Assessing the reliability of scores produced by the substance abuse subtle screening inventory

Assessing public behavioral health services data: a mixed method analysis

Background

Measuring behavioral health treatment accessibility requires timely, comprehensive and accurate data collection. Existing public sources of data have inconsistent metrics, delayed times to publication and do not measure all factors related to accessibility. This study seeks to capture this additional information and determine its importance for informing accessibility and care coordination.

Methods

The 2018 National Survey for Substance Abuse and Treatment Services (N-SSATS) data were used to identify behavioral health facilities in Indiana and gather baseline information. A telephone survey was administered to facilities with questions parallel to the N-SSATS and additional questions regarding capacity and patient intake. Quantitative analysis includes chi-square tests. A standard qualitative analysis was used for theming answers to open-ended questions.

Results

About 20% of behavioral health facilities responded to the study survey, and non-response bias was identified by geographic region. Among respondents, statistically significant differences were found in several questions asked in both the study survey and N-SSATS. Data gathered from the additional questions revealed many facilities to have wait times to intake longer than 2 weeks, inconsistency in intake assessment tools used, limited capacity for walk-ins and numerous requirements for engaging in treatment.

Conclusion

Despite the low response rate to this study survey, results demonstrate that multiple factors not currently captured in public data sources can influence coordination of care. The questions included in this study survey could serve as a framework for routinely gathering these data and can facilitate efforts for successful coordination of care and clinical decision-making.

Measuring eating disorder attitudes and behaviors: a reliability generalization study

BACKGROUND

Although score reliability is a sample-dependent characteristic, researchers often only report reliability estimates from previous studies as justification for employing particular questionnaires in their research. The present study followed reliability generalization procedures to determine the mean score reliability of the Eating Disorder Inventory and its most commonly employed subscales (Drive for Thinness, Bulimia, and Body Dissatisfaction) and the Eating Attitudes Test as a way to better identify those characteristics that might impact score reliability.

METHODS

Published studies that used these measures were coded based on their reporting of reliability information and additional study characteristics that might influence score reliability.

RESULTS

Score reliability estimates were included in 26.15% of studies using the EDI and 36.28% of studies using the EAT. Mean Cronbach's alphas for the EDI (total score = .91; subscales = .75 to .89), EAT-40 (total score = .81) and EAT-26 (total score = .86; subscales = .56 to .80) suggested variability in estimated internal consistency. Whereas some EDI subscales exhibited higher score reliability in clinical eating disorder samples than in nonclinical samples, other subscales did not exhibit these differences. Score reliability information for the EAT was primarily reported for nonclinical samples, making it difficult to characterize the effect of type of sample on these measures. However, there was a tendency for mean score reliability to be higher in the adult (vs. adolescent) samples and in female (vs. male) samples.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, this study highlights the importance of assessing and reporting internal consistency during every test administration because reliability is affected by characteristics of the participants being examined.

Screening for use of alcohol, tobacco and cannabis in pregnancy using self-report tools

The World Health Organization has identified substance use in the top 20 risk factors for ill health. Risks in pregnancy are compounded, with risk to the woman's health, to pregnancy progression and on both the foetus and the newborn. Intrauterine exposure can result in negative influences on offspring development, sometimes into adulthood. With effectively two patients, there is a clear need for antenatal screening. Biomarker reliability is limited and research efforts have been directed to self-report tools, often attempting to address potential lack of veracity if women feel guilty about substance use and worried about possible stigmatization. Tools, which assume the behaviour, are likely to elicit more honest responses; querying pre-pregnancy use would likely have the same effect. Although veracity is heightened if substance use questions are embedded within health and social functioning questionnaires, such tools may be too lengthy clinically. It has been proposed that screening only for alcohol and tobacco, with focus on the month pre-pregnancy, could enable identification of all other substances. Alternatively, the Revised Fagerstrom Questionnaire could be used initially, tobacco being highly indicative of substance use generally. The ASSIST V.3.0 is readily administered and covers all substances, although the pregnancy 'risk level' cut-off for tobacco is not established. Alcohol tools - the 4Ps, TLFB and 'drug' CAGE (with E: query of use to avoid withdrawal) - have been studied with other substances and could be used. General psychosocial distress and mental ill-health often co-exist with substance use and identification of substance use needs to become legitimate practice for obstetric clinicians.