Cited by 280Substance Abuse Treatment and OutcomesOpioid Use Disorder TreatmentHIV, Drug Use, Sexual Risk

Screening and Brief Intervention for Drug Use in Primary Care: The ASPIRE Randomized Clinical Trial

Open access
Saitz, Richard, Palfai, Tibor P. A., Cheng, Debbie M., Alford, Daniel P., Bernstein, Judith A., Lloyd-Travaglini, Christine A., Meli, Seville M., Chaisson, Christine E. +1 more·2014·JAMA

Abstract

IMPORTANCE: The United States has invested substantially in screening and brief intervention for illicit drug use and prescription drug misuse, based in part on evidence of efficacy for unhealthy alcohol use. However, it is not a recommended universal preventive service in primary care because of lack of evidence of efficacy. OBJECTIVE: To test the efficacy of 2 brief counseling interventions for unhealthy drug use (any illicit drug use or prescription drug misuse)-a brief negotiated interview (BNI) and an adaptation of motivational interviewing (MOTIV)-compared with no brief intervention. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This 3-group randomized trial took place at an urban hospital-based primary care internal medicine practice; 528 adult primary care patients with drug use (Alcohol, Smoking, and Substance Involvement Screening Test [ASSIST] substance-specific scores of ≥4) were identified by screening between June 2009 and January 2012 in Boston, Massachusetts. INTERVENTIONS: Two interventions were tested: the BNI is a 10- to 15-minute structured interview conducted by health educators; the MOTIV is a 30- to 45-minute intervention based on motivational interviewing with a 20- to 30-minute booster conducted by master's-level counselors. All study participants received a written list of substance use disorder treatment and mutual help resources. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Primary outcome was number of days of use in the past 30 days of the self-identified main drug as determined by a validated calendar method at 6 months. Secondary outcomes included other self-reported measures of drug use, drug use according to hair testing, ASSIST scores (severity), drug use consequences, unsafe sex, mutual help meeting attendance, and health care utilization. RESULTS: At baseline, 63% of participants reported their main drug was marijuana, 19% cocaine, and 17% opioids. At 6 months, 98% completed follow-up. Mean adjusted number of days using the main drug at 6 months was 12 for no brief intervention vs 11 for the BNI group (incidence rate ratio [IRR], 0.97; 95% CI, 0.77-1.22) and 12 for the MOTIV group (IRR, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.84-1.32; P = .81 for both comparisons vs no brief intervention). There were also no significant effects of BNI or MOTIV on any other outcome or in analyses stratified by main drug or drug use severity. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Brief intervention did not have efficacy for decreasing unhealthy drug use in primary care patients identified by screening. These results do not support widespread implementation of illicit drug use and prescription drug misuse screening and brief intervention. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00876941.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1001/jama.2014.7862

Cites

39 of 39 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. [31]Hao L Naiman DQ Quantile Regression 2007 Sage Publications Thousand Oaks, CA
  2. [32]Koenker R Quantile Regression 2005 Cambridge University Press New York, NY

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Saitz, R., Palfai, T. P. A., Cheng, D. M., Alford, D. P., Bernstein, J. A., Lloyd-Travaglini, C. A., Meli, S. M., Chaisson, C. E., & Samet, J. H.
Affiliations
Boston University (US)
Corresponding author
Saitz, Richard
Venue
JAMA
Published
2014-08-06
Volume
312
Issue
5
Pages
502
ISSN
  • 0002-9955 (ISSN-L)
  • 0098-7484
OpenAlex
W2083318583
Cited by
280
References
39
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 17 · 2020: 18 · 2019: 42 · 2018: 28 · 2017: 48 · 2016: 37 · 2015: 46 · 2014: 6
FWCI
34.60
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • JAMA (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institute on Drug Abuse (R01DA025068)
  • National Center for Research Resources (M01RR000533, UL1RR025771)
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
screening and brief intervention, illicit drug use, prescription drug misuse, motivational interviewing, primary care, substance use disorders, cannabis use, cocaine use, opioid use, ASSIST screening, hair analysis, self-help groups, health care utilization, substance use consequences, unprotected sex, health educators, counselors, calendar method, harm reduction, internal medicine practice, urban primary care
MeSH terms
Adult, Female, Health Services, Hospitals, Urban, Humans, Male, Mass Screening, Middle Aged, Primary Health Care, Treatment Outcome, Substance-Related Disorders, Unsafe Sex, Self Report, Motivational Interviewing

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.

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