Kathleen E Trocin1, Nicole I Weinstein, Emmanuel A Oga, Katrina S Mark, Victoria H Coleman-Cowger. 1. Battelle Memorial Institute (KET, NIW, EAG, VHC-C); Bureau of Primary Health Care/Office of Quality Improvement, Health Resources and Services Administration, Rockville, MD (KET); Center for Applied Public Health Research, RTI International, Rockville, MD (EAO); Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Sciences, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD (KSM, VHC-C); The Emmes Company, LLC, Rockville, MD (VHC-C).
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: There is a need to identify an acceptable and comprehensive substance use screening tool for pregnant women in the United States. This qualitative study sought to better understand prenatal practice staff perceptions of three existing substance use screening tools for use among pregnant women in an outpatient practice setting. METHODS: Eight focus groups with 40 total participants were conducted with clinical and administrative staff of 2 diverse Maryland prenatal practices to determine the acceptability and usability of 3 substance use screening tools (4P's Plus, NIDA-Modified Alcohol, Smoking and Substance Involvement Screening Test, and the Substance Use Risk Profile-Pregnancy scale). The focus groups were digitally recorded, transcribed, coded, and analyzed using thematic analysis. RESULTS: Participant perceptions of screening tools were dependent upon screening tool length, tone, comprehensiveness, subjectivity, time frame of questions, and scoring and clinician instructions. Most participants preferred the 4P's Plus screening tool because it is brief, comprehensive, easy for the patient to understand, and excludes judgmental language and subjective questions. CONCLUSIONS: These results provide valuable insight into the specific needs and preferences of prenatal practice staff as it relates to prenatal substance use screening and provides evidence that the 4P's Plus may be a preferred screening tool for standardized use in prenatal care.
OBJECTIVE: There is a need to identify an acceptable and comprehensive substance use screening tool for pregnant women in the United States. This qualitative study sought to better understand prenatal practice staff perceptions of three existing substance use screening tools for use among pregnant women in an outpatient practice setting. METHODS: Eight focus groups with 40 total participants were conducted with clinical and administrative staff of 2 diverse Maryland prenatal practices to determine the acceptability and usability of 3 substance use screening tools (4P's Plus, NIDA-Modified Alcohol, Smoking and Substance Involvement Screening Test, and the Substance Use Risk Profile-Pregnancy scale). The focus groups were digitally recorded, transcribed, coded, and analyzed using thematic analysis. RESULTS: Participant perceptions of screening tools were dependent upon screening tool length, tone, comprehensiveness, subjectivity, time frame of questions, and scoring and clinician instructions. Most participants preferred the 4P's Plus screening tool because it is brief, comprehensive, easy for the patient to understand, and excludes judgmental language and subjective questions. CONCLUSIONS: These results provide valuable insight into the specific needs and preferences of prenatal practice staff as it relates to prenatal substance use screening and provides evidence that the 4P's Plus may be a preferred screening tool for standardized use in prenatal care.
Authors: Ira J Chasnoff; Richard F McGourty; Gregory W Bailey; Ellen Hutchins; Saundra O Lightfoot; Leslie Lynn Pawson; Cynthia Fahey; Barbara May; Paula Brodie; Larry McCulley; Jan Campbell Journal: J Perinatol Date: 2005-06 Impact factor: 2.521
Authors: Rachel Humeniuk; Robert Ali; Thomas F Babor; Michael Farrell; Maria L Formigoni; Jaroon Jittiwutikarn; Roseli B de Lacerda; Walter Ling; John Marsden; Maristela Monteiro; Sekai Nhiwatiwa; Hemraj Pal; Vladimir Poznyak; Sara Simon Journal: Addiction Date: 2008-03-28 Impact factor: 6.526
Authors: Victoria H Coleman-Cowger; Emmanuel A Oga; Erica N Peters; Kathleen E Trocin; Bartosz Koszowski; Katrina Mark Journal: Obstet Gynecol Date: 2019-05 Impact factor: 7.661
Authors: Victoria H Coleman-Cowger; Emmanuel A Oga; Erica N Peters; Kathleen Trocin; Bartosz Koszowski; Katrina Mark Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2018-02-17 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Ludmila N Bakhireva; Lawrence Leeman; Melissa Roberts; Dominique E Rodriguez; Sandra W Jacobson Journal: Alcohol Clin Exp Res Date: 2021-02-02 Impact factor: 3.455