Search

Abstract Background Substance use-related emergency department (ED) visits have increased substantially in North America. Screening for substance use in EDs is recommended; best approaches are unclear. This systematic review synthesizes evidence on diagnostic accuracy of ED screening tools to detect harmful substance use. Methods We included derivation or validation studies, with or without comparator, that included adult (≥ 18 years) ED patients and evaluated screening tools to identify general or specific substance use disorders or harmful use. Our search strategy combined concepts Emergency Department AND Screening AND Substance Use. Trained reviewers assessed title/abstracts and full-text articles for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias (QUADAS-2) independently and in duplicate. Reviewers resolved disagreements by discussion. Primary investigators adjudicated if necessary. Heterogeneity precluded meta-analysis. We descriptively summarized results. Results Our search strategy yielded 2696 studies; we included 33. Twenty-one (64%) evaluated a North American population. Fourteen (42%) applied screening among general ED patients. Screening tools were administered by research staff (n = 21), self-administered by patients (n = 10), or non-research healthcare providers (n = 1). Most studies evaluated alcohol use screens (n = 26), most commonly the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT; n = 14), Cut down/Annoyed/Guilty/Eye-opener (CAGE; n = 13), and Rapid Alcohol Problems Screen (RAPS/RAPS4/RAPS4-QF; n = 12). Four studies assessing six tools and screening thresholds for alcohol abuse/dependence in North American patients (AUDIT ≥ 8; CAGE ≥ 2; Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th Edition [DSM-IV-2] ≥ 1; RAPS ≥ 1; National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism [NIAAA]; Tolerance/Worry/Eye-opener/Amnesia/K-Cut down [TWEAK] ≥ 3) reported both sensitivities and specificities ≥ 83%. Two studies evaluating a single alcohol screening question (SASQ) (When was the last time you had more than X drinks in 1 day?, X = 4 for women; X = 5 for men) reported sensitivities 82–85% and specificities 70–77%. Five evaluated screening tools for general substance abuse/dependence (Relax/Alone/Friends/Family/Trouble [RAFFT] ≥ 3, Drug Abuse Screening Test [DAST] ≥ 4, single drug screening question, Alcohol, Smoking and Substance Involvement Screening Test [ASSIST] ≥ 42/18), reporting sensitivities 64%-90% and specificities 61%-100%. Studies’ risk of bias were mostly high or uncertain. Conclusions Six screening tools demonstrated both sensitivities and specificities ≥ 83% for detecting alcohol abuse/dependence in EDs. Tools with the highest sensitivities (AUDIT ≥ 8; RAPS ≥ 1) and that prioritize simplicity and efficiency (SASQ) should be prioritized.

Background: Substance use-related emergency department (ED) visits have increased substantially in North America. Screening for substance use in EDs is recommended; best approaches are unclear. This systematic review synthesizes evidence on diagnostic accuracy of ED screening tools to detect harmful substance use. Methods: We included derivation or validation studies, with or without comparator, that included adult (≥ 18 years) ED patients and evaluated screening tools to identify general or specific substance use disorders or harmful use. Our search strategy combined concepts Emergency Department AND Screening AND Substance Use. Trained reviewers assessed title/abstracts and full-text articles for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias (QUADAS-2) independently and in duplicate. Reviewers resolved disagreements by discussion. Primary investigators adjudicated if necessary. Heterogeneity precluded meta-analysis. We descriptively summarized results. Results: Our search strategy yielded 2696 studies; we included 33. Twenty-one (64%) evaluated a North American population. Fourteen (42%) applied screening among general ED patients. Screening tools were administered by research staff (n = 21), self-administered by patients (n = 10), or non-research healthcare providers (n = 1). Most studies evaluated alcohol use screens (n = 26), most commonly the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT; n = 14), Cut down/Annoyed/Guilty/Eye-opener (CAGE; n = 13), and Rapid Alcohol Problems Screen (RAPS/RAPS4/RAPS4-QF; n = 12). Four studies assessing six tools and screening thresholds for alcohol abuse/dependence in North American patients (AUDIT ≥ 8; CAGE ≥ 2; Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th Edition [DSM-IV-2] ≥ 1; RAPS ≥ 1; National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism [NIAAA]; Tolerance/Worry/Eye-opener/Amnesia/K-Cut down [TWEAK] ≥ 3) reported both sensitivities and specificities ≥ 83%. Two studies evaluating a single alcohol screening question (SASQ) (When was the last time you had more than X drinks in 1 day?, X = 4 for women; X = 5 for men) reported sensitivities 82–85% and specificities 70–77%. Five evaluated screening tools for general substance abuse/dependence (Relax/Alone/Friends/Family/Trouble [RAFFT] ≥ 3, Drug Abuse Screening Test [DAST] ≥ 4, single drug screening question, Alcohol, Smoking and Substance Involvement Screening Test [ASSIST] ≥ 42/18), reporting sensitivities 64%-90% and specificities 61%-100%. Studies' risk of bias were mostly high or uncertain. Conclusions: Six screening tools demonstrated both sensitivities and specificities ≥ 83% for detecting alcohol abuse/dependence in EDs. Tools with the highest sensitivities (AUDIT ≥ 8; RAPS ≥ 1) and that prioritize simplicity and efficiency (SASQ) should be prioritized. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Background The TAPS Tool is a substance use screening and brief assessment instrument that was developed for use in primary care medical settings. It is one of the first screening instruments to provide rapid assessment of all commonly used substance classes, including illicit and prescription opioids, and is one of the only available screeners designed and validated in an electronic self-administered format (myTAPS). This secondary analysis of data from the TAPS Tool validation study describes the feasibility and acceptability of the myTAPS among primary care patients. Methods Adult patients (N = 2000) from five primary care clinics completed the TAPS Tool on a tablet computer (myTAPS), and in an interviewer-administered format. Requests for assistance and time required were tracked, and participants completed a survey on ease of use, utilization of audio guidance, and format preference. Logistic regression was used to examine outcomes in defined subpopulations, including groups that may have greater difficulty completing an electronic screener, and those that may prefer an electronic self-administered approach. Results Almost all participants (98.3%) reported that the myTAPS was easy to use. The median time to complete myTAPS screening was 4.0 min (mean 4.48, standard deviation 2.57). More time was required by participants who were older, Hispanic, Black, or reported non-medical prescription drug use, while less time was required by women. Assistance was requested by 25% of participants, and was more frequently requested by those who with lower education (OR = 2.08, 95% CI 1.62–2.67) or age > 65 years (OR = 2.79, 95% CI 1.98–3.93). Audio guidance was utilized by 18.3%, and was more frequently utilized by participants with lower education (OR = 2.01, 95% CI 1.54–2.63), age > 65 years (OR = 1.79, 95% CI 1.22–2.61), or Black race (OR = 1.30, 95% 1.01–1.68). The myTAPS format was preferred by women (OR = 1.29, 95% CI 1.00–1.66) and individuals with drug use (OR = 1.43, 95% CI 1.09–1.88), while participants with lower education preferred the interviewer-administered format (OR = 2.75, 95% CI 2.00–3.78). Conclusions Overall, myTAPS screening was feasible and well accepted by adult primary care patients. Clinics adopting electronic screening should be prepared to offer assistance to some patients, particularly those who are older or less educated, and should have the capacity to use an interviewer-administered approach when required.

Abstract Background Alcohol and drug use are leading causes of morbidity and mortality that frequently go unidentified in medical settings. As part of a multi-phase study to implement electronic health record-integrated substance use screening in primary care clinics, we interviewed key clinical stakeholders to identify current substance use screening practices, barriers to screening, and recommendations for its implementation. Methods Focus groups and individual interviews were conducted with 67 stakeholders, including patients, primary care providers (faculty and resident physicians), nurses, and medical assistants, in two urban academic health systems. Themes were identified using an inductive approach, revised through an iterative process, and mapped to the Knowledge to Action (KTA) framework, which guides the implementation of new clinical practices (Graham et al. in J Contin Educ Health Prof 26(1):13–24, 2006). Results Factors affecting implementation based on KTA elements were identified from participant narratives. Identifying the problem: Participants consistently agreed that having knowledge of a patient’s substance use is important because of its impacts on health and medical care, that substance use is not properly identified in medical settings currently, and that universal screening is the best approach. Assessing barriers: Patients expressed concerns about consequences of disclosing substance use, confidentiality, and the individual’s own reluctance to acknowledge a substance use problem. Barriers identified by providers included individual-level factors such as lack of clinical knowledge and training, as well as systems-level factors including time pressure, resources, lack of space, and difficulty accessing addiction treatment. Adapting to the local context: Most patients and providers stated that the primary care provider should play a key role in substance use screening and interventions. Opinions diverged regarding the optimal approach to delivering screening, although most preferred a patient self-administered approach. Many providers reported that taking effective action once unhealthy substance use is identified is crucial. Conclusions Participants expressed support for substance use screening as a valuable part of medical care, and identified individual-level as well as systems-level barriers to its implementation. These findings suggest that screening programs should clearly communicate the goals of screening to patients and proactively counteract stigma, address staff concerns regarding time and workflow, and provide education as well as treatment resources to primary care providers.

BACKGROUND: In recent years, drug testing in body fluids has gained popularity for validating self-reported drug use. The storage and transportation of urine specimens is a major concern for remote areas where the facilities for performing drug abuse testing are lacking. AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: The aim of the present study was to develop an efficient method for testing opiate in dried urine spots (DUS) and to evaluate its clinical applicability. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The methodology involved optimization of conditions for extraction, recovery, short-, and long-term stability (room temperature, 4°C,−20°C) for detection of opiate from dried urine spots. Further, the extraction efficiency from dried urine spots was compared with the conventional drug testing methodology. The screening was done by using enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay technique, and confirmation was achieved by gas chromatography equipped with nitrogen phosphorus detector. RESULTS: Deionized water was found to be a suitable extracting solvent compare to bi-carbonate buffer (pH 9.2) and saline. Primary screening was achieved by 2 punches taken from a 20-μl (diameter 1.3 cm) spotted urine samples, whereas confirmation was achieved by 2 complete circles each of 20 μl sample volume. The recovery was found to be 99.41% in water. No sign of significant degradation was seen among all storage conditions. CONCLUSIONS: In the current study, DUS has achieved the same level of precision and reproducibility as that of standard methods used for drug testing in urine. Hence, the DUS sampling appears to have potential to detect opiate among drug users in a clinical setting. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In the treatment of substance use disorder, regular laboratory‐based testing has the dual purpose of monitoring compliance with the prescribed medication and abstention from medically non‐motivated substances (ie, drug abuse screening). The principal specimen for testing is urine, but collection of urine has some disadvantages, for example being more time‐consuming and more intrusive compared to other matrices. There is also the risk of adulteration. This project compared exhaled breath and oral fluid as alternative matrices for drug abuse screening in patients with substance use disorder. All 51 subjects included in the study were enrolled at the Drug Addiction Emergency Unit in Stockholm. Exhaled breath, oral fluid, and urine samples were collected together with a self‐report. Of all 117 self‐reported drug intakes during the previous week, 72% were confirmed in urine, 73% in oral fluid and 39% in exhaled breath. In 31% of the subjects, additional substances other than those self‐reported were detected analytically. For substance abuse screening, urine had the highest detection rate for buprenorphine, cannabis, and benzodiazepines, while oral fluid had the highest detection rate for amphetamines and methadone. Exhaled breath showed the highest detection rate of all matrices for cocaine. To identify significant differences in detection rates between the matrices future studies with larger sampling sizes are needed. Both oral fluid and exhaled breath are viable alternative specimens to urine, depending on the circumstances and purpose of the testing. In the treatment of substance use disorder, regular laboratory‐based testing has the dual purpose of monitoring compliance with the prescribed medication and abstention from medically non‐motivated substances. Both oral fluid and exhaled breath are viable alternative specimens to urine, depending on the circumstances and the purpose of the testing. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study piloted the feasibility of rapidly collecting both self-reports of drug use and saliva specimens for drug toxicology in field settings. The use of oral fluid collection devices to supplement self-reports is unproven in street settings and may pose challenges for field research. Sixty adults who identified as recent illicit drug users were recruited in public settings in New York City and were asked to complete a brief drug screening inventory and provided saliva specimens. Descriptive findings are detailed along with critical best research practices and limitations that provide important directions for researchers looking to employ both toxicology and self-report in rapid field recruitment designs. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Objective: Alcohol misuse is common among primary care patients, yet many do not receive treatment because doctors believe problem drinkers are "in denial," or are unwilling to change their drinking habits. The real problem, however, may be that patients are being offered treatment modalities that do not meet their needs. This study was designed to measure the acceptability of various treatment options among drinkers who were currently not receiving treatment. Method: Patients in a primary care clinic were given a self-report questionnaire that included: (1) the Alcohol Use Disorders Questionnaire, (2) a measure of readiness to change drinking behavior, and (3) a list of treatment modalities to be rated based on level of interest. Results: Within a random sample of 402 patients, 40.2% reported high risk drinking and 16.3% reported problem drinking. Among the latter group, 89.3% were either considering change, or had begun to take steps to make changes in their drinking behaviors. When asked about treatment preferences, the modalities most frequently recommended by physicians--group therapy and Alcoholics Anonymous--were among the least acceptable. The most popular options were getting help from a primary care doctor and taking a medication that would make it easier to avoid drinking without making them sick if they drank. Conclusions: The belief that problem drinkers are unwilling to change was not supported by this study. Treatment for problem drinking should involve a collaborative evaluation of options with an emphasis on patient preference and treatment within the primary care setting. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Electronic screening and brief intervention (e-SBI) approaches for substance use have shown early promise. This trial was designed to replicate previous findings from a single 20-minute e-SBI for drug use among postpartum women. A total of 143 postpartum, primarily low-income African-American women meeting criteria for drug use, were randomly assigned to either a tailored e-SBI or a time-matched control condition. Blinded follow-up evaluation 3- and 6-months following childbirth revealed strong effects for confirmed illicit drug use abstinence at the 3-month observation (OR=3.3, p =.01), as did hair analysis at 6months (OR=4.8, p =.018). Additional primary outcomes suggested small to moderate effect sizes in favor of the e-SBI, but did not reach significance. This result replicates previous findings but fails to show durable effects. Assessment reactivity, e-SBI design, and possible extension of e-SBI via tailored messaging all merit careful consideration. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Abstract: Background: Under-reporting of substance use and other sensitive information is a substantial threat to internal study validity, particularly during the perinatal period. Anonymous approaches are associated with greater disclosure but are incompatible with longitudinal follow-up. Alternative approaches include use of a U.S. Federal Certificate of Confidentiality (CoC) and quasi-anonymous methods, in which there is no link between name and data. However, the relative effect of these procedures on disclosure is unknown. This randomized study was designed to evaluate the effects of consent condition (anonymous, quasi-anonymous, CoC, and traditional confidentiality) on disclosure of sensitive information among postpartum women. Methods: Participants were 200 postpartum, primarily African-American women who were randomly assigned to one of the four consent conditions and completed a brief computer-delivered assessment of alcohol and drug use, sexual risk, intimate partner violence, and emotional distress. Results: Participants in the anonymous and quasi-anonymous conditions disclosed significantly more sensitive information than those in the traditional consent condition. In contrast, no advantage in overall disclosure was observed for the CoC condition. This result was largely consistent across specific content areas with the exception of emotional distress, disclosure of which was unrelated to consent condition. Conclusions: Although use of a CoC has limited impact on disclosure, the quasi-anonymous method may increase disclosure to a similar extent as full anonymity. Quasi-anonymous approaches should be considered when under-reporting is likely, a context in which the disadvantages of this approach must be balanced against its advantages. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Aims This study sought to develop and begin validation of an indirect screener for identification of drug use during pregnancy, without reliance on direct disclosure. Design Women were recruited from their hospital rooms after giving birth. Participation involved (i) completing a computerized assessment battery containing three types of items: direct (asking directly about drug use), semi-indirect (asking only about drug use prior to pregnancy) and indirect (with no mention of drug use), and (ii) providing urine and hair samples. An optimal subset of indirect items was developed and cross-validated based on ability to predict urine/hair test results. Setting Obstetric unit of a university-affiliated hospital in Detroit. Participants Four hundred low-income, African American, post-partum women (300 in the developmental sample and 100 in the cross-validation sample); all available women were recruited without consideration of substance abuse risk or other characteristics. Measurements Women first completed the series of direct and indirect items using a Tablet PC; they were then asked for separate consent to obtain urine and hair samples that were tested for evidence of illicit drug use. Findings In the cross-validation sample, the brief screener consisting of six indirect items predicted toxicology results more accurately than direct questions about drug use (area under the ROC curve = 0.74, P < 0.001). Traditional direct screening questions were highly specific, but identified only a small minority of women who used drugs during the last trimester of pregnancy. Conclusions Indirect screening may increase the accuracy of mothers' self-reports of prenatal drug use. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]