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

Substance Use Screening, Brief Intervention, and Referral to Treatment Among Youth-Serving Clinicians

Importance

Despite decreasing substance use by adolescents in recent years, overdose rates continue to rise. Morbidity and mortality from substance use is preventable if detected; however, screening practices among youth-serving clinicians are unknown.

Objective

To describe youth-serving clinicians' screening, brief intervention, and referral to treatment practices for substance use disorders (SUDs) among adolescents.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This cross-sectional study used DocStyles data from September 5 to October 12, 2023, on clinical practice settings in the US. Responding clinicians included family physicians, internal medicine physicians, pediatricians, nurse practitioners, and physician assistants.

Exposure

Delivery of services to youths aged 17 years or younger.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Screening, brief intervention, and referral to treatment practices, including screening frequency and type of screening tool used, and screening at every well visit using a screening tool were assessed using descriptive statistics and multivariable logistic regression.

Results

Of 1047 youth-serving clinicians (mean [SD] age, 45.3 [11.4] years; 555 male [53.0%]), 467 (44.6%) were family physicians, 250 (23.9%) were pediatricians, 132 (12.6%) were internal medicine physicians, 107 (10.2%) were nurse practitioners, and 91 (8.7%) were physician assistants (survey response rate, 57%). Median years in practice was 13 (IQR, 7-23 years). Most clinicians (634 [60.6%]) reported that skills in SUD diagnosis were relevant to their practice, and 800 (76.4%) reported seeing at least 1 adolescent with an SUD monthly. A majority of clinicians (596 [56.9%]) reported screening for SUDs at every well visit, with a high proportion of pediatricians reporting screening at every well visit (173 of 250 [69.2%]). Clinicians who screened at every well visit were more likely to use a screening tool (odds ratio, 1.87 [95% CI, 1.44-2.44]). Only 411 clinicians (39.3%) reported screening at every well visit using a screening tool; 321 clinicians (30.7%) offered all components of screening, brief intervention, and referral to treatment practice. Clinicians who reported seeing 5 or more adolescents with an SUD per month had a higher odds of screening with a standardized tool at every annual well visit (adjusted odds ratio, 2.19 [95% CI, 1.30-3.71]).

Conclusions and Relevance

These findings suggest that while most clinicians report screening youths for SUDs at least sometimes, a substantial proportion screened only intermittently. Efforts to improve screening rates through education and systems-based practice changes may facilitate offering anticipatory guidance and SUD treatment in all youth-serving clinical settings.

Narrative Review: Revised Principles and Practice Recommendations for Adolescent Substance Use Treatment and Policy

OBJECTIVE

In 2014, the US National Institute on Drug Abuse released the "Principles of Adolescent Substance Use Disorder Treatment," summarizing previously established evidence and outlining principles of effective assessment, treatment, and aftercare for substance use disorders (SUD). Winters et al. (2018)1 updated these principles to be developmentally appropriate for adolescents. This review builds on that formative work and recommends updated adolescent assessment, treatment, and aftercare principles and practices.

METHOD

The Cochrane, MEDLINE-PubMed, and PsychInfo databases were searched for relevant studies with new data about adolescent substance use services. This article updates the 13 original principles; condenses the 8 original modalities into 5 practices; and highlights implications for public policy approaches, future funding, and research.

RESULTS

Key recommendations from the principles include integrating care for co-occurring mental health disorders and SUDs, improving service accessibility including through the educational system, maintaining engagement, and addressing tension between agencies when collaborating with other youth service systems. Updates to the treatment practices include adoption of Screening, Brief Intervention and Referral to Treatment (SBIRT), investment in social programs and family involvement in treatment, expanding access to behavioral therapies and medications, increasing funding to harm reduction services, supporting reimbursement for continuing care services, and increasing investment in research.

CONCLUSION

These revised principles of adolescent assessment, treatment, and aftercare approaches and practices aim to establish guidance and evidence-based practices for treatment providers, while encouraging necessary support from policymakers and funding agencies to improve the standard of care for adolescent SUD services.

PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY

In this review article and building upon previous work in this area, the authors describe principles and practices for adolescent substance use treatment and identified areas of treatment in need of further research. The authors also outline recommendations for policy changes and support for funding to implement these principles and practices to further improve the standard of care for adolescent substance use disorders services.

A qualitative process evaluation of SBIRT implementation in pediatric trauma centers using the Science to Service Laboratory implementation strategy

BACKGROUND

Screening, Brief Intervention, and Referral to Treatment (SBIRT) is an evidence-based practice that can identify adolescents who use alcohol and other drugs and support proper referral to treatment. Despite an American College of Surgeons mandate to deliver SBIRT in pediatric trauma care, trauma centers throughout the United States have faced numerous patient, provider, and organizational level barriers to SBIRT implementation. The Implementing Alcohol Misuse Screening, Brief Intervention, and Referral to Treatment Study (IAMSBIRT) aimed to implement SBIRT across 10 pediatric trauma centers using the Science-to-Service Laboratory (SSL), an empirically supported implementation strategy. This manuscript aimed to assess trauma center staff preferences and experience with the didactic training, performance feedback, and ongoing coaching elements of the SSL via a retrospective qualitative process evaluation.

METHODS

Nurses, social workers, and site leaders that participated in IAMSBIRT were recruited to complete qualitative exit interviews guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research. Qualitative interviews were recorded, transcribed, and analyzed by two coders using a directed content analysis approach in NVivo software. Codes were then translated into frequently endorsed themes by the IAMSBIRT study research team.

RESULTS

Thirty-six exit interviews were conducted with site leaders, social workers, and nurses across the 10 IAMSBIRT pediatric trauma centers. Findings revealed key strengths as well as areas for improvement across the IAMSBIRT preparation phase and the three elements of the SSL: didactic training, performance feedback, and ongoing coaching. Trauma center staff generally reported that all three elements of the SSL were high quality and helpful for supporting SBIRT implementation. However, staff also noted that performance feedback and ongoing coaching were generally only available to center leadership or to individuals selected by leadership, making it challenging for non-leaders to troubleshoot SBIRT delivery.

CONCLUSIONS

Findings from the qualitative process evaluation revealed discrepancies in the experience of the SSL strategy between those in leadership roles and those involved in direct care delivery. These results suggest the need for several modifications to the SSL strategy, including increasing engagement of direct care staff in all elements of the SSL throughout the implementation process.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinicaltrials.gov NCT03297060 . Registered 29 September 2017.

School-Based Screening and Brief Intervention for Adolescent Substance Use With Telehealth-Delivered Case Consultation and Education

BACKGROUND

Screening, brief intervention, and referral to treatment (SBIRT) is a public health framework for addressing adolescent substance use. Implementation of SBIRT in schools carries the potential to improve substance use treatment access and service acceptance for students, but faces barriers related to knowledge deficits, low comfort, and lack of training in screening and brief interventions among school-based mental health (SBMH) providers. This report describes the development and acceptability evaluation of a school-based SBIRT program designed to overcome common implementation barriers of SBIRT related to provider confidence, knowledge, and training deficits by supplementing the traditional model with telehealth-delivered addiction consultation and education (ACE).

METHODS

Program components include core SBIRT trainings, telehealth-delivered ACE sessions, and outreach support for SBMH providers. Each ACE session included a didactic expert presentation on a clinical topic and a provider-presented patient case with discussion. Sessions were delivered using a Project ECHO-based hub-and-spoke format with monthly 1-hour virtual meetings. Interviews and surveys with SBMH providers on substance use screening and intervention practices and perceived barriers were used to inform program design choices and tailor the curriculum. Acceptability data were collected at 9 months.

RESULTS

SBMH provider participants reported increased confidence, knowledge, and evidence-based screening and early intervention practices, and high acceptability, satisfaction, and benefit from the program. Ongoing barriers to referral to treatment were reported.

CONCLUSION

This pilot study suggests that supplementing traditional SBIRT with telehealth-delivered ACE sessions can address common implementation barriers and serve as a scalable model to improve SBIRT adoption in schools.

Physician Reluctance to Intervene in Addiction: A Systematic Review

Importance

The overdose epidemic continues in the US, with 107 941 overdose deaths in 2022 and countless lives affected by the addiction crisis. Although widespread efforts to train and support physicians to implement medications and other evidence-based substance use disorder interventions have been ongoing, adoption of these evidence-based practices (EBPs) by physicians remains low.

Objective

To describe physician-reported reasons for reluctance to address substance use and addiction in their clinical practices using screening, treatment, harm reduction, or recovery support interventions.

Data Sources

A literature search of PubMed, Embase, Scopus, medRxiv, and SSRN Medical Research Network was conducted and returned articles published from January 1, 1960, through October 5, 2021.

Study Selection

Publications that included physicians, discussed substance use interventions, and presented data on reasons for reluctance to intervene in addiction were included.

Data Extraction and Synthesis

Two reviewers (L.N., M.C., L.F., J.P., C.S., and S.W.) independently reviewed each publication; a third reviewer resolved discordant votes (M.C. and W.C.). This systematic review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guidelines and the theoretical domains framework was used to systematically extract reluctance reasons.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary outcome was reasons for physician reluctance to address substance use disorder. The association of reasons for reluctance with practice setting and drug type was also measured. Reasons and other variables were determined according to predefined criteria.

Results

A total of 183 of 9308 returned studies reporting data collected from 66 732 physicians were included. Most studies reported survey data. Alcohol, nicotine, and opioids were the most often studied substances; screening and treatment were the most often studied interventions. The most common reluctance reasons were lack of institutional support (173 of 213 articles [81.2%]), knowledge (174 of 242 articles [71.9%]), skill (170 of 230 articles [73.9%]), and cognitive capacity (136 of 185 articles [73.5%]). Reimbursement concerns were also noted. Bivariate analysis revealed associations between these reasons and physician specialty, intervention type, and drug.

Conclusions and Relevance

In this systematic review of reasons for physician reluctance to intervene in addiction, the most common reasons were lack of institutional support, knowledge, skill, and cognitive capacity. Targeting these reasons with education and training, policy development, and program implementation may improve adoption by physicians of EBPs for substance use and addiction care. Future studies of physician-reported reasons for reluctance to adopt EBPs may be improved through use of a theoretical framework and improved adherence to and reporting of survey development best practices; development of a validated survey instrument may further improve study results.

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.

HEAL Preventing Opioid Use Disorder: a Vision for Research to Increase Access to Prevention Services

Launched in 2018, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Helping to End Addiction Long-term Initiative®, or NIH HEAL Initiative, is an aggressive effort to speed scientific solutions to stem this national public health crisis. Investments in new strategies to prevent opioid misuse are a key component of this comprehensive response to the opioid epidemic. In 2019, funded through the NIH HEAL Initiative® and administered by the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA), HEAL Preventing Opioid Use Disorder (HEAL Preventing OUD) research program began, filling the gap of needed upstream prevention interventions. The vision for HEAL Preventing OUD is that: Healthcare organizations and public systems will be able to make evidence-based preventive intervention services accessible to all persons who experience risk for opioid and other substance misuse or use disorder. Realizing this vision will require research investments in four strategic areas: (1) risk identification; (2) intervention development; (3) social determinants, health equity, and policy; and (4) dissemination, implementation, scale up, and sustainment. There exists tremendous potential for prevention to be a viable solution for the ongoing opioid crisis, particularly through investments in upstream, equitable, and sustainable prevention services.

Screening, brief intervention, and referral to treatment (SBIRT) for cannabis: A scoping review

INTRODUCTION

Screening, brief intervention, and referral to treatment (SBIRT) has been used to change substance use behavior. Despite cannabis being the most prevalent federally illicit substance, we have limited understanding of use of SBIRT for managing cannabis use. This review aimed to summarize the literature on SBIRT for cannabis use across age groups and contexts over the last two decades.

METHODS

This scoping review followed the a priori guide outlined by the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Scoping Reviews and Meta-Analyses) statement. We gathered articles from PsycINFO, PubMed, Sage Journals Online, ScienceDirect, and SpringerLink.

RESULTS

The final analysis includes forty-four articles. Results indicate inconsistent implementation of universal screens and suggest screens assessing cannabis-specific consequences and utilizing normative data may increase patient engagement. Broadly, SBIRT for cannabis demonstrates high acceptability. However, the impact of SBIRT on behavior change across various modifications to intervention content and modality has been inconsistent. In adults, patients with primary cannabis use are not engaging in recommended treatment at similar rates to other substances. Results also suggest a lack of research addressing referral to treatment in adolescents and emerging adults.

DISCUSSION

Based on this review, we offer several to improve each component of SBRIT that may increase implementation of screens, effectiveness of brief interventions, and engagement in follow-up treatment.

A systematic review of brief, freely accessible, and valid self-report measures for substance use disorders and treatment

BACKGROUND

Self-report measures can improve evidence-based assessment practices in substance use disorder treatment, but many measures are burdensome and costly, limiting their utility in community practice and non-specialty healthcare settings. This systematic review identified and evaluated the psychometric properties of brief, free, and readily accessible self-report measures of substance use and related factors.

METHODS

We searched two electronic databases (PsycINFO and PubMed) in May 2021 for published literature on scales, measures, or instruments related to substance use, substance use treatment, and recovery, and extracted the names of all measures. Measures were included if they were: (1) brief (25 items or fewer), (2) freely accessible in a ready-to-use format, and (3) had published psychometric data.

RESULTS

An initial search returned 411 measures, of which 73 (18%) met criteria for inclusion. Included measures assessed a variety of substances (e.g., alcohol, nicotine, opioids, cannabinoids, cocaine) and measurement domains (e.g., use, severity, expectancies, withdrawal). Among these measures, 14 (19%) were classified as psychometrically "excellent," 27 (37%) were rated as "good," 32 (44%) were "adequate."

CONCLUSIONS

Despite the shift toward evidence-based assessment in substance use disorder treatment in the last twenty years, key areas of public health concern are lacking pragmatic, psychometrically valid measures. Among the brief measures we reviewed, less than a fifth met criteria for psychometric "excellence" and most of these instruments fell into one measurement domain: screening for problematic substance use. Future research should focus both on improving the evidence base for existing brief self-report measures and creating new low-burden measures for specific substances and treatment constructs.

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.

Detection of vaping, cannabis use, and hazardous prescription opioid use among adolescents

There has been a global surge in adolescents' use of electronic nicotine delivery systems (vaping), cannabis (vaped and edible), and prescription opioids, collectively termed ECPO. The nature of ECPO use can make it difficult to detect due to few obvious immediate physical and behavioural signs, as well as subtle long-term effects that allow adolescents to transition from initial exploration into hazardous ECPO use without easy detection by care providers. Here, we address the nature of the presentation of ECPO use in adolescents (roughly age 13-18 years), including challenges in detecting use and related complications, which affect screening, prevention, and intervention. We begin by reviewing empirical data on these difficult to detect effects in adolescents, including acute effects at cellular and neural levels and long-term neurocognitive and developmental changes that precede outwardly detectable physical signs. We then provide concrete approaches for providers to screen for ECPO use in adolescents even in the absence of overt physical and behavioural symptoms. Finally, we conclude with direct practice recommendations for prevention and intervention.

Pediatric Subspecialist Alcohol Screening Rates and Concerns About Alcohol and Cannabis Use Among Their Adolescent Patients

PURPOSE

Pediatric specialty care provides an opportunity to screen for and address patient substance use; however, little is known about providers' screening rates, their opinions regarding substance use harms, or the potential marijuana to be used as a medication.

METHODS

We surveyed national convenience samples of pediatric endocrinologists (N = 142) and rheumatologists (N = 83) and used descriptive statistics and multivariate logistic regression to examine alcohol screening rates, barriers, and for medical use of marijuana, differences between subspecialist concerns.

RESULTS

In all, 36.4% of providers reported screening adolescent patients annually or more, and a majority expressed concerns about impacts on disease management (80.0%/80.0%) and symptom management (69.3%/53.3%) from alcohol and marijuana, respectively. Nearly equal proportions disagreed (30.2%), were neutral (34.7%), or agreed (35.1%) that some patients would benefit from medical marijuana, although majorities were not comfortable recommending marijuana (62.7%) and did not believe marijuana is standardized enough to be used as medication (57.8%).

DISCUSSION

Fewer than half of the subspecialists in our study routinely screen their adolescent patients for substance use, although many have concerns regarding the impacts of alcohol and marijuana use on their patients. Education and training on best practice could help to increase screening rates. There is agreement that marijuana is not standardized enough to be used as a medication. There is also a broad range of opinions regarding the pharmaceutical potential of marijuana and concerns about the impact of marijuana on underlying chronic medical conditions, which should be considered as marijuana policy continues to evolve.

Barriers to Implementing a Cannabis Focused SBIRT in Adolescent Primary Care

Introduction

The current study investigated providers' perceived barriers, supports, and need for adopting a screening, brief intervention, and referral to treatment model (SBIRT) intervention related to cannabis reduction into their community based primary care clinics.

Methods

Eleven pediatric primary care providers from regional community-based clinics participated in focus groups discussing a proposed adolescent cannabis use SBIRT reduction intervention, perceived need, and potential barriers to implementation within their clinic.

Results

Seven primary themes emerged regarding barriers to implementing a cannabis reduction SBIRT in primary care including provider ambivalence to adolescent cannabis use.

Conclusion

Further research is needed to understand evolving provider perceptions of adolescent cannabis use and how these views impact the adoption of SBIRT for the reduction of cannabis use among their adolescent patients.

Trends and Disparities in Treatment for Co-occurring Major Depression and Substance Use Disorders Among US Adolescents From 2011 to 2019

IMPORTANCE

Major depression and substance use disorders (SUD) commonly co-occur among adolescents, yet little is known about treatment use among adolescents with both conditions. Given the reciprocal influence of these conditions on each other and low prevalence of treatment overall, current information on quantification and trends in treatment of co-occurring depression and SUD is critical toward assessing how the field is performing in reaching youth in need of these services, and among youth with sociodemographic risk factors.

OBJECTIVE

To examine temporal trends and sociodemographic disparities in the treatment of co-occurring major depression and SUD among US adolescents.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This survey study used publicly available data for adolescents aged 12 to 17 years from the annual cross-sectional surveys of the National Survey on Drug Use and Health from 2011 to 2019 to assess co-occurrence of major depressive episodes (MDE) and SUD through time and prevalence of treatment for either or both of these conditions. Data were analyzed between October 2020 and February 2021.

EXPOSURES

Survey years, adolescent age, gender, race and ethnicity, type of insurance, annual household income, family structure, and residential stability.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Presence and treatment of co-occurring 12-month MDE and SUD.

RESULTS

In total, 136 262 adolescents participated in the 2011 to 2019 surveys, among whom 69 584 (51.1%) were boys and 66 678 (49.0%) were girls, 46 548 (34.1%) were aged 16 to 17 years, and 18 173 (13.8%) were Black, 28 687 (23.2%) were Hispanic, and 74 512 (53.6%) were White. From 2011 to 2019, the annual prevalence of co-occurring MDE and SUD remained stable, at between 1.4% and 1.7%. Among adolescents with co-occurring MDE and SUD, the prevalence of treatment use for MDE only increased significantly from 28.5% in 2011 to 42.5% in 2019 (odds ratio [OR], 1.07; 95% CI, 1.02-1.11; P = .005), whereas the prevalence of treatment use for SUD only decreased from 4.8% to 1.5% (OR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.85-0.99; P = .04). Overall, the prevalence of treatment use for both conditions fluctuated between 4.5% and 11.6%, without a significant linear trend over time (OR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.87-1.03; P = .24). Extensive disparities in treatment use were found among boys for SUD and both conditions, older adolescents for MDE, Hispanic adolescents for co-occurring conditions (adjusted OR, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.27-0.98; P = .04), and Asian, Native Hawaiian, or Pacific Islander adolescents for MDE (adjusted OR, 0.24; 95% CI, 0.10-0.58; P = .002) and co-occurring conditions (adjusted OR, 0.04; 95% CI, 0.01-0.33; P = .003). Moving households 3 or more times in the past 12 months was associated with higher odds that adolescents received treatment for both conditions (adjusted OR, 2.52; 95% CI, 1.26-5.05; P = .009).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

This survey study found that from 2011 to 2019, less than 12% of adolescents with major depression and SUD received treatment for both conditions from 2011 to 2019. Findings from this study call for expanded service provision for adolescents with co-occurring conditions, improved coordination between service delivery systems, and enhanced policy and funding support for adolescents with unmet treatment needs.