Search

Background: The pediatric emergency department (PED) represents an opportune time for alcohol and drug screening. The National Institute of Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA) recommends a two-question alcohol screen for adolescents as a predictor of alcohol and drug misuse., Objective: A multi-site PED study was conducted to determine the association between the NIAAA two-question alcohol screen and adolescent cannabis use disorders (CUD), cigarette smoking, and lifetime use of other drugs., Methods: Participants included 12-17-year olds (n = 4834) treated in one of 16 participating PEDs. An assessment battery, including the NIAAA two-question screen and other measures of alcohol, tobacco and drug use, was self-administered on a tablet computer., Results: A diagnosis of CUD, lifetime tobacco use or lifetime drug use was predicted by any self-reported alcohol use in the past year, which indicates a classification of moderate risk for middle school ages and low risk for high school ages on the NIAAA two-question screen. Drinking was most strongly predictive of a CUD, somewhat weaker for lifetime tobacco use, and weakest for lifetime drug use. This same pattern held for high school and middle school students and was stronger for high school students over middle school students for all three categories. This association was also found across gender, ethnicity and race. The association was strongest for CUD for high school students, sensitivity 81.7% (95% CI, 77.0, 86.5) and specificity 70.4% (95% CI, 68.6, 72.1). Conclusions/Importance: A single question about past year alcohol use can provide valuable information about other substance use, particularly marijuana.

Objective: To measure the effect of motor vehicle crash (MVC) involvement and readiness to change drinking and driving behaviors on subsequent driving and drinking behaviors among injured emergency department (ED) patients who use alcohol at harmful levels., Methods: This was a secondary analysis of a randomized controlled trial of injured ED patients who screened positive for harmful alcohol use, who at recruitment reported driving in the past 12 months and received at least one of the intended intervention sessions (brief behavioral intervention versus attention placebo control; N = 407). Outcome variables were as follows: (1) change in 6 impaired driving behaviors and (2) report of MVCs and traffic violations in the 12 months following recruitment; predictor variables were as follows: (1) treatment assignment, (2) MVC involvement at recruitment, and (3) baseline readiness to change alcohol use and drinking and driving., Results: Modeling of change in the 6 impaired driving variables indicated that neither the recruitment visits being MVC related nor baseline readiness to change alcohol use and drinking and driving behaviors predicted greater changes in impaired driving over time. Baseline reports of past moving traffic violations and the ED visit being MVC related predicted a greater likelihood of each behavior at 12 months following study recruitment., Conclusions: This study and others have demonstrated that ED patients with harmful alcohol use are willing to engage in behavioral interventions directed at changing risky behaviors. However, this study did not demonstrate that patients considered having the potential to be more engaged with the intervention because their ED visit was MVC related and/or they had expressed intent to change their risky alcohol use and drinking and driving behaviors were more likely to change these risky behaviors.

Background and Objective: A multisite study was conducted to determine the psychometric properties of the National Institute of Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA) 2-question alcohol screen within pediatric emergency departments (PEDs)., Methods: Participants (N = 4838) included 12- to 17-year-old subjects treated in 1 of the 16 participating PEDs across the United States. A criterion assessment battery (including the NIAAA 2-question alcohol screen and other measures of alcohol, drug use, and risk behaviors) was self-administered on a tablet computer. A subsample (n = 186) was re-administered the NIAAA 2-question screen 1 week later to assess test-retest reliability., Results: Moderate to good test-retest reliability was demonstrated. A classification of moderate risk or higher on the screen had the best combined sensitivity and specificity for determining a diagnosis of alcohol use disorder (AUD) for all students. Any past year drinking among middle school students increased the odds of a diagnosis of an AUD according to Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition criteria, whereas the optimal cutoff for high school ages was ≥3 drinking days in the past year. The optimal cutoff for drinking days determining a positive Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test score among middle school subjects was ≥1 drinking day, whereas the optimal cutoff for high school subjects was ≥2 drinking days., Conclusions: The NIAAA 2-question screen is a brief, valid approach for alcohol screening in PEDs. A positive screen suggests that referral for further evaluation is indicated to determine if an adolescent has an AUD., Competing Interests: POTENTIAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST: The authors have indicated they have no potential conflicts of interest to disclose., (Copyright © 2016 by the American Academy of Pediatrics.)

Objective: Effects of brief motivational interventions (BMIs) for heavy drinkers identified by alcohol-related emergency department (ED) visits are mixed. The successes of including significant others (SOs) in behavioral treatment suggest that involving SOs in ED-delivered BMI might prove beneficial. This study investigated the relative efficacy of an SO-enhanced motivational intervention (SOMI) compared with an individual motivational intervention (IMI) to address heavy drinking in emergency care settings., Method: ED (n = 317) or trauma unit (n = 89) patients were randomly assigned to receive either an IMI or an SOMI and were reassessed at 6 and 12 months for alcohol consumption, alcohol-related consequences, and perceived alcohol-specific SO support., Results: Generalized estimating equation analyses showed consistent reductions over time for both alcohol consumption and consequences. At 1-year follow-up, the average reduction in total drinks consumed per week was greater for patients in the SOMI condition than the IMI condition. In SOMI, 9.4% more patients moved to within the national guidelines for weekly drinking than did IMI patients. Frequency of heavy drinking and negative alcohol consequences showed no differential effects of intervention., Conclusions: Emergence of a modest treatment effect at 12 months suggests that SO involvement in the SOMI condition may have led to more sustained positive influence on patient drinking than in the IMI condition. Implications and limitations regarding SO involvement in brief treatment are discussed.

Background: Alcohol use in college-age individuals is associated with increased injury risk. Many college drinkers end up in the emergency department (ED) as a result of their drinking, providing a unique opportunity to intervene., Objective: This systematic review evaluates the existing evidence for the use of brief ED interventions for alcohol use in the college-age population., Methods: A systematic search of on-line databases was conducted. Articles were limited to those in English published since 1990. Studies were included if they specifically studied 18- to 20-year-old alcohol users, if they were performed in an ED or acute care setting, and if an intervention regarding alcohol use was attempted., Results: There were 400 studies identified; 60 abstracts were reviewed, 18 full-text articles were evaluated, and 7 met the inclusion criteria for review. Eligible studies focused on alcohol use only, except for one study that addressed alcohol and other drug use. All examined changes in alcohol intake patterns as a primary outcome, and most also looked for reductions in alcohol-related harm. Each found reductions in alcohol intake patterns or reductions in alcohol-related harm in the intervention group, although some between-group differences were not statistically significant reductions., Conclusion: Seven studies were identified that measured the outcomes of ED interventions for alcohol use in the college-age population. The studied interventions showed promise but had variable success. More research is needed to establish short- and long-term efficacy, specifically in high-risk underage college students., (Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: The objective of this study was to determine feasibility and acceptability of a brief pediatric emergency department (PED) prevention intervention to delay/prevent initiation of alcohol use in 12-to 14-year-olds., Methods: Medically stable 12- to 14-year-olds presenting to the PED who were accompanied by a parent and who had not initiated alcohol use were eligible. Adolescent-parent dyads completed a computerized assessment and were randomized to either brief targeted prevention intervention (BPI) or enhanced standard care (ESC). Families randomized to BPI participated in a PED-based motivational interviewing and skill building-based session with a trained counselor. Parents randomized to BPI had telephone boosters at 1 and 3 months. Families randomized to ESC received standard care and adolescent substance use pamphlets. All dyads completed 6-month follow-up assessments to assess alcohol use-related outcomes., Results: Two hundred twenty-eight families were approached: 122 were eligible and 104 were enrolled (85%). Mean youth age was 13 (SD, 0.83) years, 51% were female, and 90% of parents were females. Of the 104 enrolled, 5 withdrew; 99 (94%) completed the assessment battery in the PED in less than 30 minutes. All BPI dyads completed the counseling session in the PED. However, only 53% of BPI parents completed the booster telephone sessions. Brief targeted prevention intervention acceptability items were rated favorably (82%-100%) by both parents and adolescents. There were no differences between BPI and ESC on substance-related outcomes, although the study was not adequately powered for this purpose because it was designed as a feasibility study., Conclusions: A BPI in the PED is both feasible and acceptable, but phone boosters proved less feasible. Larger samples and further study are needed to identify efficacy of the BPI in delaying onset of alcohol use in teens.

Objective: Standardized measures of self-reported alcohol use are the predominant method by which change in alcohol use following interventions is evaluated. This study examined whether the invariance of the test-retest pretreatment Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT) was affected by the treatment experience. In this study, the intervening exposure was to motivational interviewing (MI) versus community service (CS), the treatment-as-usual control group., Method: Analyses were conducted on a subsample of court-referred 16- to 21-year-olds recruited into a randomized controlled trial examining the effects of MI on alcohol use and police charges for risky driving and/or drinking. Youths were randomized to CS or MI. A subsample of 478 participants, who at baseline completed the AUDIT in reference to alcohol use for the 6 months before their conviction, later repeated the AUDIT at treatment completion, in reference to the same 6-month baseline period., Results: At completion of treatment, participants receiving CS had a significant decrease in baseline AUDIT scores, whereas those in MI reported no significant change. The difference between the two groups was significant (p = .02). Also, of those who reported no drinking before treatment, after receiving MI, 33.5% changed their response and acknowledged pretreatment drinking, compared with only 8.3% in CS., Conclusions: These results suggest that treatment received may differentially affect a standardized measure of self-reported risky drinking. This effect may be attributable to the treatment experience and/or the experience of the control group. Possible explanations for the effect are explored, including more honesty because of a trusting therapeutic alliance and a response shift bias. Differential change in self-report might affect treatment outcome assessment. Depending on the treatment contrasts, research that relies on pre- to post-treatment changes in self-report may be underestimating treatment effects.

By the age of 18, between 16 and 27% of adolescents in the U.S. have been arrested for an offense and by the age of 23 this increases to a staggering 25-41%. Most youth that get into legal trouble have a substance abuse problem and many youth report high risk driving behaviors. Adjudication of adolescents for an offense may provide an opportunity to provide a secondary prevention program for such high risk behaviors. In this regard the primary aim of the present study was to test two hypotheses: (1) that interventions involving group motivational interviewing would decrease future legal charges beyond those achieved by the combination of sanctions and remedial actions otherwise mandated by the court; and (2) that the addition of a trauma room exposure to the group MI intervention would increase the effectiveness of MI in decreasing these future legal charges. Court mandated youth who have had a high risk driving police charge and/or alcohol related police charge and who are drivers (n=992) were randomly assigned to one of the three 20h interventions; enhanced prototypic community service (CS), Motivational Intervention with typical community service (MI), and Motivational Intervention with exposure to a hospital trauma center (MI-H). As hypothesized, the probability of being charged with an offense within the 6 months post-treatment was significantly less for participants in the combined MI groups than those in the CS group. The combined MI groups also had significantly fewer overall number of police charge events than the CS group at 6 months. Mediation analyses revealed that the relationship between MI vs. CS interventions and subsequent police charges was partially accounted for by the youth's experience of the MI component of the intervention. Despite fewer police charges at 6 months the combined MI group reported (1) significantly more hazardous drinking and (2) a greater amount of speeding and distracted driving than the control group over this same 6-month period. Hypothesis 2, that MI-H would be more effective than MI in reducing police charges, was not supported. This was so despite evidence supporting the hypotheses that (1) trauma room exposure would increase participants' emotional arousal during the intervention and (2) increased arousal would be predictive of fewer police charges. Despite support for the theorized causal pathway, the combination of trauma room exposure and MI did not result in better outcomes than MI combined with traditional community service. Given this discrepancy between empirical supports for the theory in the face of the absence of incremental effectiveness of the MI-H treatment condition, a better understanding of the participant's hospital experience will be necessary if we are to successfully utilize the trauma room exposure to increase the effectiveness of MI interventions for this target group to achieve better outcomes., (Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Decreasing Injuries from ALcohol (DIAL) is a randomised control trial of a telephone brief intervention (BI) with injured emergency department (ED) patients with high-risk alcohol use. Here the authors examine 12-month outcomes of the intervention's effect on alcohol use, alcohol-related injuries and alcohol-related negative consequences., Methods: ED research assistants recruited adult injured patients who screened positive for high-risk alcohol use and were to be discharged home. After discharge, all participants received by telephone an assessment of their alcohol use, alcohol-related injuries, and alcohol-related negative consequences and then were randomised to treatment or standard care. Treatment consisted of two telephone sessions of BI focusing on risky alcohol use. Both groups were reassessed after 12 months., Results: At 12 months, 249 (89%) participants completed follow-up assessments. After using a log transformation, the difference in alcohol-related injuries between baseline and 12-month follow-up was greater in the BI group than the standard care group (p=0.04); this is an effect size of Cohen's d=0.21. No difference between groups was found when comparing change in alcohol consumption and other alcohol-related negative consequences at 12 months., Conclusions: These findings suggest that a telephone BI with injured ED patients may decrease alcohol-related injuries. Identifying patients with risky alcohol use in the ED and then subsequently delivering the intervention by telephone after discharge has promise as a model for BI and deserves further study.

Background: The impact of gender and violence on brief interventions (BIs) for alcohol use in the emergency department (ED) has not been studied. Our objective was to examine the effectiveness of alcohol BIs in an ED population stratified by gender and violence., Methods: This was a secondary analysis of datasets pooled from three ED-based randomized controlled studies of alcohol BIs. AUDIT-C was the primary outcome measure; secondary outcomes were binge drinking and achievement of NIAAA safe drinking levels. We conducted univariate comparisons and developed generalized linear models (GLM) for the primary outcome and generalized estimating equation (GEE) models for secondary outcomes to examine the intervention effect on the whole study group, gender-stratified subgroups, and gender- and violence-stratified subgroups., Results: Of 1219 participants enrolled, 30% were female; 31% of women and 42% of men reported violence involvement at baseline. In univariate analysis, no differences in outcomes were found between intervention and control groups for any subgroup. However, in multivariable models, men demonstrated an intervention effect for likelihood of safe drinking limits. Stratifying further by violence, only men without violence involvement demonstrated a positive intervention effect for safe drinking limits. There was no evidence of an intervention effect on women., Conclusions: Analyzing the overall effect of ED-based BI may mask its ability to improve alcohol-related outcomes in a subset of the population. Alternatively, interventions may need to be significantly improved in subsets of the ED population, e.g., in women and in men with involvement in violence., (Copyright © 2012 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Alcohol is the most common psychoactive substance used with marijuana. However, little is known about the potential impact of different levels of use of both alcohol and marijuana and their influence on risky behaviors, injuries and psychosocial functioning. A systematic approach to identifying patterns of alcohol and marijuana use associated with increased risks has not yet been identified in the literature. We report on the secondary analysis of data collected from a RCT conducted in a busy urban emergency department. Cluster analysis was performed on the patterns of past 30-day alcohol and marijuana use in two random subsamples N₁=210 and N₂=217. Four distinct subtypes of those who use both alcohol and marijuana were identified: (1) Daily Marijuana and Weekly Alcohol users; (2) Weekly Alcohol and Weekly Marijuana users; (3) Daily Alcohol and Daily Marijuana users; and (4) Daily Alcohol, Weekly Marijuana users. The four subtypes were replicated in both subsamples and examination of the external validity using ANOVA to determine cluster differences on psychosocial and behavioral variables confirmed the theoretical relevance of different patterns of alcohol and marijuana use. There were significantly different psychosocial negative consequences and related risky behaviors among subtypes. We found that Daily Alcohol and Daily Marijuana users are at the highest risk to experience more negative consequences and engage in a broader spectrum of risky behaviors related to both substances, than the other three types of alcohol and marijuana users., (Copyright © 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Study Objective: We describe current alcohol screening and brief intervention practices in emergency departments (EDs) at Level I and Level II trauma centers and characterize ED directors' attitudes and perceived barriers associated with these practices among injured patients in the ED., Methods: ED directors at Level I and Level II trauma centers were surveyed about current alcohol screening and intervention practices in the ED, as well as knowledge, attitudes, and perceived barriers to these practices., Results: Nearly half (46.0%) of ED directors surveyed responded. The majority (64.5%) reported using a serum alcohol level to routinely screen for unhealthy alcohol use; only 23.6% routinely use standardized instruments. Sixty-five percent of ED directors support screening and 70% support intervention among injured ED patients. Only 15% reported having formal screening and intervention policies in their ED, and 9% reported offering brief alcohol intervention by trained personnel. The most commonly perceived barriers to implementation are provider time (83%) and financial resources (55%). Of injured patients identified as exhibiting alcohol misuse, few (12%) receive brief intervention conducted by trained personnel., Conclusion: Current alcohol screening and brief intervention practices are lagging behind national guidelines. Although the majority of ED directors support the idea of alcohol screening and intervention, these beliefs have not yet been translated to routine clinical care., (Copyright (c) 2009 American College of Emergency Physicians. Published by Mosby, Inc. All rights reserved.)

This article examines 14 studies that assessed the effectiveness of brief interventions (BIs) delivered to injury patients in emergency care settings. The aims were to review findings concerning the effectiveness of providing BI in these settings and to explore factors contributing to its effectiveness. Of the 12 studies that compared pre- and post-BI results, 11 observed a significant effect of BI on at least some of the outcomes: alcohol intake, risky drinking practices, alcohol-related negative consequences, and injury frequency. Two studies assessed only post-BI results. More intensive interventions tended to yield more favorable results. BI patients achieved greater reductions than control group patients, although there was a tendency for the control group(s) to also show improvements. Five studies failed to show significant differences between the compared treatment conditions. Variations in the study protocol, alcohol-related recruitment criteria, screening and assessment methods, and injury severity limit the specific conclusions that can be drawn.

Study Objective: Brief interventions for high-risk alcohol use for injured emergency department (ED) patients have demonstrated effectiveness and may have a more pronounced effect with motor vehicle crash patients. We report on 3-month outcome data of a randomized controlled trial of injured patients, using a novel model of telephone-delivered brief interventions after ED discharge., Methods: ED research assistants recruited adult injured patients who screened positive for high-risk alcohol use and were to be discharged home. After discharge, participants received by telephone an assessment of alcohol use and impaired driving and then were randomized to treatment (n=140) or standard care (n=145). Treatment consisted of 2 sessions of brief interventions done by telephone, focusing on risky alcohol use. At 3 months, both groups had an assessment of alcohol use and impaired driving., Results: Two hundred eighty-five patients were randomized and had a baseline mean Alcohol Use Disorders Inventory Test (AUDIT) score of 11.0 (SD=7.4). Three-month follow-up assessments were completed on 273 (95%). Mean AUDIT score decreased in both the treatment (mean change=-3.4; 95% confidence interval [CI] -4.5 to -2.3) and standard care group (mean change=-3.2; 95% CI -4.2 to -2.2). Measures of impaired driving decreased for the treatment group (mean change=-1.4 95%; CI -3.0 to 0.2) compared with standard care group (mean change=1.0; 95% CI -0.9 to 2.9; P=.04; d=0.31). Participants were stratified post hoc into 3 groups by baseline alcohol problem, with the treatment effect only being in the highest-scoring group (d=.30)., Conclusion: Telephone brief interventions decreased impaired driving in our treatment group. Telephone brief intervention appears to offer an alternative mechanism to deliver brief intervention for alcohol in this at-risk ED population.

Little is known about treatment process for behavior change for brief interventions. Patient ratings of treatment process during a patient-centered brief intervention for alcohol were used to predict post-treatment alcohol use and consequences. We use data from a randomized clinical trial that compared the effects of BI (1 session) to BI and booster (BIB, 2 sessions) to reduce harmful drinking and alcohol consequences. Subjects were n=167 (BI) and n=82 (BIB). Five of the 12 ratings were rated significantly higher by those in the BIB condition compared to BI. The only predictor of reduced alcohol consequences at 12-months was higher ratings of, "I have obtained some new understanding," for BIB participants (t=-2.50, p<.05). Patient perspectives on treatment may have a role in patient outcomes and should be explored as a dimension of treatment process.

Study Objective: This study compares the effect of a brief motivational intervention for alcohol plus a booster given to emergency department (ED) patients with subcritical injuries from a motor vehicle crash with the effect of brief motivational intervention for alcohol plus a booster in patients treated for non-motor vehicle crash-related injuries., Methods: A randomized controlled trial (n=539) was conducted at an urban Level I trauma center of brief intervention (1 ED session of brief intervention), brief motivational intervention for alcohol plus a booster (1 ED session plus booster session), or standard care for injured ED patients with an alcohol use problem who were being discharged home. At 12 months, alcohol-related negative consequences and injuries were measured. We performed a secondary analysis comparing motor vehicle crash-injured patients and non-motor vehicle crash-injured patients in the study sample., Results: Subcritically injured ED patients with harmful or hazardous alcohol use who received brief motivational intervention for alcohol plus a booster had fewer alcohol-related negative consequences and alcohol-related injuries than those receiving brief intervention or standard care at 12-month follow-up (previously reported). A secondary analysis of this result showed that motor vehicle crash patients (n=133) given brief motivational intervention for alcohol plus a booster (n=34) had fewer alcohol-related injuries than those receiving standard care (n=46; P =.001). Moreover, there were no significant differences in alcohol-related injuries among the non-motor vehicle crash-injured patients who received brief intervention or standard care., Conclusion: Brief motivational intervention for alcohol plus a booster is a useful intervention for subcritically injured ED patients with harmful or hazardous alcohol use. Its effects may be moderated by the cause of injury.