R P Schwartz1, J McNeely2, L T Wu3, G Sharma4, A Wahle5, C Cushing6, C D Nordeck7, A Sharma7, K E O'Grady8, J Gryczynski7, S G Mitchell7, R L Ali9, J Marsden10, G A Subramaniam11. 1. Friends Research Institute, 1040 Park Avenue, Suite 103, Baltimore, MD 21201, USA. Electronic address: Rschwartz@friendsresearch.org. 2. New York University School of Medicine, Department of Population Health, 550 First Avenue, VZ30 6th floor, New York, NY 10016, USA. Electronic address: Jennifer.McNeely@nyumc.org. 3. Duke University, Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences and Department of Medicine, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC, USA. Electronic address: Litzy.wu@duke.edu. 4. Emmes Corporation, 401 North Washington Street, Suite 700, Rockville, MD 20850, USA. Electronic address: gsharma@emmes.com. 5. Emmes Corporation, 401 North Washington Street, Suite 700, Rockville, MD 20850, USA. 6. National Institute on Drug Abuse, 6001 Executive Boulevard, Rockville, MD 20852, USA. 7. Friends Research Institute, 1040 Park Avenue, Suite 103, Baltimore, MD 21201, USA. 8. University of Maryland, College Park, Department of Psychology, 4094 Campus Dr., College Park, MD 20742, USA. 9. University of Adelaide, Department of Pharmacology, Frome Road, Level 5, Medical School North Bldg, The University of Adelaide, Adelaide, SA 5005, Australia. Electronic address: robert.ali@adelaide.edu.au. 10. Addictions Department, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, Addiction Sciences Building, 4 Windsor Walk, Denmark Hill, SE5 8BB London, United Kingdom. Electronic address: john.marsden@kcl.ac.uk. 11. National Institute on Drug Abuse, 6001 Executive Boulevard, Rockville, MD 20852, USA. Electronic address: subramaniamga@mail.nih.gov.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There is a need for screening and brief assessment instruments to identify primary care patients with substance use problems. This study's aim was to examine the performance of a two-step screening and brief assessment instrument, the TAPS Tool, compared to the WHO ASSIST. METHODS: Two thousand adult primary care patients recruited from five primary care clinics in four Eastern US states completed the TAPS Tool followed by the ASSIST. The ability of the TAPS Tool to identify moderate- and high-risk use scores on the ASSIST was examined using sensitivity and specificity analyses. RESULTS: The interviewer and self-administered computer tablet versions of the TAPS Tool generated similar results. The interviewer-administered version (at cut-off of 2), had acceptable sensitivity and specificity for high-risk tobacco (0.90 and 0.77) and alcohol (0.87 and 0.80) use. For illicit drugs, sensitivities were >0.82 and specificities >0.92. The TAPS (at a cut-off of 1) had good sensitivity and specificity for moderate-risk tobacco use (0.83 and 0.97) and alcohol (0.83 and 0.74). Among illicit drugs, sensitivity was acceptable for moderate-risk of marijuana (0.71), while it was low for all other illicit drugs and non-medical use of prescription medications. Specificities were 0.97 or higher for all illicit drugs and prescription medications. CONCLUSIONS: The TAPS Tool identified adult primary care patients with high-risk ASSIST scores for all substances as well moderate-risk users of tobacco, alcohol, and marijuana, although it did not perform well in identifying patients with moderate-risk use of other drugs or non-medical use of prescription medications. The advantages of the TAPS Tool over the ASSIST are its more limited number of items and focus solely on substance use in the past 3months.
BACKGROUND: There is a need for screening and brief assessment instruments to identify primary care patients with substance use problems. This study's aim was to examine the performance of a two-step screening and brief assessment instrument, the TAPS Tool, compared to the WHO ASSIST. METHODS: Two thousand adult primary care patients recruited from five primary care clinics in four Eastern US states completed the TAPS Tool followed by the ASSIST. The ability of the TAPS Tool to identify moderate- and high-risk use scores on the ASSIST was examined using sensitivity and specificity analyses. RESULTS: The interviewer and self-administered computer tablet versions of the TAPS Tool generated similar results. The interviewer-administered version (at cut-off of 2), had acceptable sensitivity and specificity for high-risk tobacco (0.90 and 0.77) and alcohol (0.87 and 0.80) use. For illicit drugs, sensitivities were >0.82 and specificities >0.92. The TAPS (at a cut-off of 1) had good sensitivity and specificity for moderate-risk tobacco use (0.83 and 0.97) and alcohol (0.83 and 0.74). Among illicit drugs, sensitivity was acceptable for moderate-risk of marijuana (0.71), while it was low for all other illicit drugs and non-medical use of prescription medications. Specificities were 0.97 or higher for all illicit drugs and prescription medications. CONCLUSIONS: The TAPS Tool identified adult primary care patients with high-risk ASSIST scores for all substances as well moderate-risk users of tobacco, alcohol, and marijuana, although it did not perform well in identifying patients with moderate-risk use of other drugs or non-medical use of prescription medications. The advantages of the TAPS Tool over the ASSIST are its more limited number of items and focus solely on substance use in the past 3months.
Authors: Francisco J Diaz; Mireia Jané; Esteve Saltó; Hélios Pardell; Lluís Salleras; Cristina Pinet; Jose de Leon Journal: Aust N Z J Psychiatry Date: 2005-03 Impact factor: 5.744
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: 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
Authors: Leanne Hides; Sue M Cotton; Gregor Berger; John Gleeson; Colin O'Donnell; Tina Proffitt; Patrick D McGorry; Dan I Lubman Journal: Addict Behav Date: 2009-03-06 Impact factor: 3.913
Authors: Jennifer McNeely; Shiela M Strauss; Shana Wright; John Rotrosen; Rubina Khan; Joshua D Lee; Marc N Gourevitch Journal: J Subst Abuse Treat Date: 2014-02-10
Authors: Jan Gryczynski; Courtney Nordeck; Shannon Gwin Mitchell; Kevin E O'Grady; Jennifer McNeely; Li-Tzy Wu; Robert P Schwartz Journal: Am J Addict Date: 2015-11-06
Authors: Lisa A Marsch; Aimee Campbell; Cynthia Campbell; Ching-Hua Chen; Emre Ertin; Udi Ghitza; Chantal Lambert-Harris; Saeed Hassanpour; August F Holtyn; Yih-Ing Hser; Petra Jacobs; Jeffrey D Klausner; Shea Lemley; David Kotz; Andrea Meier; Bethany McLeman; Jennifer McNeely; Varun Mishra; Larissa Mooney; Edward Nunes; Chrysovalantis Stafylis; Catherine Stanger; Elizabeth Saunders; Geetha Subramaniam; Sean Young Journal: J Subst Abuse Treat Date: 2020-03
Authors: Sarah K Moore; Elizabeth C Saunders; Emily Hichborn; Bethany McLeman; Andrea Meier; Robyn Young; Noah Nesin; Sarah Farkas; Leah Hamilton; Lisa A Marsch; Trip Gardner; Jennifer McNeely Journal: Subst Abus Date: 2020-12-02 Impact factor: 3.716
Authors: Sarah E Lord; Aimee N C Campbell; Mary F Brunette; Leonardo Cubillos; Sophia M Bartels; William C Torrey; Ardis L Olson; Steven H Chapman; John A Batsis; Daniel Polsky; Edward V Nunes; Katherine M Seavey; Lisa A Marsch Journal: JMIR Ment Health Date: 2021-01-28