Shannon Gwin Mitchell1, Jan Gryczynski2, Robert P Schwartz2, Arethusa S Kirk3, Kristi Dusek2, Marla Oros4, Colleen Hosler5, Kevin E O'Grady6, Barry S Brown7. 1. Friends Research Institute, Baltimore, MD, United States of America. Electronic address: smitchell@friendsresearch.org. 2. Friends Research Institute, Baltimore, MD, United States of America. 3. Total Health Care, Baltimore, MD, United States of America. 4. Mosaic Group, Baltimore, MD, United States of America. 5. University of Maryland Baltimore County, United States of America. 6. University of Maryland, College Park, College Park, MD, United States of America. 7. University of North Carolina at Wilmington, Wilmington, NC, United States of America.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Drug, alcohol, and tobacco use among adolescents pose significant short- and long-term health consequences and are associated with more severe use as adults. Screening, brief intervention, and referral to treatment in primary care settings has the potential to deliver preventive interventions to a diverse range of adolescents, but optimal implementation of these services needs to be determined. The purpose of this study was to compare implementation of two different SBIRT service delivery models in primary care settings. METHODS: This cluster-randomized trial assigned 7 primary care clinics of a federally qualified health center toimplement brief interventions (BI) using a Generalist model (4 sites), in which BIs were delivered by the primary care provider (PCP), or a Specialist model (3 sites), in which BIs were delivered by a behavioral health counselor (BHC) for adolescent patients ages 12-17 years. Implementation was tracked through the clinic's electronic health record, spanning 9639 clinic visits over 20 months. Multilevel logistic regression modeling was used to compare Generalist and Specialist strategies on penetration of BI for patients scoring ≥2 on the CRAFFT substance use screen, delivered by the PCP in the Generalist sites, and via warm hand-off to a BHC in the Specialist sites. RESULTS: Approximately 62% of adolescent patient visits were screened with the CRAFFT (with <4% screening positive with a CRAFFT score ≥ 2). The Generalist Condition had significantly higher self-reported penetration of BI delivery than the Specialist Condition (38% vs. 8%; Adjusted Odds Ratio = 6.53; p = .005). DISCUSSION: Despite having co-located behavioral health services at all sites, a Specialist approach to providing BI was less effectively implemented than a Generalist approach in this FQHC. BI delivered by PCPs rather than by hand-off to a BHC may ensure greater penetration of these services in primary care settings. Both implementation models provided a framework for identifying and intervening with adolescent primary care patients whose substance use might have otherwise gone undetected.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Drug, alcohol, and tobacco use among adolescents pose significant short- and long-term health consequences and are associated with more severe use as adults. Screening, brief intervention, and referral to treatment in primary care settings has the potential to deliver preventive interventions to a diverse range of adolescents, but optimal implementation of these services needs to be determined. The purpose of this study was to compare implementation of two different SBIRT service delivery models in primary care settings. METHODS: This cluster-randomized trial assigned 7 primary care clinics of a federally qualified health center to implement brief interventions (BI) using a Generalist model (4 sites), in which BIs were delivered by the primary care provider (PCP), or a Specialist model (3 sites), in which BIs were delivered by a behavioral health counselor (BHC) for adolescent patients ages 12-17 years. Implementation was tracked through the clinic's electronic health record, spanning 9639 clinic visits over 20 months. Multilevel logistic regression modeling was used to compare Generalist and Specialist strategies on penetration of BI for patients scoring ≥2 on the CRAFFT substance use screen, delivered by the PCP in the Generalist sites, and via warm hand-off to a BHC in the Specialist sites. RESULTS: Approximately 62% of adolescent patient visits were screened with the CRAFFT (with <4% screening positive with a CRAFFT score ≥ 2). The Generalist Condition had significantly higher self-reported penetration of BI delivery than the Specialist Condition (38% vs. 8%; Adjusted Odds Ratio = 6.53; p = .005). DISCUSSION: Despite having co-located behavioral health services at all sites, a Specialist approach to providing BI was less effectively implemented than a Generalist approach in this FQHC. BI delivered by PCPs rather than by hand-off to a BHC may ensure greater penetration of these services in primary care settings. Both implementation models provided a framework for identifying and intervening with adolescent primary care patients whose substance use might have otherwise gone undetected.
Authors: John R Knight; Ladislav Csemy; Lon Sherritt; Olga Starostova; Shari Van Hook; Janine Bacic; Caroline Finlay; Jessica Tauber; Traci Brooks; Robert Kossack; John W Kulig; Judith Shaw; Sion Kim Harris Journal: J Stud Alcohol Drugs Date: 2018-07 Impact factor: 2.582
Authors: Enola K Proctor; John Landsverk; Gregory Aarons; David Chambers; Charles Glisson; Brian Mittman Journal: Adm Policy Ment Health Date: 2008-12-23
Authors: Carolina Barbosa; Alexander Cowell; Laura Dunlap; Brendan Wedehase; Kristi Dušek; Robert P Schwartz; Jan Gryczynski; Alan Barnosky; Arethusa S Kirk; Marla Oros; Colleen Hosler-Moore; Kevin E O'Grady; Barry S Brown; Shannon Gwin Mitchell Journal: J Stud Alcohol Drugs Date: 2022-03 Impact factor: 2.582
Authors: Rebecca Lengnick-Hall; Donald R Gerke; Enola K Proctor; Alicia C Bunger; Rebecca J Phillips; Jared K Martin; Julia C Swanson Journal: Implement Sci Date: 2022-02-08 Impact factor: 7.327