Jennifer McNeely1,2,3, Charles M Cleland4,5, Shiela M Strauss4,5, Joseph J Palamar6,4, John Rotrosen7, Richard Saitz8,9. 1. Department of Population Health, New York University School of Medicine, 550 1st Ave., VZ30 6th Floor, New York, NY, 10016, USA. Jennifer.mcneely@nyumc.org. 2. Department of Medicine, Division of General Internal Medicine, New York, NY, USA. Jennifer.mcneely@nyumc.org. 3. Center for Drug Use and HIV Research, New York, NY, USA. Jennifer.mcneely@nyumc.org. 4. Center for Drug Use and HIV Research, New York, NY, USA. 5. NYU College of Nursing, New York, NY, USA. 6. Department of Population Health, New York University School of Medicine, 550 1st Ave., VZ30 6th Floor, New York, NY, 10016, USA. 7. Department of Psychiatry, NYU School of Medicine, New York, NY, USA. 8. Department of Community Health Sciences, Boston University School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA. 9. Clinical Addiction Research and Education (CARE) Unit, Section of General Internal Medicine, Department of Medicine, Boston Medical Center, Boston, MA, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Very brief single-item screening questions (SISQs) for alcohol and other drug use can facilitate screening in health care settings, but are not widely used. Self-administered versions of the SISQs could ease barriers to their implementation. OBJECTIVE: We sought to validate SISQs for self-administration in primary care patients. DESIGN: Participants completed SISQs for alcohol and drugs (illicit and prescription misuse) on touchscreen tablet computers. Self-reported reference standard measures of unhealthy use, and more specifically of risky consumption, problem use, and substance use disorders, were then administered by an interviewer, and saliva drug tests were collected. PARTICIPANTS: Adult patients aged 21-65 years were consecutively enrolled from two urban safety-net primary care clinics. MAIN MEASURES: The SISQs were compared against reference standards to determine sensitivity, specificity, and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) for alcohol and drug use. KEY RESULTS: Among the 459 participants, 22 % reported unhealthy alcohol use and 25 % reported drug use in the past year. The SISQ-alcohol had sensitivity of 73.3 % (95 % CI 65.3-80.3) and specificity of 84.7 % (95 % CI 80.2-88.5), AUC = 0.79 (95 % CI 0.75-0.83), for detecting unhealthy alcohol use, and sensitivity of 86.7 % (95 % CI 75.4-94.1) and specificity of 74.2 % (95 % CI 69.6-78.4), AUC = 0.80 (95 % CI 0.76-0.85), for alcohol use disorder. The SISQ-drug had sensitivity of 71.3 % (95 % CI 62.4-79.1) and specificity of 94.3 % (95 % CI 91.3-96.6), AUC = 0.83 (95 % CI 0.79-0.87), for detecting unhealthy drug use, and sensitivity of 85.1 (95 % CI 75.0-92.3) and specificity of 88.6 % (95 % CI 85.0-91.6), AUC = 0.87 (95 % CI 0.83-0.91), for drug use disorder. CONCLUSIONS: The self-administered SISQs are a valid approach to detecting unhealthy alcohol and other drug use in primary care patients. Although self-administered SISQs may be less accurate than the previously validated interviewer-administered versions, they are potentially easier to implement and more likely to retain their fidelity in real-world practice settings.
BACKGROUND: Very brief single-item screening questions (SISQs) for alcohol and other drug use can facilitate screening in health care settings, but are not widely used. Self-administered versions of the SISQs could ease barriers to their implementation. OBJECTIVE: We sought to validate SISQs for self-administration in primary care patients. DESIGN:Participants completed SISQs for alcohol and drugs (illicit and prescription misuse) on touchscreen tablet computers. Self-reported reference standard measures of unhealthy use, and more specifically of risky consumption, problem use, and substance use disorders, were then administered by an interviewer, and saliva drug tests were collected. PARTICIPANTS: Adult patients aged 21-65 years were consecutively enrolled from two urban safety-net primary care clinics. MAIN MEASURES: The SISQs were compared against reference standards to determine sensitivity, specificity, and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) for alcohol and drug use. KEY RESULTS: Among the 459 participants, 22 % reported unhealthy alcohol use and 25 % reported drug use in the past year. The SISQ-alcohol had sensitivity of 73.3 % (95 % CI 65.3-80.3) and specificity of 84.7 % (95 % CI 80.2-88.5), AUC = 0.79 (95 % CI 0.75-0.83), for detecting unhealthy alcohol use, and sensitivity of 86.7 % (95 % CI 75.4-94.1) and specificity of 74.2 % (95 % CI 69.6-78.4), AUC = 0.80 (95 % CI 0.76-0.85), for alcohol use disorder. The SISQ-drug had sensitivity of 71.3 % (95 % CI 62.4-79.1) and specificity of 94.3 % (95 % CI 91.3-96.6), AUC = 0.83 (95 % CI 0.79-0.87), for detecting unhealthy drug use, and sensitivity of 85.1 (95 % CI 75.0-92.3) and specificity of 88.6 % (95 % CI 85.0-91.6), AUC = 0.87 (95 % CI 0.83-0.91), for drug use disorder. CONCLUSIONS: The self-administered SISQs are a valid approach to detecting unhealthy alcohol and other drug use in primary care patients. Although self-administered SISQs may be less accurate than the previously validated interviewer-administered versions, they are potentially easier to implement and more likely to retain their fidelity in real-world practice settings.
Authors: Charles F Turner; Alia Al-Tayyib; Susan M Rogers; Elizabeth Eggleston; Maria A Villarroel; Anthony M Roman; James R Chromy; Phillip C Cooley Journal: Int J Epidemiol Date: 2009-05-15 Impact factor: 7.196
Authors: Richard Saitz; Debbie M Cheng; Donald Allensworth-Davies; Michael R Winter; Peter C Smith Journal: J Stud Alcohol Drugs Date: 2014-01 Impact factor: 2.582
Authors: Katharine A Bradley; Gwen T Lapham; Eric J Hawkins; Carol E Achtmeyer; Emily C Williams; Rachel M Thomas; Daniel R Kivlahan Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2010-09-22 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Evelyn P Whitlock; Michael R Polen; Carla A Green; Tracy Orleans; Jonathan Klein Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2004-04-06 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Ahsan M Arozullah; Paul R Yarnold; Charles L Bennett; Robert C Soltysik; Michael S Wolf; Rosario M Ferreira; Shoou-Yih D Lee; Stacey Costello; Adil Shakir; Caroline Denwood; Fred B Bryant; Terry Davis Journal: Med Care Date: 2007-11 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: William M Reichmann; Elena Losina; George R Seage; Christian Arbelaez; Steven A Safren; Jeffrey N Katz; Adam Hetland; Rochelle P Walensky Journal: PLoS One Date: 2010-01-15 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Jillian E Halladay; Catharine Munn; Michael Boyle; Susan M Jack; Katholiki Georgiades Journal: Can J Psychiatry Date: 2019-06-09 Impact factor: 4.356
Authors: Jan Gryczynski; Courtney D Nordeck; Shannon Gwin Mitchell; Kathleen R Page; Luke L Johnsen; Kevin E O'Grady; Robert P Schwartz Journal: J Addict Med Date: 2017 Sep/Oct Impact factor: 3.702
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: Theresa E Matson; Gwen T Lapham; Jennifer F Bobb; Eric Johnson; Julie E Richards; Amy K Lee; Katharine A Bradley; Joseph E Glass Journal: Drug Alcohol Depend Date: 2020-08-08 Impact factor: 4.492