The DOI matches its Crossref record; 38 of the 38 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 30 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.
Brief Intervention for Problem Drug Use in Safety-Net Primary Care Settings: A Randomized Clinical Trial
Open accessAbstract
IMPORTANCE: Although brief intervention is effective for reducing problem alcohol use, few data exist on its effectiveness for reducing problem drug use, a common issue in disadvantaged populations seeking care in safety-net medical settings (hospitals and community health clinics serving low-income patients with limited or no insurance). OBJECTIVE: To determine whether brief intervention improves drug use outcomes compared with enhanced care as usual. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A randomized clinical trial with blinded assessments at baseline and at 3, 6, 9, and 12 months conducted in 7 safety-net primary care clinics in Washington State. Of 1621 eligible patients reporting any problem drug use in the past 90 days, 868 consented and were randomized between April 2009 and September 2012. Follow-up participation was more than 87% at all points. INTERVENTIONS: Participants received a single brief intervention using motivational interviewing, a handout and list of substance abuse resources, and an attempted 10-minute telephone booster within 2 weeks (n = 435) or enhanced care as usual, which included a handout and list of substance abuse resources (n = 433). MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary outcomes were self-reported days of problem drug use in the past 30 days and Addiction Severity Index-Lite (ASI) Drug Use composite score. Secondary outcomes were admission to substance abuse treatment; ASI composite scores for medical, psychiatric, social, and legal domains; emergency department and inpatient hospital admissions, arrests, mortality, and human immunodeficiency virus risk behavior. RESULTS: Mean days used of the most common problem drug at baseline were 14.40 (SD, 11.29) (brief intervention) and 13.25 (SD, 10.69) (enhanced care as usual); at 3 months postintervention, means were 11.87 (SD, 12.13) (brief intervention) and 9.84 (SD, 10.64) (enhanced care as usual) and not significantly different (difference in differences, β = 0.89 [95% CI, -0.49 to 2.26]). Mean ASI Drug Use composite score at baseline was 0.11 (SD, 0.10) (brief intervention) and 0.11 (SD, 0.10) (enhanced care as usual) and at 3 months was 0.10 (SD, 0.09) (brief intervention) and 0.09 (SD, 0.09) (enhanced care as usual) and not significantly different (difference in differences, β = 0.008 [95% CI, -0.006 to 0.021]). During the 12 months following intervention, no significant treatment differences were found for either variable. No significant differences were found for secondary outcomes. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: A one-time brief intervention with attempted telephone booster had no effect on drug use in patients seen in safety-net primary care settings. This finding suggests a need for caution in promoting widespread adoption of this intervention for drug use in primary care. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00877331.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
19 Own method · 16 Own result · 15 Not checked yet · 2 Own interpretation · 1 No basis given
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Generalized estimating equation analyses confirmed that there were no significant treatment differences during 12 months postintervention in either days of drug use (odds ratio, 1.20 [95% CI, 0.96 to 1.50]) or the ASI Drug Use composite (β = 0.005 [95% CI, –0.005 to 0.016]).”
§ Brief Intervention for Problem Drug Use in Safety-Net Primary Care Settings > Results > Main Outcomes
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“There were no significant intervention effects on any secondary outcomes, including admission to chemical dependency treatment.”
§ Brief Intervention for Problem Drug Use in Safety-Net Primary Care Settings > Results > Main Outcomes
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Acute treatment differences based on difference in differences revealed no significant differences in either days of drug use (β = 0.89 [95% CI, –0.49 to 2.26]) or ASI Drug Use composite (β = 0.008 [95% CI, –0.006 to 0.021]).”
§ Brief Intervention for Problem Drug Use in Safety-Net Primary Care Settings > Results > Main Outcomes
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Generalized estimating equation analyses confirmed that there were no significant treatment differences during 12 months postintervention in either days of drug use (odds ratio, 1.20 [95% CI, 0.96 to 1.50]) or the ASI Drug Use composite (β = 0.005 [95% CI, –0.005 to 0.016]).”
§ Brief Intervention for Problem Drug Use in Safety-Net Primary Care Settings > Results > Main Outcomes
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Acute treatment differences based on difference in differences revealed no significant differences in either days of drug use (β = 0.89 [95% CI, –0.49 to 2.26]) or ASI Drug Use composite (β = 0.008 [95% CI, –0.006 to 0.021]).”
§ Brief Intervention for Problem Drug Use in Safety-Net Primary Care Settings > Results > Main Outcomes
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, in exploratory effect modification analyses of secondary outcomes, drug use severity significantly moderated intervention effects on both admission to treatment and emergency department use.”
§ Brief Intervention for Problem Drug Use in Safety-Net Primary Care Settings > Results > Main Outcomes
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Third, the sample had a high rate of comorbid mental illness, which is known to be associated with poorer substance use outcomes.37”
§ Brief Intervention for Problem Drug Use in Safety-Net Primary Care Settings > Discussion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“national dissemination programs of screening, brief intervention, and referral to treatment (SBIRT) for “alcohol and drugs” have been implemented on a widespread scale.3,4”
§ Brief Intervention for Problem Drug Use in Safety-Net Primary Care Settings > Abstract > CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [3] Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) Screening, Brief Intervention, Referral and Treatment (SBIRT). SAMHSA website 4 2014 http://beta.samhsa.gov/sbirt July 2, 2014
- Not checked yetcites [4] Babor TF McRee BG Kassebaum PA Grimaldi PL Ahmed K Bray J Screening, Brief Intervention, and Referral to Treatment (SBIRT): toward a public health approach to the management of substance abuse. Subst Abus 2007 28 3 7 30 18077300
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Based on the established efficacy of brief (1-2 sessions) interventions for hazardous alcohol use in patients seen in medical settings,1,2”
§ Brief Intervention for Problem Drug Use in Safety-Net Primary Care Settings > Abstract > CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [1] Kaner EF Beyer F Dickinson HO Effectiveness of brief alcohol interventions in primary care populations. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2007 2 CD004148 17443541
- Not checked yetcites [2] Bertholet N Daeppen JB Wietlisbach V Fleming M Burnand B Reduction of alcohol consumption by brief alcohol intervention in primary care: systematic review and meta-analysis. Arch Intern Med 2005 165 9 986 995 15883236
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Although brief intervention is effective for reducing problem alcohol use, few data exist on its effectiveness for reducing problem drug use, a common issue in disadvantaged populations seeking care in safety-net medical settings”
- Also stated in: § CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE · plain
“This rapid adoption of brief intervention for drugs other than alcohol has outstripped its meager evidence base.”
§ Brief Intervention for Problem Drug Use in Safety-Net Primary Care Settings > Abstract > IMPORTANCE
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [5] Otto C Crackau B Löhrmann I Brief intervention in general hospital for problematic prescription drug use: 12-month outcome. Drug Alcohol Depend 2009 105 3 221 226 19726140
- Not checked yetcites [6] Zahradnik A Otto C Crackau B Randomized controlled trial of a brief intervention for problematic prescription drug use in non-treatment-seeking patients. Addiction 2009 104 1 109 117 19133895
- Not checked yetcites [7] Bernstein J Bernstein E Tassiopoulos K Heeren T Levenson S Hingson R Brief motivational intervention at a clinic visit reduces cocaine and heroin use. Drug Alcohol Depend 2005 77 1 49 59 15607841
- Not checked yetcites [8] Humeniuk R Ali R Babor T A randomized controlled trial of a brief intervention for illicit drugs linked to the Alcohol, Smoking and Substance Involvement Screening Test (ASSIST) in clients recruited from primary health-care settings in four countries. Addiction 2012 107 5 957 966 22126102
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Also stated in: § CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE · plain
- It may state two separate claims as one. 22
- Probably not a substantial claim. 20
- The quote only partly states this claim. 1
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Effect modification of primary drug use outcomes by baseline drug use severity, psychiatric comorbidity, and motivation to change revealed no significant moderation effects (eTable 4 and eTable 5 in the Supplement).”
§ Brief Intervention for Problem Drug Use in Safety-Net Primary Care Settings > Results > Main Outcomes
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Mean days used of the most common problem drug at baseline were 14.40 (SD, 11.29) (brief intervention) and 13.25 (SD, 10.69) (enhanced care as usual) and at 3 months postintervention were 11.97 (SD, 12.13) (brief intervention) and 9.84 (SD, 10.64) (enhanced care as usual).”
§ Brief Intervention for Problem Drug Use in Safety-Net Primary Care Settings > Results > Main Outcomes
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Participants with high drug problem severity receiving the intervention were more likely to enter specialist drug treatment and more likely to reduce their use of the emergency department (Table 3 and eTable 6 in the Supplement).”
§ Brief Intervention for Problem Drug Use in Safety-Net Primary Care Settings > Results > Main Outcomes
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Both groups showed modest and similar reductions in drug use frequency over the first 3 months with no subsequent change, possibly suggesting a regression to the mean in both groups.”
§ Brief Intervention for Problem Drug Use in Safety-Net Primary Care Settings > Discussion
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The treatment means in each plot are virtually identical, change over time is minimal, and there is no evidence of an intervention effect.”
§ Brief Intervention for Problem Drug Use in Safety-Net Primary Care Settings > Results > Main Outcomes
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Supplementing self-reported drug use with positive urine screen results only slightly increased the proportion of individuals classified as using particular drugs (eTable 3 in the Supplement).”
§ Brief Intervention for Problem Drug Use in Safety-Net Primary Care Settings > Results > Sample Selection, Attrition, and Description
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A majority of participants (56%) had some comorbid mental illness, and a minority (37%) had the goal to try to abstain from drugs.”
§ Brief Intervention for Problem Drug Use in Safety-Net Primary Care Settings > Results > Sample Selection, Attrition, and Description
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Mean ASI Drug Use composite score at baseline was 0.11 (SD, 0.10) (brief intervention) and 0.11 (SD, 0.10) (enhanced care as usual) and at 3 months was 0.10 (SD, 0.09) (brief intervention) and 0.09 (SD, 0.09) (enhanced care as usual).”
§ Brief Intervention for Problem Drug Use in Safety-Net Primary Care Settings > Results > Main Outcomes
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Second, the sample was severely socioeconomically disadvantaged.”
§ Brief Intervention for Problem Drug Use in Safety-Net Primary Care Settings > Discussion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Drug use was similar between groups (mean, 13.82 [SD, 11.00] days of the most frequently used drug) and was highly heterogeneous, with different types and patterns of use evident according to the severity of drug use measured by validated DAST-10 score categories (eTable 1 and eTable 2 in the Supplement).”
§ Brief Intervention for Problem Drug Use in Safety-Net Primary Care Settings > Results > Sample Selection, Attrition, and Description
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Of the 3 randomized clinical trials of brief intervention for drug abuse in non–treatment-seeking individuals,5-8 only 2 were positive,7,8 and only 1 found an effect among US patients.8”
§ Brief Intervention for Problem Drug Use in Safety-Net Primary Care Settings > Abstract > CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [5] Otto C Crackau B Löhrmann I Brief intervention in general hospital for problematic prescription drug use: 12-month outcome. Drug Alcohol Depend 2009 105 3 221 226 19726140
- Not checked yetcites [6] Zahradnik A Otto C Crackau B Randomized controlled trial of a brief intervention for problematic prescription drug use in non-treatment-seeking patients. Addiction 2009 104 1 109 117 19133895
- Not checked yetcites [7] Bernstein J Bernstein E Tassiopoulos K Heeren T Levenson S Hingson R Brief motivational intervention at a clinic visit reduces cocaine and heroin use. Drug Alcohol Depend 2005 77 1 49 59 15607841
- Not checked yetcites [8] Humeniuk R Ali R Babor T A randomized controlled trial of a brief intervention for illicit drugs linked to the Alcohol, Smoking and Substance Involvement Screening Test (ASSIST) in clients recruited from primary health-care settings in four countries. Addiction 2012 107 5 957 966 22126102
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The primary outcome, prespecified on ClinicalTrials.gov, was self-reported days of drug use during the past 30 days.”
§ Brief Intervention for Problem Drug Use in Safety-Net Primary Care Settings > Methods > Primary Outcomes
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“All measures except the demographics and DAST-10 were repeated at 3-, 6-, 9-, and 12-month follow-up assessments conducted by research assistants blinded to randomization assignment.”
§ Brief Intervention for Problem Drug Use in Safety-Net Primary Care Settings > Methods > Assessment Measures
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“Recent studies show that a disproportionate number of individuals with drug abuse or dependence are from lower socioeconomic strata12 and primarily receive care in public sector hospitals and community health clinics (ie, safety-net medical settings that serve low-income patients with limited or no insurance).”
§ Brief Intervention for Problem Drug Use in Safety-Net Primary Care Settings > Abstract > CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [12] Compton WM Thomas YF Stinson FS Grant BF Prevalence, correlates, disability, and comorbidity of DSM-IV drug abuse and dependence in the United States: results from the national epidemiologic survey on alcohol and related conditions. Arch Gen Psychiatry 2007 64 5 566 576 17485608
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“participants were randomized in a 1:1 ratio (Figure) to brief intervention or enhanced care as usual using permuted blocks stratified by clinic and by 3 factors known to affect outcome: drug use severity20 (Drug Abuse Screening Test [DAST-10] score ≥3 [range, 0-10; 10 indicates greatest severity]; the DAST-10 instrument and interpretation guide are available in the eAppendix in the Supplement),”
§ Brief Intervention for Problem Drug Use in Safety-Net Primary Care Settings > Methods > Randomization
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Follow-up rates were greater than 87% at all 4 points (3, 6, 9, and 12 months) and were similar in both groups.”
§ Brief Intervention for Problem Drug Use in Safety-Net Primary Care Settings > Results > Sample Selection, Attrition, and Description
plainn = 823- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“All analyses were intention-to-treat, with all available data from participants analyzed by randomization group.”
§ Brief Intervention for Problem Drug Use in Safety-Net Primary Care Settings > Methods > Analysis
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“allocation was concealed in sequentially numbered opaque envelopes opened by the research assistant at randomization.23”
§ Brief Intervention for Problem Drug Use in Safety-Net Primary Care Settings > Methods > Randomization
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [23] Doig GS Simpson F Randomization and allocation concealment: a practical guide for researchers. J Crit Care 2005 20 2 187 193 16139163
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Drug use was similar between groups (mean, 13.82 [SD, 11.00] days of the most frequently used drug) and was highly heterogeneous, with different types and patterns of use evident according to the severity of drug use measured by validated DAST-10 score categories (eTable 1 and eTable 2 in the Supplement).”
§ Brief Intervention for Problem Drug Use in Safety-Net Primary Care Settings > Results > Sample Selection, Attrition, and Description
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Although our negative findings are consistent with prior studies in treatment-seeking patients in the United States,5,6,8 they also may be a product of our participant characteristics as well as the ways in which the intervention was conducted and the outcomes were evaluated.”
§ Brief Intervention for Problem Drug Use in Safety-Net Primary Care Settings > Discussion
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [5] Otto C Crackau B Löhrmann I Brief intervention in general hospital for problematic prescription drug use: 12-month outcome. Drug Alcohol Depend 2009 105 3 221 226 19726140
- Not checked yetcites [6] Zahradnik A Otto C Crackau B Randomized controlled trial of a brief intervention for problematic prescription drug use in non-treatment-seeking patients. Addiction 2009 104 1 109 117 19133895
- Not checked yetcites [8] Humeniuk R Ali R Babor T A randomized controlled trial of a brief intervention for illicit drugs linked to the Alcohol, Smoking and Substance Involvement Screening Test (ASSIST) in clients recruited from primary health-care settings in four countries. Addiction 2012 107 5 957 966 22126102
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Of the 435 participants randomized to the intervention, 423 (97%) received a brief intervention and 203 (47%) received a booster call.”
§ Brief Intervention for Problem Drug Use in Safety-Net Primary Care Settings > Results > Intervention Participation and Fidelity
plainn = 435- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one. The quote only partly states this claim.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Over the course of the next year, a small number of participants in both conditions (brief intervention: n = 26; enhanced care as usual: n = 34) received brief interventions outside the study via regular clinical services.”
§ Brief Intervention for Problem Drug Use in Safety-Net Primary Care Settings > Results > Intervention Participation and Fidelity
plainn = 26- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Although more frequent contact may increase efficacy,1 some studies have failed to show this.38”
§ Brief Intervention for Problem Drug Use in Safety-Net Primary Care Settings > Discussion
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [1] Kaner EF Beyer F Dickinson HO Effectiveness of brief alcohol interventions in primary care populations. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2007 2 CD004148 17443541
- Not checked yetcites [38] D'Onofrio G Fiellin DA Pantalon MV A brief intervention reduces hazardous and harmful drinking in emergency department patients. Ann Emerg Med 2012 60 2 181 192 22459448 PMC3811141
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These last 2 aspects of our population (poverty and mental illness), along with the fact that patients in this study received compensation, may limit the generalizability of our results.”
§ Brief Intervention for Problem Drug Use in Safety-Net Primary Care Settings > Discussion
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“A hybrid efficacy-effectiveness design was chosen to enhance external validity by using a brief intervention protocol similar to that used in the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration–funded Washington State SBIRT study16 and having the intervention delivered by social workers already working with patients in these clinics.17”
§ Brief Intervention for Problem Drug Use in Safety-Net Primary Care Settings > Methods > Design
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [16] Krupski A Sears JM Joesch JM Impact of brief interventions and brief treatment on admissions to chemical dependency treatment. Drug Alcohol Depend 2010 110 1-2 126 136 20347234
- Not checked yetcites [17] Carroll KM Rounsaville BJ Bridging the gap: a hybrid model to link efficacy and effectiveness research in substance abuse treatment. Psychiatr Serv 2003 54 3 333 339 12610240 PMC3650626
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Monthly group supervision and ongoing e-mailed feedback from the trainer (25% of recorded brief interventions) were used to maintain intervention fidelity.”
§ Brief Intervention for Problem Drug Use in Safety-Net Primary Care Settings > Methods > Intervention
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A randomized clinical trial with blinded assessments at baseline and at 3, 6, 9, and 12 months conducted in 7 safety-net primary care clinics in Washington State.”
§ Brief Intervention for Problem Drug Use in Safety-Net Primary Care Settings > Abstract > DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The brief intervention averaged 27 minutes, and 86% of interventions were recorded.”
§ Brief Intervention for Problem Drug Use in Safety-Net Primary Care Settings > Results > Intervention Participation and Fidelity
plainn = 435- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“All interventionists met basic motivational interviewing proficiency training goals on at least 1 practice role-play.26”
§ Brief Intervention for Problem Drug Use in Safety-Net Primary Care Settings > Methods > Intervention
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [26] Moyers TB Martin T Manuel JK Hendrickson SM Miller WR Assessing competence in the use of motivational interviewing. J Subst Abuse Treat 2005 28 1 19 26 15723728
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“The assessment battery, administered by trained research assistants, was brief to minimize any unintended intervention effects17,28 and to maximize the chance of completing study procedures around a primary care visit.”
§ Brief Intervention for Problem Drug Use in Safety-Net Primary Care Settings > Methods > Assessment Measures
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [17] Carroll KM Rounsaville BJ Bridging the gap: a hybrid model to link efficacy and effectiveness research in substance abuse treatment. Psychiatr Serv 2003 54 3 333 339 12610240 PMC3650626
- Not checked yetcites [28] Kypri K Methodological issues in alcohol screening and brief intervention research. Subst Abus 2007 28 3 31 42 18077301
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Fourth, measuring frequency but not quantity of drug use is a limited measure of outcome.”
§ Brief Intervention for Problem Drug Use in Safety-Net Primary Care Settings > Discussion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Second, the participant's primary care physician did not deliver the intervention, nor did a research-confirmed expert.”
§ Brief Intervention for Problem Drug Use in Safety-Net Primary Care Settings > Discussion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Third, the sample had a high rate of comorbid mental illness, which is known to be associated with poorer substance use outcomes.37”
§ Brief Intervention for Problem Drug Use in Safety-Net Primary Care Settings > Discussion
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [37] Krupski A Sears JM Joesch JM Self-reported alcohol and drug use six months after brief intervention: do changes in reported use vary by mental-health status? Addict Sci Clin Pract 2012 7 1 24 23186062 PMC3685518
boostedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Many participants also used alcohol, but because we had no data on quantity of alcohol consumed per drinking day, determining degree of hazardous alcohol use was not possible.”
§ Brief Intervention for Problem Drug Use in Safety-Net Primary Care Settings > Results > Sample Selection, Attrition, and Description
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper relies on this without support.
There is no gold standard for quantifying problem drug use.
“Currently there is no gold standard for quantifying problem drug use.”
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“The positive findings from this earlier body of research, however, have not been supported by two recent large randomized trials that found no significant effect on illicit drug use in primary healthcare settings (Roy-Byrne et al., 2014; Saitz et al., 2014).”
From A randomized study of the use of screening, brief intervention, and referral to treatment (SBIRT) for drug and alcohol use with jail inmates (2017) · cites this paper as Roy-Byrne et al., 2014
In the citing paper
“The results of this study lend support to those studies that have found SBIRT to have no significant impact on drug use in medical settings (Roy-Byrne et al., 2014; Saitz et al., 2014) or on alcohol among probationers (Newbury-Birch et al., 2014; Stein et al., 2010).”
From A randomized study of the use of screening, brief intervention, and referral to treatment (SBIRT) for drug and alcohol use with jail inmates (2017) · cites this paper as Roy-Byrne et al., 2014
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ Brief Intervention for Problem Drug Use in Safety-Net Primary Care Settings > Abstract > RESULTS
“at 3 months postintervention, means were 11.87 (SD, 12.13) (brief intervention) and 9.84 (SD, 10.64) (enhanced care as usual)”
§ Brief Intervention for Problem Drug Use in Safety-Net Primary Care Settings > Results > Main Outcomes
“at 3 months postintervention were 11.97 (SD, 12.13) (brief intervention) and 9.84 (SD, 10.64) (enhanced care as usual)”
Citations
Cites
Hasin, D. S., Stinson, F. S., Ogburn, E., & Grant, B. F. (2007) · Archives of General Psychiatry · doi:10.1001/archpsyc.64.7.830 · Cited by 2,908
Generalized Estimating Equations
Hardin, J. W., & Hilbe, J. M. (2002) · doi:10.1201/9781420035285 · Cited by 1,766
Effectiveness of brief alcohol interventions in primary care populations
Kaner, E. F., Beyer, F. R., Muirhead, C., Campbell, F., Pienaar, E. D., Bertholet, N., Daeppen, J. B., Saunders, J. B., & Burnand, B. (2018) · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd004148.pub4 · Cited by 1,665
Babor, T. F., McRee, B. G., Kassebaum, P. A., Grimaldi, P. L., Ahmed, K., & Bray, J. (2007) · Substance Abuse · doi:10.1300/j465v28n03_03 · Cited by 1,100
A comprehensive review of the psychometric properties of the Drug Abuse Screening Test
Yudko, E., Lozhkina, O., & Fouts, A. (2007) · Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment · doi:10.1016/j.jsat.2006.08.002 · Cited by 906
Using the Longitudinal Structure of Earnings to Estimate the Effect of Training Programs
Ashenfelter, O., & Card, D. (1984) · National Bureau of Economic Research · doi:10.3386/w1489 · Cited by 885
Effectiveness of brief alcohol interventions in primary care populations
Kaner, E. F. S., Dickinson, H. O., Beyer, F. R., Campbell, F., Schlesinger, C., Heather, N., Saunders, J. B., Burnand, B., & Pienaar, E. D. (2007) · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd004148.pub3 · Cited by 746
Assessing competence in the use of motivational interviewing
Moyers, T. B., Martin, T., Manuel, J. K., Hendrickson, S. M. L., & Miller, W. R. (2005) · Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment · doi:10.1016/j.jsat.2004.11.001 · Cited by 738
Bertholet, N. (2005) · Archives of Internal Medicine · doi:10.1001/archinte.165.9.986 · Cited by 710
Randomization and allocation concealment: a practical guide for researchers
Doig, G. S., & Simpson, F. O. (2005) · Journal of Critical Care · doi:10.1016/j.jcrc.2005.04.005 · Cited by 664
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Emergency Department–Initiated Buprenorphine/Naloxone Treatment for Opioid Dependence
D’Onofrio, G., O’Connor, P. G., Pantalon, M. V., Chawarski, M. C., Busch, S. H., Owens, P. H., Bernstein, S. L., & Fiellin, D. A. (2015) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.2015.3474 · Cited by 913
Magill, M., Apodaca, T. R., Borsari, B. E., Gaume, J., Hoadley, A., Gordon, R. E. F., Tonigan, J. S., & Moyers, T. B. (2017) · Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology · doi:10.1037/ccp0000250 · Cited by 336
McNeely, J., Wu, L.-T., Subramaniam, G., Sharma, G., Cathers, L. A., Svikis, D., Sleiter, L., Russell, L., Nordeck, C., Sharma, A., et al. (2016) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/m16-0317 · Cited by 320
McNeely, J., Kumar, P. C., Rieckmann, T., Sedlander, E., Farkas, S., Chollak, C., Kannry, J. L., Vega, A., Waite, E. A., Peccoralo, L. A., et al. (2018) · Addiction Science & Clinical Practice · doi:10.1186/s13722-018-0110-8 · Cited by 303
Psychosocial interventions for cannabis use disorder
Gates, P. J., Sabioni, P., Copeland, J., Le Foll, B., & Gowing, L. (2016) · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd005336.pub4 · Cited by 282
Metadata
- Authors
- Roy-Byrne, P., Bumgardner, K., Krupski, A., Dunn, C., Ries, R., Donovan, D., West, I. I., Maynard, C., Atkins, D. C., Graves, M. C., Joesch, J. M., & Zarkin, G. A.
- Affiliations
- Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, School of Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle
- University of Washington (US)
- RTI International (US)
- Venue
- JAMA
- Publisher
- American Medical Association (AMA)
- Published
- 2014-08-06
- Volume
- 312
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 492
- ISSN
- 0002-9955 (ISSN-L)
- 0098-7484
- PMC
- PMC4599980
- OpenAlex
- W2022063518
- Cited by
- 188
- References
- 37
- Citations by year
- 2026: 3 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 18 · 2018: 19 · 2017: 41 · 2016: 34 · 2015: 40 · 2014: 6
- FWCI
- 30.48
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
- Locations
- JAMA (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
- PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
- Funders
- National Institute on Drug Abuse (R01DA026014)
- Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (R24HD042828)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Substance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Opioid Use Disorder Treatment
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › HIV, Drug Use, Sexual Risk
- Keywords
- brief intervention, problematic substance use, substance use disorders, safety-net primary care, motivational interviewing, Addiction Severity Index, substance abuse treatment admissions, HIV risk behavior, emergency department admission, arrests, mortality, health disparities, Washington State, Oregon, California, Colorado, New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada, Utah, Idaho, Montana
- MeSH terms
- Adult, Female, Patient Care, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Patient Education as Topic, Primary Health Care, Severity of Illness Index, Telephone, Treatment Outcome, Substance-Related Disorders, Motivational Interviewing, Safety-net Providers
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-07, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-07 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
