A randomized study of the use of screening, brief intervention, and referral to treatment (SBIRT) for drug and alcohol use with jail inmates

Abstract

Background Screening, brief intervention, and referral to treatment (SBIRT) is an evidence-based practice that has been shown to reduce alcohol and drug use in healthcare, educational, and other settings, but research on the effectiveness of SBIRT with populations involved in the criminal justice system is limited. These populations have high rates of substance use but have limited access to interventions. Methods The study randomized 732 jail inmates from a large urban jail to the SBIRT intervention or to the control group. Using the Alcohol, Smoking, and Substance Involvement Screening Test (ASSIST), the intervention assessed the risk level for drug and alcohol misuse by inmates and provided those who were at low or medium risk with a brief intervention in jail and referred those at high risk to community treatment following release, including the opportunity to participate in a brief treatment (eight sessions) protocol. Using interview and records data from a 12-month follow-up, analyses compared the two groups with respect to the primary study outcomes of reductions in drug and alcohol use and the secondary outcomes of participation in treatment, rearrest, reduction in HIV risk behaviors, and quality of life. In addition, the costs of delivering the SBIRT intervention were calculated. Results When baseline differences were controlled, the groups did not differ at follow-up on any of the primary or secondary outcomes. Conclusions Future research should develop and evaluate SBIRT models that are specifically adapted to the characteristics and needs of the jail population. Until more favorable results emerge, attempts to use SBIRT with jail inmates should be implemented with caution, if at all.

Barriers to addiction treatment among formerly incarcerated adults with substance use disorders

“…These findings are hypothesis-generating in suggesting that motivational interventions may not be helpful for increasing problem recognition among justice-involved individuals with a SUD, as they are designed to do, or may be unhelpful in this domain. Other studies with jail populations found null results of motivational interventions on other outcomes such as treatment engagement [ 30 ]. Of note, our results should be interpreted with caution, given the small sample, post hoc nature of these analyses, multiple comparisons, and that the parent study did not include a no-treatment control condition.…”

Reporting Guidelines for Community-Based Participatory Research Did Not Improve the Reporting Quality of Published Studies: A Systematic Review of Studies on Smoking Cessation

“…A guideline for reporting the results of qualitative studies specifies that researchers' characteristics (including personal attribution, relationship with participants) should be reported because they influence the results [20]. Regarding personal outcomes (q3.3), some articles only reported that researchers held informal small group discussions [21,22]. If provided with this information, readers would gain a better understanding of the project including the CBPR process.…”

A Randomized Clinical Trial Exploring Gambling Attitudes, Barriers to Treatment, and Efficacy of a Brief Motivational Intervention Among Ex‐Offenders with Disordered Gambling

“…Brief interventions often apply the screening, brief intervention, and referral to treatment (SBIRT) model that is commonly used to successfully assess and treat alcohol problems (33,34). SBIRT’s brief yet effective format makes it desirable for forensic populations, and although this treatment model has been utilized in a limited capacity within forensic populations, preliminary investigations into its feasibility and efficacy in addressing addictive behaviors are promising (35). Further research is needed to evaluate SBIRT for use with forensic populations, as well as to adapt the SBIRT model to the characteristics and needs of this specific population.…”