Faculty Bibliography

BACKGROUND:Substance use frequently goes undetected in primary care. Though barriers to implementing systematic screening for alcohol and drug use have been examined in urban settings, less is known about screening in rural primary care. OBJECTIVE:To identify current screening practices, barriers, facilitators, and recommendations for the implementation of substance use screening in rural federally qualified health centers (FQHCs). DESIGN/METHODS:As part of a multi-phase study implementing electronic health record-integrated screening, focus groups (n = 60: all stakeholder groups) and individual interviews (n = 10 primary care providers (PCPs)) were conducted. PARTICIPANTS/METHODS:Three stakeholder groups (PCPs, medical assistants (MAs), and patients) at three rural FQHCs in Maine. APPROACH/METHODS:Focus groups and interviews were recorded, transcribed, and content analyzed. Themes surrounding current substance use screening practices, barriers to screening, and recommendations for implementation were identified and organized by the Knowledge to Action (KTA) Framework. KEY RESULTS/RESULTS:Identifying the problem: Stakeholders unanimously agreed that screening is important, and that universal screening is preferred to targeted approaches. Adapting to the local context: PCPs and MAs agreed that screening should be done annually. Views were mixed regarding the delivery of screening; patients preferred self-administered, tablet-based screening, while MAs and PCPs were divided between self-administered and face-to-face approaches. Assessing barriers: For patients, barriers to screening centered around a perceived lack of rapport with providers, which contributed to concerns about trust, judgment, and privacy. For PCPs and MAs, barriers included lack of comfort, training, and preparedness to address screening results and offer treatment. CONCLUSIONS:Though stakeholders agree on the importance of implementing universal screening, concerns about the patient-provider relationship, the consequences of disclosure, and privacy appear heightened by the rural context. Findings highlight that strong relationships with providers are critical for patients, while in-clinic resources and training are needed to increase provider comfort and preparedness to address substance use.

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.

BACKGROUND:Substance use disorders (SUDs) and psychiatric disorders are common among people with HIV (PWH) and lead to poor outcomes. Yet these conditions often go unrecognized and untreated in primary care. METHODS:The Promoting Access to Care Engagement (PACE) trial currently in process examines the impact of self-administered electronic screening for SUD risk, depression and anxiety in three large Kaiser Permanente Northern California primary care clinics serving over 5000 PWH. Screening uses validated measures (Tobacco, Alcohol, Prescription medication, and other Substance use [TAPS]; and the Adult Outcomes Questionnaire [AOQ], which includes the Patient Health Questionnaire [PHQ-9] and Generalized Anxiety Disorder [GAD-2]) delivered via three modalities (secure messaging, tablets in waiting rooms, and desktop computers in exam rooms). Results are integrated automatically into the electronic health record. Based on screening results and physician referrals, behavioral health specialists embedded in primary care initiate motivational interviewing- and cognitive behavioral therapy-based brief treatment and link patients to addiction and psychiatry clinics as needed. Analyses examine implementation (screening and treatment rates) and effectiveness (SUD, depression and anxiety symptoms; HIV viral control) outcomes using a stepped-wedge design, with a 12-month intervention phase implemented sequentially in the clinics, and a 24-month usual care period prior to implementation in each clinic functioning as sequential observational phases for comparison. We also evaluate screening and treatment costs and implementation barriers and facilitators. DISCUSSION/CONCLUSIONS:The study examines innovative, technology-facilitated strategies for improving assessment and treatment in primary care. Results may help to inform substance use, mental health, and HIV services. TRIAL REGISTRATION/BACKGROUND:NCT03217058.

OBJECTIVE:To characterize the prevalence of tobacco, alcohol, and drug use and the acceptability of screening in university health centers. PARTICIPANTS/METHODS:Five hundred and two consecutively recruited students presenting for primary care visits in February and August, 2015, in two health centers. METHODS:Participants completed anonymous substance use questionnaires in the waiting area, and had the option of sharing results with their medical provider. We examined screening rates, prevalence, and predictors of sharing results. RESULTS:Past-year use was 31.5% for tobacco, 67.1% for alcohol (>4 drinks/day), 38.6% for illicit drugs, and 9.2% for prescription drugs (nonmedical use). A minority (43.8%) shared screening results. Sharing was lowest among those with moderate-high risk use of tobacco (OR =0.37, 95% CI 0.20-0.69), alcohol (OR =0.48, 95% CI 0.25-0.90), or illicit drugs (OR =0.38, 95% CI 0.20-0.73). CONCLUSIONS:Screening can be integrated into university health services, but students with active substance use may be uncomfortable discussing it with medical providers.

Background: In primary care, electronic self-administered screening and brief interventions for unhealthy alcohol may overcome some of the implementation barriers of face-to-face intervention. We developed an anonymous electronic self-administered screening brief intervention device for unhealthy alcohol use and assessed its feasibility and acceptability in primary care practice waiting rooms. Two modes of delivery were compared: with or without the presence of a research assistant (RA) to make patients aware of the device's presence and help users. Using the device was optional. Methods: The devices were placed in 10 participating primary care practices waiting rooms for 6 weeks, and were accessible on a voluntary basis. Number of appointments by each practice during the course of the study was recorded. Access to the electronic brief intervention was voluntary among those who screened positive. Screening and brief intervention rates and characteristics of users were compared across the modes of delivery. Results: During the study, there were 7270 appointments and 1511 individuals used the device (20.8%). Mean age of users was 45.3 (19.5), and 57.9% screened positive for unhealthy alcohol use. Of them, 53.8% accessed the brief intervention content. The presence of the RA had a major impact on the device's usage (59.6% vs 17.4% when absent). When the RA was present, participants were less likely to screen positive (49.4% vs 60.7%, P = 0.0003) but more likely to access the intervention (62.7% vs 51.4%, P = 0.009). Results from the satisfaction survey indicated that users found the device easy to use (93.5%), questions useful (89-95%) and 77.2% reported that their friends would be willing to use it. Conclusions: This pilot project indicates that the implementation of an electronic screening and brief intervention device for unhealthy alcohol is feasible and acceptable in primary care practices but that, without human support, its use is rather limited.