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...
Autores principales: | , , , , |
---|---|
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 |