Cargando…

An Assessment of SBIRT Prescreening and Screening Outcomes by Medical Setting and Administration Methodology

BACKGROUND: Screening, brief intervention, and referral to treatment (SBIRT) is an efficacious prevention practice. However, little research has assessed differences in prescreening outcomes between inpatient and outpatient primary care or among different prescreening administration methods. This st...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Agley, Jon, Crabb, David W., Harris, Lisa E., Gassman, Ruth A., Gerke, Steven P.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: SAGE Publications 2015
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5266453/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28462268
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/2333392815612476
_version_ 1782500474289651712
author Agley, Jon
Crabb, David W.
Harris, Lisa E.
Gassman, Ruth A.
Gerke, Steven P.
author_facet Agley, Jon
Crabb, David W.
Harris, Lisa E.
Gassman, Ruth A.
Gerke, Steven P.
author_sort Agley, Jon
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Screening, brief intervention, and referral to treatment (SBIRT) is an efficacious prevention practice. However, little research has assessed differences in prescreening outcomes between inpatient and outpatient primary care or among different prescreening administration methods. This study tested whether administration method (self-administered vs interview) and setting (inpatient versus outpatient) predicted prescreening outcomes in a large sample of primary care patients. Then, among patients who prescreened positive, it tested whether full screening scores differed by administration method and setting. METHODS: Researchers used binomial logistic regression to assess predicted prescreening outcomes and analysis of variance to assess differences in SBIRT screening scores across a total of 14 447 unique patient visits in 10 outpatient sites and 1 centrally located hospital. RESULTS: Controlling for gender, depression, and other substance use, both medical setting and method of prescreening, predicted prescreening results. Among patients who prescreened positive for alcohol, setting also was associated with mean screening scores. However, outcomes were not uniform by substance (eg, alcohol vs other drugs). CONCLUSION: The results support previous studies on this topic that had utilized cross-study comparison or that were not specific to SBIRT prescreening/screening mechanisms. At the same time, nuanced findings were observed that had not previously been reported and suggest the need for further research in this area.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5266453
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2015
publisher SAGE Publications
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-52664532017-05-01 An Assessment of SBIRT Prescreening and Screening Outcomes by Medical Setting and Administration Methodology Agley, Jon Crabb, David W. Harris, Lisa E. Gassman, Ruth A. Gerke, Steven P. Health Serv Res Manag Epidemiol Article BACKGROUND: Screening, brief intervention, and referral to treatment (SBIRT) is an efficacious prevention practice. However, little research has assessed differences in prescreening outcomes between inpatient and outpatient primary care or among different prescreening administration methods. This study tested whether administration method (self-administered vs interview) and setting (inpatient versus outpatient) predicted prescreening outcomes in a large sample of primary care patients. Then, among patients who prescreened positive, it tested whether full screening scores differed by administration method and setting. METHODS: Researchers used binomial logistic regression to assess predicted prescreening outcomes and analysis of variance to assess differences in SBIRT screening scores across a total of 14 447 unique patient visits in 10 outpatient sites and 1 centrally located hospital. RESULTS: Controlling for gender, depression, and other substance use, both medical setting and method of prescreening, predicted prescreening results. Among patients who prescreened positive for alcohol, setting also was associated with mean screening scores. However, outcomes were not uniform by substance (eg, alcohol vs other drugs). CONCLUSION: The results support previous studies on this topic that had utilized cross-study comparison or that were not specific to SBIRT prescreening/screening mechanisms. At the same time, nuanced findings were observed that had not previously been reported and suggest the need for further research in this area. SAGE Publications 2015-10-26 /pmc/articles/PMC5266453/ /pubmed/28462268 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/2333392815612476 Text en © The Author(s) 2015 http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/ This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 3.0 License (http://www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/) which permits non-commercial use, reproduction and distribution of the work without further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access page (https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage).
spellingShingle Article
Agley, Jon
Crabb, David W.
Harris, Lisa E.
Gassman, Ruth A.
Gerke, Steven P.
An Assessment of SBIRT Prescreening and Screening Outcomes by Medical Setting and Administration Methodology
title An Assessment of SBIRT Prescreening and Screening Outcomes by Medical Setting and Administration Methodology
title_full An Assessment of SBIRT Prescreening and Screening Outcomes by Medical Setting and Administration Methodology
title_fullStr An Assessment of SBIRT Prescreening and Screening Outcomes by Medical Setting and Administration Methodology
title_full_unstemmed An Assessment of SBIRT Prescreening and Screening Outcomes by Medical Setting and Administration Methodology
title_short An Assessment of SBIRT Prescreening and Screening Outcomes by Medical Setting and Administration Methodology
title_sort assessment of sbirt prescreening and screening outcomes by medical setting and administration methodology
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5266453/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28462268
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/2333392815612476
work_keys_str_mv AT agleyjon anassessmentofsbirtprescreeningandscreeningoutcomesbymedicalsettingandadministrationmethodology
AT crabbdavidw anassessmentofsbirtprescreeningandscreeningoutcomesbymedicalsettingandadministrationmethodology
AT harrislisae anassessmentofsbirtprescreeningandscreeningoutcomesbymedicalsettingandadministrationmethodology
AT gassmanrutha anassessmentofsbirtprescreeningandscreeningoutcomesbymedicalsettingandadministrationmethodology
AT gerkestevenp anassessmentofsbirtprescreeningandscreeningoutcomesbymedicalsettingandadministrationmethodology
AT agleyjon assessmentofsbirtprescreeningandscreeningoutcomesbymedicalsettingandadministrationmethodology
AT crabbdavidw assessmentofsbirtprescreeningandscreeningoutcomesbymedicalsettingandadministrationmethodology
AT harrislisae assessmentofsbirtprescreeningandscreeningoutcomesbymedicalsettingandadministrationmethodology
AT gassmanrutha assessmentofsbirtprescreeningandscreeningoutcomesbymedicalsettingandadministrationmethodology
AT gerkestevenp assessmentofsbirtprescreeningandscreeningoutcomesbymedicalsettingandadministrationmethodology