Screening, Brief Intervention, And Referral To Treatment Implementation Research Articles

Family support and treatment completion for unhealthy alcohol use in a SBIRT program

ABSTRACT Screening, Brief Intervention, and Referral to Treatment (SBIRT) research indicates that substance use severity is a predictor of readiness to change, which is in turn associated with positive treatment follow-through. Using a strengths-based approach, family support is hypothesized to be a protective factor related to treatment completion; yet additional research is needed to substantiate the role of this construct when considering other pre-treatment factors. This study used a SEM equation to examine whether self-reported family support mediated the relationship between substance use severity and treatment completion. Service user demographics and pre-treatment characteristics were collected from service users in a primary care setting who were referred to treatment in a statewide implementation of SBIRT. The results provide additional evidence that family support mediates the relationship between symptom severity and substance use treatment completion. The authors conclude with a discussion on how family support can be integrated in SBIRT models for both enhancing the screening process and referrals to treatment.

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

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). 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. 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. 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.

Substance Use Screening, Brief Intervention, and Referral to Treatment in Urban Settings: Barriers and Facilitators to Implementation With Minoritized Youth.

Substance use in minoritized youth is associated with negative long-term health and life outcomes. The present study explores perspectives of school stakeholders at urban minority-serving schools regarding integration of an evidence-based intervention, screening, brief intervention, and referral to treatment (SBIRT) into existing school prevention models. Twenty-two participants were interviewed using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research to identify barriers and facilitators to SBIRT implementation. Qualitative data were transcribed, coded, and analyzed. Four major themes related to barriers to SBIRT implementation included: lack of training, unclear role expectations, student confidentiality, and punitive school climates. The 3 major facilitators included: the feasibility of the intervention, its fit within multi-tiered systems of support, and the districts increasing collaboration with community mental health providers. These major themes along with other minor themes are discussed. SBIRT implementation within low-income, minority-serving schools may reduce substance use disparities among minoritized youth, improving health and life outcomes. Recommendations addressed training, school climate, and student engagement, highlighting a collaborative and supportive approach involving all stakeholders. While SBIRT implementation has barriers and facilitators, overall, school staff were optimistic about implementation. In light of these findings, additional research should embed SBIRT in these settings.

A conceptual analysis of SBIRT implementation alongside the continuum of PrEP awareness: domains of fit and feasibility.

Screening, Brief Intervention, and Referral to Treatment (SBIRT) is a supplementary intervention that can be incorporated into the Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis (PrEP) Care Continuum, complementing initiatives and endeavors focused on Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) prevention in clinical care and community-based work. Referencing the Transtheoretical Model of Change and the PrEP Awareness Continuum, this conceptual analysis highlights how SBIRT amplifies ongoing HIV prevention initiatives and presents a distinct chance to address identified gaps. SBIRT's mechanisms show promise of fit and feasibility through (a) implementing universal Screening (S), (b) administering a Brief Intervention (BI) grounded in motivational interviewing aimed at assisting individuals in recognizing the significance of PrEP in their lives, (c) providing an affirming and supportive Referral to Treatment (RT) to access clinical PrEP care, and (d) employing client-centered and destigmatized approaches. SBIRT is uniquely positioned to help address the complex challenges facing PrEP awareness and initiation efforts. Adapting the SBIRT model to integrate and amplify HIV prevention efforts merits further examination.

Assessing the acceptability of implementing a Screening, Brief Intervention and Referral to Treatment for alcohol use among transgender women in Bangkok, Thailand: A mixed-method pre-implementation study using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research.

Health inequities related to alcohol use exist for transgender individuals. While the Thailand Ministry of Public Health recently published a clinical guideline to implement a Screening, Brief Intervention and Referral to Treatment (SBIRT) in primary care, there has been no study regarding transgender women's (TGW) alcohol use and the acceptability of implementing SBIRT in a Thai context, a gap this study aimed to fill. A mixed-method approach was used. In the first phase, TGW service users and health-care providers (HCPs) completed a survey on the acceptability of prospective implementation of SBIRT. TGW service users completed the Alcohol Use Disorder Identification Test-Consumption (AUDIT-C). In the second phase, TGW service users, HCPs, clinic administrators and national-level alcohol, HIV and transgender health policymakers participated in in-depth qualitative interviews. The Tangerine Clinic, a transgender-led sexual health clinic in Bangkok, Thailand. In the first phase, TGW service users (n = 100) and HCP (n = 8) were surveyed. In the second phase, 22 stakeholders (n = 10 TGW service users; n = 8 HCP; n = 1 clinic administrator; n = 3 policymakers) were interviewed. Simple proportions were calculated for each survey item. Differences in acceptability by various demographic factors were calculated using univariate analysis. The qualitative data were coded using thematic analysis and a deductive approach. The results were mapped to the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research domains and constructs. The quantitative and qualitative results were triangulated to expand understanding. Fifty per cent of the TGW participants exhibited problematic drinking levels (AUDIT-C ≥ 4). Implementing SBIRT was highly acceptable, as more than 95% of participants reported agreeing or completely agreeing to receive SBIRT for alcohol use. Barriers, such as complexity, time constraint and lack of knowledge and skills, were anticipated. Adaptability, such as tailoring the content of brief intervention to suit TGW health needs and SBIRT to fit with existing clinic procedures, might facilitate successful implementation. Screening, Brief Intervention and Referral to Treatment (SBIRT) for alcohol use has the potential to be successfully implemented in transgender-led sexual health clinic settings, with some adaptations to overcome anticipated barriers.

Alcohol Prevention in Urgent and Emergency Care (APUEC): Development and Evaluation of Workforce Digital Training on Screening, Brief Intervention, and Referral for Treatment.

Excessive alcohol consumption carries a significant health, social and economic burden. Screening, brief intervention and referral to treatment (SBIRT) is one approach to identifying patients with excessive alcohol consumption and providing interventions to help them reduce their drinking. However, healthcare workers in urgent and emergency care settings do not routinely integrate SBIRT into clinical practice and raise a lack of training as a barrier to SBIRT delivery. Therefore, "Alcohol Prevention in Urgent and Emergency Care" (APUEC) training was developed, delivered, and evaluated. APUEC is a brief, stand-alone, multimedia, interactive digital training package for healthcare workers. The aim of APUEC is to increase positive attitudes, knowledge, confidence and skills related to SBIRT through the provision of (a) education on the impact of alcohol and the role of urgent and emergency care in alcohol prevention, and (b) practical guidance on patient assessment, delivery of brief advice and making referral decisions. Development involved collaborative-participatory design approaches and a rigorous six-step ASPIRE methodology (involving n = 28 contributors). APUEC was delivered to healthcare workers who completed an online survey (n = 18) and then participated in individual qualitative interviews (n = 15). Analysis of data was aligned with Levels 1-3 of the Kirkpatrick Model of Training Evaluation. Survey data showed that all participants (100%) found the training useful and would recommend it to others. Insights from the qualitative data showed that APUEC digital training increases healthcare workers' perceived knowledge, confidence and skills related to alcohol prevention in urgent and emergency care settings. Participants viewed APUEC to be engaging and relevant to urgent and emergency care workers. This digital training was perceived to be useful for workforce skills development and supporting the implementation of SBIRT in clinical practice. While the impact of APUEC on clinician behaviour and patient outcomes is yet to be tested, APUEC digital training could easily be embedded within education and continuing professional development programmes for healthcare workers and healthcare trainees of any discipline. Ultimately, this may facilitate the integration of SBIRT into routine care and contribute to population health improvement.

Attitudes and current practice in alcohol screening, brief intervention, and referral for treatment among staff working in urgent and emergency settings: An open, cross-sectional international survey.

The aim of the study was to ascertain the views and experiences of those working in urgent and emergency care (UEC) settings towards screening, brief intervention, and referral to treatment (SBIRT) for alcohol, to inform future practice. To explore i) views towards health promotion, ii) views towards and practice of SBIRT, iii) facilitators and barriers to delivering SBIRT, iv) training needs to support future SBIRT practice, and v) comparisons in views and attitudes between demographic characteristics, geographical regions, setting and occupational groups. This was an open cross-sectional international survey, using an online self-administered questionnaire with closed and open-ended responses. Participants were ≥18 years of age, from any occupational group, working in urgent and emergency care (UEC) settings in any country or region. There were 362 respondents (aged 21-65 years, 87.8% shift workers) from 7 occupational groups including physicians (48.6%), nurses (22.4%) and advanced clinical practitioners (18.5%). Most believed that health promotion is part of their role, and that SBIRT for alcohol prevention is needed and appropriate in UEC settings. SBIRT was seen to be acceptable to patients. 66% currently provide brief alcohol advice, but fewer screen for alcohol problems or make alcohol-related referrals. The most common barriers were high workload and lack of funding for prevention, lack of knowledge and training on SBIRT, lack of access to high-quality resources, lack of timely referral pathways, and concerns about patient resistance to advice. Some views and attitudes varied according to demographic characteristics, occupation, setting or region. UEC workers are willing to engage in SBIRT for alcohol prevention but there are challenges to implementation in UEC environments and concerns about workload impacts on already-burdened staff, particularly in the context of global workforce shortages. UEC workers advocate for clear guidelines and policies, increased staff capacity and/or dedicated health promotion teams onsite, SBIRT education/training/resources, appropriate physical spaces for SBIRT conversations and improved alcohol referral pathways to better funded services. Implementation of SBIRT could contribute to improving population health and reducing service demand, but it requires significant and sustained commitment of time and resources for prevention across healthcare organisations.

Demographic differences in the cascade of care for unhealthy alcohol use: A cross-sectional analysis of data from the 2015-2019 National Survey on Drug Use and Health.

The screening, brief intervention, and referral to treatment (SBIRT) model is recommended by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force to improve recognition of and intervention for unhealthy alcohol use. How SBIRT implementation differs by demographic characteristics is poorly understood. We analyzed data from the 2015-2019 National Survey on Drug Use and Health from respondents ≥18 years old who used an outpatient clinic and had at least one alcoholic drink within the past year. Respondents were grouped into one of three mutually exclusive groups: "no binge drinking or alcohol use disorder (AUD)," "binge drinking without AUD," or "AUD." Outcome variables were likelihood of screening, brief intervention (BI), referral to treatment (RT), and AUD treatment. The demographic predictors on which outcomes were regressed included gender, age, race and ethnicity, sexual orientation, insurance status, and history of military involvement. Consistent with SBIRT guidelines, the entire sample was included in the screening model; screened persons with either binge drinking without AUD or with AUD were included in the BI model; screened persons with AUD were included in the RT model, and persons referred to treatment with AUD were included in the AUD treatment model. Analyses included 120,804 respondents. Women were more likely than men to be screened, but less likely to receive BI or RT. When referred to treatment, women were more likely than men to receive it. Persons aged ≥50 were least likely to be screened about alcohol, but most likely to receive BI, while persons aged 18-25 were least likely to receive BI or AUD treatment. Racial and ethnic minorities were less likely than White persons to be screened; Asians were less likely to receive RT, and Black persons were less likely to receive treatment than White persons. Persons identifying as gay, lesbian, or bisexual were equally as likely or more likely to receive SBIRT or AUD treatment as those identifying as heterosexual. Persons without insurance were less likely to be screened than those with insurance. Persons with a history of military involvement were more likely to be screened and receive BI and RT than persons who had not served in the military. Demographic disparities in SBIRT implementation exist. Addressing the sources of these disparities and minimizing attrition from care could improve outcomes for persons with unhealthy alcohol use.

Effectiveness and implementation of interventions for health promotion in urgent and emergency care settings: an umbrella review

BackgroundUrgent and emergency care (UEC) settings provide an opportunity to prevent ill-health and promote healthy lifestyles with potential to screen and deliver interventions to under-served, at-risk populations. The aim of this study was to synthesise and summarise the evidence on the effectiveness and implementation of interventions for health promotion in UEC settings.MethodsPubMed and Embase (OVID) databases were used to search for studies published in English between January 2010 and January 2023. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that examined the effectiveness or implementation of face-to-face health promotion interventions for lifestyle behaviours delivered in UEC settings were eligible. Extracted data were synthesised and qualitatively summarised by lifestyle behaviour. Reviews were quality assessed using AMSTAR 2.ResultsEighteen reviews met the inclusion criteria; all included studies were conducted in emergency departments or trauma units. We identified 15 reviews on alcohol interventions (13 on effectiveness; 2 on implementation) and 3 on smoking interventions (effectiveness). There were no reviews of intervention studies targeting physical activity or diet and nutrition. There was heterogeneity across studies for study design, target populations, intervention design and content, comparator/control groups and outcomes assessed. The effectiveness of alcohol and smoking interventions in UEC settings varied but some reviews provided evidence of a significant decrease in alcohol consumption, alcohol-related outcomes and smoking in intervention groups, particularly in the short-term and in specific population groups. Research has focused on ‘brief’ interventions as part of screening, brief intervention and referral to treatment (SBIRT) approaches. Interventions are delivered by a wide range of staff with substantial variation in design. Alcohol brief interventions appear to be acceptable to UEC patients but clinicians face barriers in delivering them.ConclusionsUEC settings have been under-researched and appear to be under-utilised for delivering health promotion activities, except for alcohol prevention. Review level evidence suggests alcohol and smoking interventions are warranted in some population groups. However, further research is needed to determine the optimal intervention design, content and delivery mode for lifestyle behaviours which are suitable for implementation in UEC settings and promote long-term intervention effectiveness. Changes in clinical practice may be needed, including increased training, integration into service delivery and supportive policy, to facilitate the implementation of SBIRT for lifestyle behaviours. Interventions may need to be delivered in the wider UEC system such as urgent care centres, minor injury units and walk-in centres, in addition to emergency departments and trauma units, to support and increase health promotion activities in UEC settings.

Substance Use Screening, Brief Intervention, and Referral to Treatment in Multiple Settings: Evaluation of a National Initiative

PurposeThis study evaluated the implementation and outcomes of a multisite initiative to identify and intervene in adolescent substance use across the many settings where youth interact. This paper focuses on the implementation and intermediate outcomes of the initiative, while others in the supplement address impact and ultimate outcomes. MethodsA mixed-methods cross-grantee evaluation was conducted from 2014 to 2019 among 56 recipients of funding from the Conrad N. Hilton Foundation to implement screening, brief intervention, and referral to treatment (SBIRT) across more than 1,266 youth-facing settings. Qualitative and quantitative data were collected from grantees on a quarterly basis, as well as from grantee proposals, progress reports, monthly grantee monitoring calls, and survey findings. ResultsGrantees reported increased capacity to provide SBIRT to youth across various settings: pediatric and primary care practices, community behavioral health organizations, juvenile justice programs, schools, and community-based organizations. Collectively, grantees screened 141,230 youth for substance use, 12,272 received a brief intervention, and 2,212 were referred to treatment. As part of the initiative, grantees provided SBIRT training to over 37,000 nursing and social work students, medical residents, addiction medicine fellows, and others. Implementation challenges included fitting screening into the workflow of primary care settings, confidentiality and consent in schools, reimbursement, and lack of specialist providers to refer to for substance use disorder treatment. Intermediate outcomes collected include total numbers of youth screened, received a brief intervention, and/or referred to more intensive treatment based on their screening scores. ConclusionsResearch on SBIRT in adolescents has been limited to date despite positive outcomes reported in adults. This mixed-methods evaluation of an initiative to expand SBIRT implementation demonstrates feasibility of expanding access to substance use screening and intervention for youth across multiple settings and identifies challenges of implementation that differ somewhat based on settings.

Listening to women and pregnant and postpartum people: Qualitative research to inform opioid use disorder treatment for pregnant and postpartum people

BackgroundThe diagnosis of Opioid Use Disorder (OUD) during pregnancy has increased 2-to-5-fold over the past decade and barriers to treatment are significant. Technology-based solutions have the potential to overcome these barriers and deliver evidence-based treatment. However, these interventions need to be informed by end-users. The goal of this study is to gain feedback from peripartum people with OUD and obstetric providers about a web-based OUD treatment program. MethodsQualitative interviews were conducted with peripartum people with OUD (n = 18) and focus groups were conducted with obstetric providers (n = 19). Feedback from these interviews informed the development of text message-based screening, brief phone-based intervention and referral to treatment program, called Listening to Women and Pregnant and Postpartum People (LTWP). Once developed, further qualitative interviews with peripartum people with OUD (n = 12) and obstetric providers (n = 21) were conducted to gather feedback about the LTWP program. ResultsPatients reported that a relationship with a trusted provider is paramount for treatment engagement. Providers reported that time constraints and complex patient needs prohibit them from treating OUD and that evidence-based Screening, Brief Intervention and Referral to Treatment (SBIRT) are not implemented effectively in routine prenatal care. Neither patients nor providers were enthusiastic about our web-based intervention for OUD; thus, results were used to guide the development of LTWP to improve implementation of SBIRT during prenatal care. ConclusionsEnd-user informed, technology-enhanced SBIRT has the potential to improve the implementation of SBIRT during routine prenatal care, and in turn, improve maternal and child health.

The effect of inpatient addiction screening and intervention on readmissions

AimThe number of individuals in the United States (US) needing treatment for substance use disorder (SUD) but not receiving treatment at a specialty facility was reported to be almost 18 million in 2019. This study measured the difference in subsequent hospital visits between groups, one receiving screening, brief intervention, and referral to treatment (SBIRT) and one receiving usual care. BackgroundThere are studies that discuss SBIRT in terms of process evaluation, staff training, reduced readmission rates, and self-reported reductions in substance use. However, the interrelationship between components of SBIRT implementation, such as feasibility, cost, and sustainability need additional investigation. This study compared readmissions between groups receiving SBIRT counseling (n = 101) and those receiving usual care (n = 99). ResultsThe overall total number of subsequent visits for SUD for the group receiving SBIRT (53) was significantly lower than for the group receiving usual care (128). The overall total number of non-SUD subsequent visits was not significantly different between groups. The study also identified differences between sexes that require further investigation. ConclusionsThe findings of this study demonstrate a measure of difference based on SBIRT intervention. The SBIRT program can be incorporated into daily practice in the acute care setting through nursing education and utilization of the electronic health platform.

Implementation of screening, brief intervention, and referral to treatment (SBIRT) by nurses on acute care units: A qualitative descriptive study

Background: Screening, Brief Intervention, and Referral to Treatment (SBIRT) is an evidence-based intervention for patients with substance use disorders, but this intervention is under-utilized. Little is known about the implementation of SBIRT in acute care facilities. The purpose of this study is to describe implementation of SBIRT by nurses in acute care hospitals. Methods: A qualitative descriptive design was used for this study. Registered nurses who agreed to participate in the study completed a 1:1 interview using a semi-structured interview guide. Interviews were audio recorded and transcribed and then data were analyzed using qualitative content analysis. Results: When implementing SBIRT in an acute care setting, participants identified several factors that affect implementation. Some nurses felt that it is “one more thing to do” but other nurses feel that it was a “good, simple” screening tool that does not take long to do and can “plant the seeds of change” for patients. Additionally, participants mentioned barriers and facilitators related to the patients’ responses to SBIRT and organizational factors. Conclusions: This study identified several barriers and facilitators to SBIRT implementation related to the nurses, patients, and organization. By understanding the factors that influence implementation, healthcare providers can develop strategies to support effective implementation of SBIRT.

70.2 WE SBIRE (SCREENING, BRIEF INTERVENTION, AND REFERRAL TO EVALUATION FOR SUBSTANCE USE) TO MAKE SBIRT (SUBSTANCE SCREENING, BRIEF INTERVENTION, AND REFERRAL TO TREATMENT) WORK

Less than 10% of adolescents who could benefit from substance treatment receive it. In an effort to address this gap in 2011, the AAP recommended universal adoption of Screening, Brief Intervention, and Referral to Treatment (SBIRT) in pediatric primary care settings. Unfortunately, despite widespread implementation of SBIRT, service utilization figures have remained stubbornly persistent over the past decade, leading us to conclude that SBIRT, in its current form, is not working. To overcome the limitations of SBIRT, Paula Riggs, MD, has partnered with pediatric primary care providers to develop “warm handoff” procedures to enhance adolescent substance treatment engagement in which pediatric clinicians screen and refer substance-involved adolescents for brief consultative evaluation (SBIRE), not treatment (SBIRT). Pediatric primary care providers are trained to administer Screening to Brief Intervention (S2BI)—a brief, well-validated substance screening measure—at annual adolescent well-visits. Youth who report at least monthly drug/alcohol use are asked for their consent to share screening results and be contacted by an expert in adolescent substance use for a brief consultative evaluation. During a brief telephone consultation/evaluation lasting 15 to 20 minutes, youth are provided with psychoeducation relevant to their screening results, along with information about treatment and motivational enhancement approaches, to facilitate treatment engagement. Since implementation (September 2020), 27 adolescents have screened positive on the S2BI and consented to referral and brief expert consultation/evaluation. Among these adolescents, 1 out of 27 lived in a different state and 2 out of 27 could not be reached by phone despite multiple attempts. Among the 24 who participated in brief telephone consultation/evaluation, 18 (75%) engaged in substance treatment (5 inpatient detox or residential; 13 outpatient substance treatment). These preliminary findings suggest that the SBIRE approach may significantly enhance adolescent substance treatment engagement compared to conventional SBIRT protocols.

70.1 SUBSTANCE SCREENING, BRIEF INTERVENTION, AND REFERRAL TO TREATMENT (SBIRT): IS IT WORKING FOR ADOLESCENTS?

The objectives of this presentation are to: 1) review the principles of Screening, Brief Intervention, and Referral to Treatment (SBIRT); and 2) review adolescent outcomes of SBIRT implementation. A review of the literature was conducted in PubMed. We will review validated adolescent substance use screens and utilize case vignettes with examples of brief interventions, including referral to treatment, that illustrate the foundational principles of SBIRT. Substance use and other clinical outcomes, including specialty care follow-up, will be reviewed. An estimated 14.4% of youth ages 12 to 18 years old meet the DSM-5 criteria for a substance use disorder (SUD), of whom less than 10% receive treatment. Universal substance use screening, brief intervention (BI), and referral to treatment (RT) is recommended starting at age 12 years old. BI is an evidence-based, individualized intervention to respond to adolescent substance use screening results. Utilization of BI is associated with significant efforts to change substance use behaviors, including reduction in binge drinking episodes, drinking and driving, and alcohol-related injuries. While studies show that BI is associated with an overall decrease in cannabis and other illicit drug use, results for alcohol consumption are mixed. Adolescents who receive BI also have fewer acute care visits and lower use of outpatient services, including mental health. To date, the majority of “SBIRT” studies do not report on RT or adolescent follow-up with substance use treatment specialists post-BI. In adults, SBIRT is not associated with establishing specialty outpatient care. Two SBIRT trials in emergency department settings report that 5% to 25% of adolescents who received SBIRT interventions sought outpatient treatment. Delivery by a behavioral health clinician or the adolescent’s primary counselor significantly increases the odds of initiating outpatient treatment. SBIRT is an evidence-based intervention recommended for all adolescents to prevent or delay the onset of substance use and to provide individualized BI and RT for adolescents with problematic substance use and SUD. However, significant barriers remain to facilitating adolescent participation in outpatient specialty treatment.

Can alcohol consumption in Germany be reduced by alcohol screening, brief intervention and referral to treatment in primary health care? Results of a simulation study.

Screening, brief intervention and referral to treatment (SBIRT) is a programme to reduce alcohol consumption for drinkers with high alcohol consumption levels. Only 2.9% of patients in primary health care (PHC) are screened for their alcohol use in Germany, despite high levels of alcohol consumption and attributable harm. We developed an open-access simulation model to estimate the impact of higher SBIRT delivery rates in German PHC settings on population-level alcohol consumption. A hypothetical population of drinkers and non-drinkers was simulated by sex, age, and educational status for the year 2009 based on survey and sales data. Risky drinking persons receiving BI or RT were sampled from this population based on screening coverage and other parameters. Running the simulation model for a ten-year period, drinking levels and heavy episodic drinking (HED) status were changed based on effect sizes from meta-analyses. In the baseline scenario of 2.9% screening coverage, 2.4% of the adult German population received a subsequent intervention between 2009 and 2018. If every second PHC patient would have been screened for alcohol use, 21% of adult residents in Germany would have received BI or RT by the end of the ten-year simulation period. In this scenario, population-level alcohol consumption would be 11% lower than it was in 2018, without any impact on HED prevalence. Screening coverage rates below 10% were not found to have a measurable effect on drinking levels. Large-scale implementation of SBIRT in PHC settings can yield substantial reductions of alcohol consumption in Germany. As high screening coverage rates may only be achievable in the long run, other effective alcohol policies are required to achieve short-term reduction of alcohol use and attributable harm in Germany. There is large potential to apply this open-access simulation model to other settings and for other alcohol interventions.

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.

Advancing a cascading train-the-trainer model of frontline HIV service providers in South Africa: protocol of an implementation trial

BackgroundSouth Africa is marked by high rates of both HIV and alcohol use, and there is a detrimental synergistic relationship between these two epidemics. The Institute of Medicine recommends integrated care for alcohol use treatment and HIV, but implementation of integrated services remains a challenge in South Africa. This protocol describes a study designed to evaluate trainer, provider-, and patient encounter-level outcomes relating to the national rollout of a cascade train-the-trainer model of task-sharing to build capacity of the HIV workforce to deliver Screening, Brief Intervention, and Referral to Treatment (SBIRT) to address risky alcohol use.MethodsThis 5 year protocol consists of two phases. First, we will finalize development of a robust SBIRT train-the-trainer model, which will include an SBIRT Trainer Manual, Provider Resource Guide, fidelity observational coding system, case vignettes, and a curriculum for ongoing consultation sessions. Materials will be designed to build the capacity of novice trainers to train lay workers to deliver SBIRT with fidelity. Second, we will recruit 24–36 trainers and 900 providers in order to evaluate the effects of the SBIRT train-the-trainer model on trainer- (e.g., fidelity, knowledge), provider- (e.g., SBIRT attitudes, confidence, acceptability), and patient encounter- (e.g., proportion receiving screening, brief intervention, referral to treatment) level variables. Data on patient encounters will be tracked by providers on programmed tablets or scannable paper forms in real-time. Providers will report on SBIRT delivery on an ongoing basis over a 6-months period. Additionally, we will test the hypothesis that trainer-level factors will account for a substantial proportion of variability in provider-level factors which will, in turn, account for a substantial proportion of variability in patient encounter-level outcomes.DiscussionThis protocol will allow us to take advantage of a unique national training initiative to gather comprehensive data on multi-level factors associated with the implementation of SBIRT in HIV service settings. In the long-term, this research can help to advance the implementation of integrated alcohol-HIV services, providing lessons that can extend to other low-and-middle income countries confronting dual epidemics.

Interprofessional development case study of an SBIRT web-based app for education and practice

Screening, Brief Intervention, and Referral to Treatment (SBIRT) is an approach to identify and reduce risk and harm from substance use. However, research indicates that implementing components of SBIRT, such as the use of validated screening tools, can be challenging for healthcare professionals. The growing use of digital technology in healthcare may provide an approach to mitigate these barriers. However, outcomes from SBIRT learning and implementation apps rarely are studied, and even less research has examined the development processes behind such tools. This paper, therefore, presents a single-case study of how an interprofessional team of scholars created a web-based SBIRT app.

Strategies for Alcohol Screening, Brief Intervention, and Referral to Treatment Sustainability in the Emergency Department.

Alcohol misuse remains the fourth leading cause of preventable death in the United States, with nearly 90,000 deaths occurring annually as a consequence of alcohol misuse. Screening, brief intervention, and referral to treatment (SBIRT) is an evidence-based strategy that includes initial screening using a valid tool, determining the need for intervention, a brief motivational interview, and referral to treatment leading to follow-up care when necessary. Although an abundance of evidence-based practices now exist as a guideline for quality patient care, an inconsistency persists between protocols supported by research and those actually integrated into daily clinical practice. Currently, there is little in the literature examining the sustainability of SBIRT programs in emergency departments. The authors examine challenges to SBIRT implementation in the emergency department and propose a number of strategies to ensure continued sustainability of this evidence-based practice.