Randomized controlled trial to evaluate screening and brief intervention for drug-using multiethnic emergency and trauma department patients

Addiction Science & Clinical Practice

Kimberly Eisenberg²  Susan I Woodruff¹ 

[1] San Diego State University, School of Social Work, 6386 Alvarado Ct. Suite 240, San Diego, CA, 92120, USA

[2] Center for Alcohol and Drug Studies, 6386 Alvarado Ct. Suite 224, San Diego, CA, 92120, USA

关键词: Process measures;    Training;    Curriculum;    Health educator;    Drug use;    Emergency room patients;    SBI;   

Others  :  789308
DOI  :  10.1186/1940-0640-8-8

 received in 2012-09-13, accepted in 2013-03-17,  发布年份 2013

【 摘 要 】

Background

Screening and brief intervention (SBI) is a comprehensive, integrated public health approach to identify and deliver a spectrum of early detection and intervention services for substance use in general medical care settings. Although the SBI approach has shown promise for alcohol use, relatively little is known about its effectiveness for illicit drug use. We are evaluating the SBI approach for drug use using a rigorous randomized controlled trial. The purpose of the report is to describe the overall trial and its programmatic and methodological strengths with a focus on health educator (HE) selection and training. In addition, the baseline characteristics of the recently enrolled multiethnic cohort are described.

Methods/design

A randomized two-group repeated measures design is being used in which drug-related outcomes of an intervention group will be compared with those of an attention-placebo control group. Selection of bicultural paraprofessional HEs—their training in research concepts, comorbid mental health issues, special treatment of marijuana use, and nonscripted enhanced motivational interviewing as well as their ongoing monitoring and evaluation—are among the features described. The HEs enrolled, consented, and conducted an intervention among 700 illicit drug users in two large hospital emergency departments/trauma units. To be eligible, a participant needed to be an adult (age ≥18 years), an English or Spanish speaker, awake and able to give consent, and reachable by telephone to schedule a six-month follow-up interview.

Discussion

A comprehensive HE training protocol combined with rigorous, ongoing process measurement resulted in skill mastery in many areas and a successful participant recruitment period. Strengths and limitations of the study protocol are discussed as well as the characteristics of those recruited. This trial will be among the first to provide information about the effectiveness of SBI for illicit drug use. Outcome analysis has not yet been completed, but demonstrated programming and design successes have implications for future research and service delivery.

Trial registration

http://NCT01683227 webcite

【 授权许可】

   
2013 Eisenberg and Woodruff; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Longabaugh R, Woolard RF, Nirenberg TD: Evaluating the effects of a brief motivational intervention for injured drinkers in the emergency department. J Stud Alcohol 2001, 62:806-816.
• [2]Wilk AI, Jensen NM, Havinghurst TC: Meta-analysis of randomized control trials addressing brief alcohol intervention in heavy alcohol drinkers. J Gen Intern Med 1997, 5:274-283.
• [3]D’Onofrio G, Degutis LC: Preventive care in the emergency department: screening and brief intervention for alcohol problems in the emergency department: a systematic review. Acad Emerg Med 2002, 9:627-638.
• [4]Saitz R: Screening and brief intervention enter their 5th decade. Subst Abuse 2007, 28(3):3-6.
• [5]Bernstein E, Bernstein JA, Stein JB, Saitz R: SBI in emergency care settings: are we ready to take it to scale? Acad Emerg Med 2009, 16:1072-1077.
• [6]Humeniuk R, Ali R, Babor T, Souze-Formigoni ML, de Lacerda RB, Ling W: A randomized controlled trial of a brief intervention for illicit drugs linked to the Alcohol, Smoking and Substance Involvement Screening Test (ASSIST) in clients recruited from primary health settings in four countries. Addiction 2012, 107:957-966.
• [7]Madras BK, Compton WM, Avula D, Stegbauer T, Stein JB, Clark HW: Screening, brief interventions, referral to treatment (SBI) for illicit drug and alcohol use at multiple healthcare sites: Comparison at intake and 6 months later. Drug Alcohol Depend 2009, 99:280-295.
• [8]Bernstein J, Bernstein E, Tassiopoulos K, Heeren T, Levenson S, Hingson R: Brief motivational intervention at a clinic visit reduces cocaine and heroin use. Drug Alcohol Depend 2005, 77:49-59.
• [9]Babor TF, Higgins-Biddle JC, Saunders JB, Monteiro MG: AUDIT—the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test: Guidelines for Use in Primary Care. 2nd edition. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization, Department of Mental Health and Substance Dependence; 2001.
• [10]Skinner HA: The Drug Abuse Screening Test. Addict Behav 1982, 7(4):363-371.
• [11]McLellan AT, Luborsky L, Woody GE, O’Brien CP: An improved diagnostic evaluation instrument for substance abuse patients: the Addiction Severity Index. J Nerv Ment Dis 1980, 168(1):26-33.
• [12]Woodruff SI, Eisenberg K, McCabe C, Clapp JD, Hohman M: Evaluation of California’s alcohol and drug screening and brief intervention project for emergency department patients. West J Emerg Med 2013. (in press)
• [13]Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA): Screening, brief intervention, and referral to treatment (SBIRT) in behavioral health care. http://www.samhsa.gov/prevention/sbirt/SBIRTwhitepaper.pdf webcite
• [14]Vaca FE, Winn D: The basics of alcohol screening, brief intervention and referral to treatment in the emergency department. West J Emerg Med 2007, 8(3):88-92.
• [15]Babor TF, McRee BG, Kassebaum PA, Grimaldi PL, Ahme K, Bray J: Screening, brief intervention, and referral to treatment (SBI): toward a public health approach to the management of substance abuse. Subst Abuse 2007, 28(3):7-30.
• [16]Bray JW, Zarkin GA, Hinde JM, Mills MJ: Costs of alcohol screening and brief intervention in medical settings: a review of the literature. J Stud Alcohol Drugs 2012, 73:911-919.
• [17]Sise MJ, Sise CB, Kelley DM, Simmons CW, Kelso DJ: Implementing screening, brief intervention and referral for alcohol and drug use: the trauma service perspective. J Trauma 2005, 59(Suppl 3):S112-S133.
• [18]Mules T, Taylor J, Prince R, Walker L, Singh B, Newsam P: Addressing patient alcohol use: a view from general practice. J Prim Health Care 2012, 4(3):217-222.
• [19]American Psychiatric Association: Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (Revised). Washington, DC: APA; 2000.
• [20]Dresser R: Irrational basis: the legal status of medical marijuana. Hastings Cent Rep 2009, 39(6):7-8.
• [21]National Institute on Drug Abuse: DrugFacts: Marijuana. http://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/drugfacts/marijuana webcite
• [22]National Organization for the Reformation of Marijuana Laws: Principles of responsible cannabis use. http://norml.org/pdf_files/NORML_Principles_of_Responsible_Cannabis_Use.pdf webcite
• [23]Drug Policy Alliance: 10 facts about marijuana. http://www.drugpolicy.org/drug-facts/10-facts-about-marijuana webcite
• [24]Clark R, Samnalie M, McGovern MP: Treatment for co-occurring mental and substance use disorders in five state Medicaid programs. Psych Serv 2007, 58(7):942-948.
• [25]Estroff SE, Penn DL, Toporek JR: From stigma to discrimination: An analysis of community efforts to reduce the negative consequences of having a psychiatric disorder and label. Schizophrenia Bull 2004, 30(3):493-509.
• [26]Stuart H: Violence and mental illness: an overview. World Psychiatry 2003, 2(2):121-124.
• [27]Raghunathan TE, Lepkowski JM, van Hoewyk J, Solenberger P: A multivariate technique for multiply imputing missing values using a sequence of regression models. Surv Methodol 2001, 27:85-95.
• [28]Rubin RB: Multiple Imputation for Nonresponse in Surveys. New York: John Wiley and Sons; 1987.
• [29]Schafer JL: Analysis of Incomplete Multivariate Data. London: Chapman and Hall; 1997.
• [30]Van Buuren S: Multiple imputation of discrete and continuous data by fully conditional specification. Stat Methods Med Res 2007, 16:219-242.
• [31]Yudko E, Lozhkina O, Fouts A: A comprehensive review of the psychometric properties of the Drug Abuse Screening Test. J Subst Abuse Treat 2007, 32:189-198.
• [32]Martin GW, Wilkinson DA, Poulo CX: The drug avoidance self-efficacy scale. J Subst Abuse 1995, 7:151-163.
• [33]Marin G, Sabogal F, Marin BV, Otero-Sabogal R, Perez-Stable E: Development of a short acculturation scale for Hispanics. Hispanic J Behav Sci 1987, 9:183-205.
• [34]Davoudi M, Rawson RA: Screening, brief intervention, and referral to treatment (SBIRT) initiatives in California: notable trends, challenges, and recommendations. J Psychoactive Drugs 2010, 9(Suppl 6):239-248.
• [35]Krohn MD, Thornberry TP: Retention of minority populations in panel studies of drug use. Drugs Soc 1999, 14:185-207.
• [36]Hunt JR, White E: Retaining and tracking cohort study members. Epidemiol Rev 1998, 20:57-70.
• [37]Magura S: Validating self-reports of illegal drug use to evaluate national drug control policy: a reanalysis and critique. Eval Program Plann 2010, 33:234-237.
• [38]Harrison LD, Martin SS, Enev T, Harrington D: Comparing drug testing and self-report of drug use among youths and young adults in the general population. http://www.samhsa.gov/data/nsduh/drugtest.pdf webcite