Objective To examine the validity of the Patient Health Questionnaire - 2 (PHQ-2), a 2-item depression screening scale among adolescents. Methods After completing a brief depression screen, 499 youth (13–17 years) who were enrolled in an integrated healthcare system were invited to participate in a full assessment including a longer depression screening scale (the Patient Health Questionnaire, PHQ-9), a structured mental health interview (the Child Diagnostic Interview Schedule, DISC-IV). Eighty-nine percent (N=444) completed the assessment. Criterion validity and construct validity were tested by examining associations between the PHQ-2 and other measures of depression and functional impairment. Results A PHQ-2 score ≥3 had a sensitivity of 74% and specificity of 75% for detecting youth meeting DSM-IV criteria for major depression on the DISC-IV, and a sensitivity of 96% and a specificity of 82% for detecting youth who met criteria for probable major depression on the PHQ-9. On ROC analysis the PHQ-2 had an area under the curve of 0.84 (95% CI = 0.75 to 0.92) and the cut point of 3 was optimal for maximizing sensitivity without loss of specificity for detecting major depression. Youth with a PHQ-2 ≥3 had significantly higher functional impairment scores and significantly higher scores for parent-reported internalizing problems than youth with scores <3. Conclusion The PHQ-2 has good sensitivity and specificity for detecting major depression. These properties coupled with the brief nature of the instrument make this tool very promising as a first step for screening for adolescent depression in primary care.

Background-Smoking remains the primary preventable cause of death and illness in the U.S. Effective, convenient treatment programs are needed to reduce smoking prevalence.

No abstract

We identified barriers to and facilitators of prescribing AUD medications in PC, which, if addressed and/or capitalized on, may increase provision of AUD medications. Providers more willing to prescribe may be the optimal target of a customized implementation intervention to promote changes in prescribing.

Alcohol use is a major cause of disability and death worldwide. To improve prevention and treatment addressing unhealthy alcohol use, experts recommend that alcohol-related care be integrated into primary care (PC). However, few healthcare systems do so. To address this gap, implementation researchers and clinical leaders at Kaiser Permanente Washington partnered to design a high-quality Program of Sustained Patient-centered Alcohol-related Care (SPARC). Here, we describe the SPARC pilot implementation, evaluate its effectiveness within three large pilot sites, and describe the qualitative findings on barriers and facilitators. Across the three sites (N = 74,225 PC patients), alcohol screening increased from 8.9% of patients pre-implementation to 62% post-implementation (p < 0.0001), with a corresponding increase in assessment for alcohol use disorders (AUD) from 1.2 to 75 patients per 10,000 seen (p < 0.0001). Increases were sustained over a year later, with screening at 84.5% and an assessment rate of 81 patients per 10,000 seen across all sites. In addition, there was a 50% increase in the number of new AUD diagnoses (p = 0.0002), and a non-statistically significant 54% increase in treatment within 14 days of new diagnoses (p = 0.083). The pilot informed an ongoing stepped-wedge trial in the remaining 22 PC sites.

No abstract

BackgroundExperts recommend that alcohol-related care be integrated into primary care (PC) to improve prevention and treatment of unhealthy alcohol use. However, few healthcare systems offer such integrated care. To address this gap, implementation researchers and clinical leaders at Kaiser Permanente Washington (KPWA) partnered to design a high-quality program of evidence-based care for unhealthy alcohol use: the Sustained Patient-centered Alcohol-related Care (SPARC) program. SPARC implements systems of clinical care designed to increase both prevention and treatment of unhealthy alcohol use. This clinical care for unhealthy alcohol use was implemented using three strategies: electronic health record (EHR) decision support, performance monitoring and feedback, and front-line support from external practice coaches with expertise in alcohol-related care (“SPARC implementation intervention” hereafter).The purpose of this report is to describe the protocol of the SPARC trial, a pragmatic, cluster-randomized, stepped-wedge implementation trial to evaluate whether the SPARC implementation intervention increased alcohol screening and brief alcohol counseling (so-called brief interventions), and diagnosis and treatment of alcohol use disorders (AUDs) in 22 KPWA PC clinics.Methods/DesignThe SPARC trial sample includes all adult patients who had a visit to any of the 22 primary care sites in the trial during the study period (January 1, 2015–July 31, 2018). The 22 sites were randomized to implement the SPARC program on different dates (in seven waves, approximately every 4 months). Primary outcomes are the proportion of patients with PC visits who (1) screen positive for unhealthy alcohol use and have documented brief interventions and (2) have a newly recognized AUD and subsequently initiate and engage in alcohol-related care. Main analyses compare the rates of these primary outcomes in the pre- and post-implementation periods, following recommended approaches for analyzing stepped-wedge trials. Qualitative analyses assess barriers and facilitators to implementation and required adaptations of implementation strategies.DiscussionThe SPARC trial is the first study to our knowledge to use an experimental design to test whether practice coaches with expertise in alcohol-related care, along with EHR clinical decision support and performance monitoring and feedback to sites, increase both preventive care—alcohol screening and brief intervention—as well as diagnosis and treatment of AUDs.Trial registrationThe trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.Gov: NCT02675777. Registered February 5, 2016, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02675777.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s13012-018-0795-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Background Alcohol use has important adverse effects on people living with HIV (PLWH). This study of patients with recognized unhealthy alcohol use estimated and compared rates of alcohol-related care received by PLWH and HIV− patients. Methods Outpatients from the Veterans Health Administration who had one or more positive screen(s) for unhealthy alcohol use (AUDIT-C≥5) documented in their medical records 10/2009–5/2013 were eligible. Primary and secondary outcomes were brief intervention documented ≤14 days after a positive alcohol screen, and a composite measure of any alcohol-related care (brief intervention, specialty addictions treatment or pharmacotherapy documented ≤365 days), respectively. Unadjusted and adjusted regression analyses compared alcohol-related care outcomes in PLWH and HIV− patients. Results The sample included 830,825 outpatients (3,514 PLWH), reflecting 1,172,606 positive screens (1–5 per patient). For PLWH, 57.0% (95% confidence interval 55.4–58.5%) of positive screens were followed by brief intervention, compared to 73.8% (73.7–73.9%) for HIV− patients [relative rate: 0.77 (0.75–0.79), p<0.001]. After adjustment, comparable proportions were 61.0% (59.3–62.6%) for PLWH and 73.7% (73.6–73.8%) for HIV− patients [adjusted RR=0.83 (0.80–0.85); p<0.001]. Secondary outcome results were similar: for PLWH and HIV− patients, 67.1% (65.7–68.6%) and 77.7% (95% CI 77.7–77.8%) of positive screens, respectively, were followed by any alcohol-related care after adjustment [adjusted RR=0.86 (0.85 – 0.88), p<0.001]. Conclusions In this large national sample of VA outpatients with unhealthy alcohol use, PLWH were less likely to receive alcohol-related care than HIV− patients. Special efforts may be needed to ensure alcohol-related care reaches PLWH.