Connecting patients to services: Screening, brief intervention and referral to treatment in primary health care

Agley, Jon; McIntire, Russell K.; DeSalle, Mallori; Tidd, David; Wolf, Jim; Gassman, Ruth A.

doi:10.3109/09687637.2014.899992

Cited by 6 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 37 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Despite these recommendations, the provision of SBIRT services in primary care settings is lagging for alcohol (Horgan et al, 2013), tobacco (Tong, Strouse, Hall, Kovac, & Schroeder, 2010), and other drugs (Agley et al, 2014). Knowledge gaps and insufficient access to training in SBIRT for alcohol, tobacco, and other drugs among extant and emerging PCPs are barriers to implementation.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Web-based training for primary care providers on screening, brief intervention, and referral to treatment (SBIRT) for alcohol, tobacco, and other drugs

Stoner¹,

Mikko²,

Carpenter³

2014

Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This project evaluated a web-based multimedia training for primary care providers in screening, brief intervention, and referral to treatment (SBIRT) for unhealthy use of alcohol, tobacco, and other drugs. Physicians (n=37), physician assistants (n=35), and nurse practitioners (n=20) were recruited nationally by email and randomly assigned to online access to either the multimedia training or comparable reading materials. At baseline, compared to non-physicians, physicians reported lower self-efficacy for counseling patients regarding substance use and doing so less frequently. All provider types in both conditions showed significant increases in SBIRT-related knowledge, self-efficacy, and clinical practices. Although the multimedia training was not superior to the reading materials with regard to these outcomes, the multimedia training was more likely to be completed and rated more favorably. Findings indicate that SBIRT training does not have to be elaborate to be effective. However, multimedia training may be more appealing to the target audiences.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Web-based training for primary care providers on screening, brief intervention, and referral to treatment (SBIRT) for alcohol, tobacco, and other drugs

Stoner¹,

Mikko²,

Carpenter³

2014

Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Conversely, Agley et al (2014) reported positive findings with 21 NP students. The students in this study reported higher confidence levels in using SBIRT and were more likely to use screening tools in practice.…”

Section: Sbirt In Nursingmentioning

confidence: 90%

“…One possible explanation for this finding is that NPs may have had negative experiences with this population prior to the training and are more reluctant to work with at risk patients for alcohol misuse. Conversely, Agley et al () reported positive findings with 21 NP students. The students in this study reported higher confidence levels in using SBIRT and were more likely to use screening tools in practice.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 95%

Implementation and evaluation of SBIRT training in a Community Health nursing course

Bremner

Maguire

Keen

et al. 2019

Public Health Nursing

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective The purpose of this paper is to report on the implementation and evaluation of a Screening, Brief Intervention and Referral to Treatment (SBIRT) educational program into an undergraduate nursing curriculum and to recommend modifications for future trainings. Design and Sample A one‐group pre‐test/post‐test design was used. The sample consisted of senior level undergraduate nursing students. Measures Core knowledge, perceived competency, and program satisfaction were measured. Process evaluation activities were performed to gather feedback on the training and solicit ideas and recommendations for improvement. Results Of the 354 nursing students enrolled in the training, 249 (70%) participated in the research portion, with 240 (96%) completed the pre‐ and post‐training evaluations. All four core knowledge components and 13 perceived competency indicators were statistically significant (p ≤ .001) when comparing pre‐ and post‐t test values. Process evaluation data collected through 25 telephone interviews found that the training improved the students’ confidence and ability to screen for substance misuse with patients. Conclusion Findings support the implementation of SBIRT training into an undergraduate nursing curriculum. Modifications for future training and research are proposed.

show abstract

“…34 Additional information regarding the structure of data collection for this SBIRT program previously has been published. 35 In order to determine whether prescreening outcomes for alcohol and drugs were independent from setting and administration, we created 2 binary logistic regression models to compute adjusted odds ratios with prescreening results set as the outcome variable and setting, administration method, gender, depression (PHQ-2), and use of other substances set as predictor variables. Race/ethnicity were not included as predictor variables because the substantial amount of missing data was nonrandom.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…34 Additional information regarding the structure of data collection for this SBIRT program previously has been published. 35…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

An Assessment of SBIRT Prescreening and Screening Outcomes by Medical Setting and Administration Methodology

Agley

Crabb

Harris

et al. 2015

Health Services Research and Managerial Epidemiology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background:Screening, brief intervention, and referral to treatment (SBIRT) is an efficacious prevention practice. However, little research has assessed differences in prescreening outcomes between inpatient and outpatient primary care or among different prescreening administration methods. This study tested whether administration method (self-administered vs interview) and setting (inpatient versus outpatient) predicted prescreening outcomes in a large sample of primary care patients. Then, among patients who prescreened positive, it tested whether full screening scores differed by administration method and setting.Methods:Researchers used binomial logistic regression to assess predicted prescreening outcomes and analysis of variance to assess differences in SBIRT screening scores across a total of 14 447 unique patient visits in 10 outpatient sites and 1 centrally located hospital.Results:Controlling for gender, depression, and other substance use, both medical setting and method of prescreening, predicted prescreening results. Among patients who prescreened positive for alcohol, setting also was associated with mean screening scores. However, outcomes were not uniform by substance (eg, alcohol vs other drugs).Conclusion:The results support previous studies on this topic that had utilized cross-study comparison or that were not specific to SBIRT prescreening/screening mechanisms. At the same time, nuanced findings were observed that had not previously been reported and suggest the need for further research in this area.

show abstract

Connecting patients to services: Screening, brief intervention and referral to treatment in primary health care

Cited by 6 publications

References 37 publications

Web-based training for primary care providers on screening, brief intervention, and referral to treatment (SBIRT) for alcohol, tobacco, and other drugs

Web-based training for primary care providers on screening, brief intervention, and referral to treatment (SBIRT) for alcohol, tobacco, and other drugs

Implementation and evaluation of SBIRT training in a Community Health nursing course

An Assessment of SBIRT Prescreening and Screening Outcomes by Medical Setting and Administration Methodology

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About