Adolescent SBIRT implementation: Generalist vs. Specialist models of service delivery in primary care

Standard Versus Family-Based Screening, Brief Intervention, and Referral to Treatment for Adolescent Substance Use in Primary Care: Protocol for a Multisite Randomized Effectiveness Trial

BACKGROUND

Screening, brief intervention, and referral to treatment for adolescents (SBIRT-A) is widely recommended to promote detection and early intervention for alcohol and other drug (AOD) use in pediatric primary care. Existing SBIRT-A procedures rely almost exclusively on adolescents alone, despite the recognition of caregivers as critical protective factors in adolescent development and AOD use. Moreover, controlled SBIRT-A studies conducted in primary care have yielded inconsistent findings about implementation feasibility and effects on AOD outcomes and overall developmental functioning. There is urgent need to investigate the value of systematically incorporating caregivers in SBIRT-A procedures.

OBJECTIVE

This randomized effectiveness trial will advance research and scope on SBIRT-A in primary care by conducting a head-to-head test of 2 conceptually grounded, evidence-informed approaches: a standard adolescent-only approach (SBIRT-A-Standard) versus a more expansive family-based approach (SBIRT-A-Family). The SBIRT-A-Family approach enhances the procedures of the SBIRT-A-Standard approach by screening for AOD risk with both adolescents and caregivers; leveraging multidomain, multireporter AOD risk and protection data to inform case identification and risk categorization; and directly involving caregivers in brief intervention and referral to treatment activities.

METHODS

The study will include 2300 adolescents (aged 12-17 y) and their caregivers attending 1 of 3 hospital-affiliated pediatric settings serving diverse patient populations in major urban areas. Study recruitment, screening, randomization, and all SBIRT-A activities will occur during a single pediatric visit. SBIRT-A procedures will be delivered digitally on handheld tablets using patient-facing and provider-facing programming. Primary outcomes (AOD use, co-occurring behavior problems, and parent-adolescent communication about AOD use) and secondary outcomes (adolescent quality of life, adolescent risk factors, and therapy attendance) will be assessed at screening and initial assessment and 3-, 6-, 9-, and 12-month follow-ups. The study is well powered to conduct all planned main and moderator (age, sex, race, ethnicity, and youth AOD risk status) analyses.

RESULTS

This study will be conducted over a 5-year period. Provider training was initiated in year 1 (December 2023). Participant recruitment and follow-up data collection began in year 2 (March 2024). We expect the results from this study to be published in early 2027.

CONCLUSIONS

SBIRT-A is widely endorsed but currently underused in pediatric primary care settings, and questions remain about optimal approaches and overall effectiveness. In particular, referral to treatment procedures in primary care remains virtually untested among youth. In addition, whereas research strongly supports involving families in interventions for adolescent AOD, SBIRT-A effectiveness trial testing approaches that actively engage family members in primary care are absent. This trial is designed to help fill these research gaps to inform the critical health decision of whether and how to include caregivers in SBIRT-A activities conducted in pediatric primary care.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05964010; https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT05964010.

INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID)

PRR1-10.2196/54486.

Substance Use Screening, Brief Intervention, and Referral to Treatment in Pediatric Primary Care, School-Based Health Clinics, and Mental Health Clinics

Adolescent cannabis use is a modifiable health behavior with potential adverse developmental, cognitive, psychological, and health effects. Over the last 2 decades, work to promote implementation of screening, brief intervention, and referral to treatment has improved screening, use of validated screening tools, and preventive messaging. Current intervention strategies for cannabis use are associated with modest, short-term effects, and referral to treatment is limited by availability of resources for adolescent substance use. This article provides an update on the evidence base for screening, brief intervention, referral to treatment, and the current state of implementation focused on management of cannabis use disorder.

Sustainability of Adolescent Screening and Brief Intervention Services in Primary Care After Removal of Implementation Supports

OBJECTIVE

Although many health care organizations have sought to increase the integration of substance use services into clinical practice, such practice changes can prove difficult to sustain.

METHOD

Seven primary care clinics participated in an implementation study of screening and brief intervention (BI) services for adolescent patients (ages 12-17). All sites delivered screening and brief advice (BA) for low-risk use using a uniform protocol. Clinics were randomized to deliver BI using generalist (provider-delivered) or specialist (behavioral health clinician-delivered) models. Implementation was facilitated by multiple supporting activities (e.g., trainings, local "champion," electronic health record [EHR] integration of screening and documentation, individualized feedback, project-specific materials, etc.). Data on the penetration of screening, BA, and BI delivery (N = 14,486 adolescent patient visits) were abstracted from the EHR for the 20-month implementation phase and a 12-month sustainability phase (during which implementation supports were removed).

RESULTS

Penetration of screening continued to slowly increase across the implementation-to-sustainability phases (62% vs. 70%; p = .04). Although uptake during implementation was low for BA (29%) and BI (22%), there was no significant decrease in service provision during the sustainability phase. Although overall delivery of BI was significantly higher in generalist compared with specialist sites (p < .001), sustainability did not differ by generalist versus specialist conditions. There were considerable differences in penetration across clinic sites.

CONCLUSIONS

Clinics sustained a high level of substance use screening. Uptake of intervention services was low but did not decrease further following the cessation of implementation supports. This study illustrates the challenges of successfully implementing and sustaining substance use services in adolescent primary care.

Substance Use Screening, Brief Intervention, and Referral to Treatment in Pediatric Primary Care, School-Based Health Clinics, and Mental Health Clinics

Adolescent cannabis use is a modifiable health behavior with potential adverse developmental, cognitive, psychological, and health effects. Over the last 2 decades, work to promote implementation of screening, brief intervention, and referral to treatment has improved screening, use of validated screening tools, and preventive messaging. Current intervention strategies for cannabis use are associated with modest, short-term effects, and referral to treatment is limited by availability of resources for adolescent substance use. This article provides an update on the evidence base for screening, brief intervention, referral to treatment, and the current state of implementation focused on management of cannabis use disorder.

Rates, Patterns, and Predictors of Follow-up Care for Adolescents at Risk for Substance Use Disorder in a School-Based Health Center SBIRT Program

PURPOSE

To examine rates, patterns, and predictors of follow-up care for adolescents screened as being at risk for substance use disorder (SUD) in a school-based health center (SBHC) Screening, Brief Intervention and Referral to Treatment (SBIRT) program.

METHODS

Electronic health records were extracted of adolescents who received health care services from one of three high school-based health centers implementing SBIRT. Patterns and predictors of engagement in follow-up care within 8 weeks following the week of a positive SUD risk screen were analyzed using item response theory (IRT) modeling.

RESULTS

Out of 1,327 adolescents receiving SBHC services, 81.2% completed a health screening questionnaire. Of screened adolescents, 17.7% were positive for SUD risk. Across the 8-week follow-up period, 65.4% of adolescents at risk for SUD received at least one follow-up visit. IRT modeling indicated that high levels of engagement in follow-up care were characterized by contact with a behavioral health care (BHC) provider. The percentage of adolescents having follow-up contact with a BHC provider increased significantly after the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. Engagement in follow-up care was predicted by risk for depression, history of suicidal behavior, being female, and previous sexual activity.

DISCUSSION

SBHCs provide a favorable setting for screening and detecting adolescents at risk for SUD. Adolescents at risk for SUD should receive follow-up contact with a BHC provider. Enhanced follow-up engagement efforts may be warranted for adolescents at risk for SUD without risk for depression or suicidal history, as well as for females and those with previous sexual activity.

Costs and Implementation Effectiveness of Generalist Versus Specialist Models for Adolescent Screening and Brief Intervention in Primary Care

OBJECTIVE

This study analyzed the marginal service and program costs, and conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) of two models of implementation of adolescent substance screening, brief intervention, and referral to treatment (SBIRT).

METHOD

SBIRT was implemented at seven clinics in a multisite, cluster-randomized trial, through a Specialist model (behavioral health counselor-delivered brief intervention), and a Generalist model (primary care provider-delivered brief intervention). The CEA calculated marginal costs using an activity-based costing methodology for direct SBIRT services, and effectiveness was measured by the proportion of brief interventions delivered among patients who screened positive for alcohol, tobacco, or other drugs. Site-level program costs comprised start-up and maintenance (training and technical assistance). Costs were estimated in 2017 U.S. dollars.

RESULTS

The marginal cost of SBIRT per patient with a positive screen for brief intervention was $6.72 in the Specialist model and $6.05 in the Generalist model. Implementation effectiveness was 7.2% (SE = 2.9%) in the Specialist model and 37.7% (SE = 5.6%) in the Generalist model. The program costs to provide SBIRT for 1 year per site were $13,548 for the Specialist site and $12,081 for the Generalist.

CONCLUSIONS

The Generalist model was more effective in implementing brief intervention and less expensive than the Specialist model. Results were robust to sensitivity analysis. Brief intervention delivered by primary care providers rather than by handoff to a behavioral health counselor may ensure greater penetration and a lower cost of these services in primary care settings.

Six practical recommendations for improved implementation outcomes reporting

Background

Implementation outcomes research spans an exciting mix of fields, disciplines, and geographical space. Although the number of studies that cite the 2011 taxonomy has expanded considerably, the problem of harmony in describing outcomes persists. This paper revisits that problem by focusing on the clarity of reporting outcomes in studies that examine them. Published recommendations for improved reporting and specification have proven to be an important step in enhancing the rigor of implementation research. We articulate reporting problems in the current implementation outcomes literature and describe six practical recommendations that address them.

Recommendations

Our first recommendation is to clearly state each implementation outcome and provide a definition that the study will consistently use. This includes providing an explanation if using the taxonomy in a new way or merging terms. Our second recommendation is to specify how each implementation outcome will be analyzed relative to other constructs. Our third recommendation is to specify “the thing” that each implementation outcome will be measured in relation to. This is especially important if you are concurrently studying interventions and strategies, or if you are studying interventions and strategies that have multiple components. Our fourth recommendation is to report who will provide data and the level at which data will be collected for each implementation outcome, and to report what kind of data will be collected and used to assess each implementation outcome. Our fifth recommendation is to state the number of time points and frequency at which each outcome will be measured. Our sixth recommendation is to state the unit of observation and the level of analysis for each implementation outcome.

Conclusion

This paper advances implementation outcomes research in two ways. First, we illustrate elements of the 2011 research agenda with concrete examples drawn from a wide swath of current literature. Second, we provide six pragmatic recommendations for improved reporting. These recommendations are accompanied by an audit worksheet and a list of exemplar articles that researchers can use when designing, conducting, and assessing implementation outcomes studies.

A Phone Consultation Call Line to Support SBIRT in Pediatric Primary Care

BACKGROUND

Screening Brief Intervention Referral to Treatment (SBIRT) is recommended as a routine part of pediatric primary care, though managing patients with positive screens is challenging. To address this problem, the state of Massachusetts created a call line staffed by pediatric Addiction Medicine specialists to provide consultations to primary care providers and access to a behavioral health provider specially trained in managing adolescent substance use.

OBJECTIVE

To describe the uptake and outcomes of a consultation call line and virtual counseling for managing substance use disorders (SUD) in pediatric primary care.

METHODS

Service delivery data from consultations and counseling appointments were captured in an electronic database including substance, medication recommendations, level of care recommendations and number of counseling appointments completed for each patient. Summary data is presented here.

RESULTS

In all, there were 407 encounters to 108 unique families, including 128 consultations and 279 counseling visits in a one-year period. The most common substances mentioned by healthcare providers were cannabis (64%), nicotine (20%), alcohol (20%), vaping (9%) and opioids (5%). Management in primary care was recommended for 87 (68%) of the consultations. Medications for SUD treatment were recommended for 69 (54%) consultations including two for opioid use disorder.

CONCLUSION

We found that both a statewide consultation call line and virtual counseling to support SBIRT in pediatric primary care were feasible. The majority of consultations resulted in recommendations for treatment in primary care.

Addressing adolescent substance use in an urban pediatric federally qualified health center

OBJECTIVE

Screening, brief intervention, and referral to treatment (SBIRT) is a systematic approach to identification and intervention for individuals at risk for substance use disorders. Prior research indicates that SBIRT is underutilized in pediatric primary care. Yet few studies have examined procedures for identifying and addressing substance use in clinics that serve publicly insured adolescents (i.e., federally qualified health centers [FQHC]). This descriptive, multi-method study assessed adolescent substance use frequency and provider perspectives to inform SBIRT implementation in an urban pediatric FQHC in California.

METHODS

A medical record review assessed substance use frequency and correlates among publicly insured adolescents aged 12-17 years who completed a well-child visit in pediatric primary care between 2014 and 2017 (N = 2252). Data on substance use (i.e., alcohol, illicit drugs, and tobacco) were from a health assessment tool mandated by Medicaid. Semi-structured interviews with 12 providers (i.e., pediatricians, nurse practitioners, behavioral health clinicians) elicited information about the current clinic workflow for adolescent substance use and barriers and facilitators to SBIRT implementation.

RESULTS

Of 1588 adolescents who completed the assessment (70.5%), 6.8% reported current substance use. Self-reported use was highest among non-Hispanic Black (15.2%) adolescents and those with co-occurring depressive symptoms (14.4%). Provider-reported challenges to implementing SBIRT included a lack of space for confidential screening and a lack of referral options. Providers favored implementing technology-based tools such as tablets for adolescent pre-visit screening and electronic medical record-based decision support to facilitate brief intervention and treatment referrals.

CONCLUSIONS

This study fills a substantial research gap by examining factors that impede and support SBIRT implementation in pediatric FQHC settings. Successful SBIRT implementation in these settings could significantly reduce the unmet need for substance use treatment among uninsured and publicly insured adolescents. Pediatric primary care and urgent care providers perceived SBIRT to be feasible, and health information and digital technologies may facilitate the integration of SBIRT into clinic workflows. Ensuring confidentiality for screening and expanding referral options for adolescents in need of community-based addiction treatment are also critical to increasing SBIRT uptake.

Implementing adolescent SBIRT: Findings from the FaCES project

BACKGROUND

Screening, Brief Intervention, and Referral to Treatment (SBIRT) is an evidence-based approach to early intervention of substance misuse. Methods: This mixed-methods evaluation assessed the implementation of an adolescent SBIRT change package across 13 primary care clinics. These clinics participated in an 18-month learning collaborative, during which they received training and technical assistance on SBIRT practices. Results: Six major themes emerged around the implementation of the change package: operational readiness of the sites, training of staff members, factors around the screening process, factors around intervention delivery, the referral process, and the adaptation and utilization of the electronic health record (EHR). Conclusions: Through the guidance of the change package and the associated training and technical assistance, the participating primary care clinics were able to implement SBIRT practices within their existing workflows. There was also an observed reduction in reported substance use among the at-risk adolescents served by these clinics.

Provider and Practice Characteristics and Perceived Barriers Associated With Different Levels of Adolescent SBIRT Implementation Among a National Sample of US Pediatricians

Pediatrician Screening, Brief Intervention, and Referral to Treatment (SBIRT) practices vary widely, though little is known about the correlates of SBIRT implementation. Using data from a national sample of US pediatricians who treat adolescents (n = 250), we characterized self-reported utilization rates of SBIRT among US pediatricians and identified provider- and practice-level characteristics and barriers associated with SBIRT utilization. All participants completed an electronic survey querying the demographics, practice patterns, and perceived barriers related to SBIRT practices. Our results showed that 88% of respondents reported screening for substance use annually, but only 26% used structured/validated screening instruments. Furthermore, 40% of respondents provided evidence-based brief interventions, and only 11% implemented all core SBIRT practices. Common barriers (eg, confidentiality and insufficient time) and unique provider- and setting-specific barriers to implementation were identified. These findings indicate that although most pediatricians deliver some SBIRT components in their practice, few implement the full SBIRT model, and barriers persist.

Automated detection of substance use information from electronic health records for a pediatric population

OBJECTIVE

Substance use screening in adolescence is unstandardized and often documented in clinical notes, rather than in structured electronic health records (EHRs). The objective of this study was to integrate logic rules with state-of-the-art natural language processing (NLP) and machine learning technologies to detect substance use information from both structured and unstructured EHR data.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Pediatric patients (10-20 years of age) with any encounter between July 1, 2012, and October 31, 2017, were included (n = 3890 patients; 19 478 encounters). EHR data were extracted at each encounter, manually reviewed for substance use (alcohol, tobacco, marijuana, opiate, any use), and coded as lifetime use, current use, or family use. Logic rules mapped structured EHR indicators to screening results. A knowledge-based NLP system and a deep learning model detected substance use information from unstructured clinical narratives. System performance was evaluated using positive predictive value, sensitivity, negative predictive value, specificity, and area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve (AUC).

RESULTS

The dataset included 17 235 structured indicators and 27 141 clinical narratives. Manual review of clinical narratives captured 94.0% of positive screening results, while structured EHR data captured 22.0%. Logic rules detected screening results from structured data with 1.0 and 0.99 for sensitivity and specificity, respectively. The knowledge-based system detected substance use information from clinical narratives with 0.86, 0.79, and 0.88 for AUC, sensitivity, and specificity, respectively. The deep learning model further improved detection capacity, achieving 0.88, 0.81, and 0.85 for AUC, sensitivity, and specificity, respectively. Finally, integrating predictions from structured and unstructured data achieved high detection capacity across all cases (0.96, 0.85, and 0.87 for AUC, sensitivity, and specificity, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

It is feasible to detect substance use screening and results among pediatric patients using logic rules, NLP, and machine learning technologies.

Creative Approaches for Assessing Long-term Outcomes in Children

Advances in new technologies, when incorporated into routine health screening, have tremendous promise to benefit children. The number of health screening tests, many of which have been developed with machine learning or genomics, has exploded. To assess efficacy of health screening, ideally, randomized trials of screening in youth would be conducted; however, these can take years to conduct and may not be feasible. Thus, innovative methods to evaluate the long-term outcomes of screening are needed to help clinicians and policymakers make informed decisions. These methods include using longitudinal and linked-data systems to evaluate screening in clinical and community settings, school data, simulation modeling approaches, and methods that take advantage of data available in the digital and genomic age. Future research is needed to evaluate how longitudinal and linked-data systems drawing on community and clinical settings can enable robust evaluations of the effects of screening on changes in health status. Additionally, future studies are needed to benchmark participating individuals and communities against similar counterparts and to link big data with natural experiments related to variation in screening policies. These novel approaches have great potential for identifying and addressing differences in access to screening and effectiveness of screening across population groups and communities.

Organizational Acceptability of Implementing SBIRT for Adolescents in Primary Care

Adolescent illicit drug, tobacco, and alcohol use can result in sudden and long-term negative health consequences. Primary care environments present the optimal opportunity for screening and brief interventions that target prevention and curtailing use. Screening, Brief Intervention, and Referral to Treatment (SBIRT) is a service delivery method that could potentially be well-integrated into primary care settings and used to serve a high volume of adolescents. Methods: This qualitative analysis of clinic staff interviews (N = 20), collected during a large cluster-randomized trial to implement two models of adolescent SBIRT, examined barriers and facilitating factors to overall acceptability of SBIRT. This study was conducted in a large, urban Federally Qualified Health Center (FQHC) at 7 sites throughout Baltimore City, Maryland, USA. Participants from each clinic included a range of various roles and responsibilities including: medical assistants (n = 3), nurses (n = 3), primary care providers (n = 4), behavioral health counselors (n = 4), and administrators (n = 6). Results: Results indicate both barriers and facilitating factors for acceptability of SBIRT in terms of (1) universal screening, (2) provider time demands, (3) behavioral health collaboration, and (4) behavioral health caseloads. Discussion: Universal screening was acceptable to participants across organizational roles, but brief interventions and referrals to treatment were found substantially less acceptable.