primary outcome was self-reported days of use of the patient-defined primary problem drug during the 30-day period preceding the 3-month follow-up. RESULTS: Follow-up rates were 89%, 86%, and 81% at 3, 6, and 12 months, respectively. For the primary outcome, estimated differences in number of days of use (95% CI) were as follows: MSO vs BI-B, 0.72 (-0.80 to 2.24), P (adjusted) = .57; SAR vs BI-B, 0.70 (-0.83 to 2.23), P (adjusted) = .57; SAR vs MSO, -0.02 (-1.53 to 1.50), P (adjusted) = .98. There were no significant differences between groups in self-reported days using the primary drug, days using any drug, or heavy drinking days at 3, 6, or 12 months. At the 3-month follow-up, participants in the SAR group had a higher rate of hair samples positive for their primary drug of abuse (265 of 280 [95%]) than did participants in the MSO group (253 of 287 [88%]) or the BI-B group (244 of 275 [89%]). Hair analysis differences between groups at other time points were not significant. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In this sample of drug users seeking emergency medical treatment, a relatively robust brief intervention did not improve substance use outcomes. More work is needed to determine how drug use disorders may be addressed effectively in the ED. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier:NCT01207791.
Authors: Gail D'Onofrio; David A Fiellin; Michael V Pantalon; Marek C Chawarski; Patricia H Owens; Linda C Degutis; Susan H Busch; Steven L Bernstein; Patrick G O'Connor Journal: Ann Emerg Med Date: 2012-03-28 Impact factor: 5.721
Authors: L M Gentilello; F P Rivara; D M Donovan; G J Jurkovich; E Daranciang; C W Dunn; A Villaveces; M Copass; R R Ries Journal: Ann Surg Date: 1999-10 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Jose de Leon; Francisco J Diaz; Elisardo Becoña; Manuel Gurpegui; Dolores Jurado; Ana Gonzalez-Pinto Journal: Addict Behav Date: 2003-10 Impact factor: 3.913
Authors: Robert Woolard; Janette Baird; Richard Longabaugh; Ted Nirenberg; Christina S Lee; Michael J Mello; Bruce Becker Journal: Addict Behav Date: 2012-09-23 Impact factor: 3.913
Authors: Erin E Bonar; Maureen A Walton; Rebecca M Cunningham; Stephen T Chermack; Amy S B Bohnert; Kristen L Barry; Brenda M Booth; Frederic C Blow Journal: J Subst Abuse Treat Date: 2013-09-10
Authors: Herbert C Duber; Isabel A Barata; Eric Cioè-Peña; Stephen Y Liang; Eric Ketcham; Wendy Macias-Konstantopoulos; Shawn A Ryan; Mark Stavros; Lauren K Whiteside Journal: Ann Emerg Med Date: 2018-06-05 Impact factor: 5.721
Authors: Lauren K Whiteside; Joan Russo; Jin Wang; Megan L Ranney; Victoria Neam; Douglas F Zatzick Journal: J Adolesc Health Date: 2015-10-23 Impact factor: 5.012
Authors: Gail D'Onofrio; Patrick G O'Connor; Michael V Pantalon; Marek C Chawarski; Susan H Busch; Patricia H Owens; Steven L Bernstein; David A Fiellin Journal: JAMA Date: 2015-04-28 Impact factor: 56.272