Cited by 7Opioid Use Disorder TreatmentSubstance Abuse Treatment and OutcomesHealth Policy Implementation Science

An Interventionist Adherence Scale for a Specialized Brief Negotiation Interview Focused on Treatment Engagement for Opioid use Disorders

Open access
Pantalon, Michael V., Dziura, James, Li, Fang-Yong, Owens, Patricia H., O'Connor, Patrick G., D'Onofrio, Gail·2017·Substance Abuse

Abstract

Background: No psychometrically validated instrument for evaluating the extent to which interventionists correctly implement brief interventions designed to motivate treatment engagement for opioid use disorders has been reported in the literature. The objective of this study was to develop and examine the psychometric properties of the Brief Negotiation Interview (BNI) Adherence Scale for Opioid Use Disorders (BAS-O). Methods: In the context of a randomized controlled trial evaluating the efficacy of 3 models of emergency department care for opioid use disorders, the authors developed and subsequently examined the psychometric properties of the BAS-O, a 38-item scale that required raters to answer whether or not (“Yes” or “No”) each of the critical actions of the BNI was correctly implemented by the research interventionist. BAS-O items pertained to the BNI's 4 steps: (1) Raise the Subject, (2) Provide Feedback, (3) Enhance Motivation, and (4) Negotiate and Advise. A total of 215 audio-recorded BNI and 88 control encounters were rated by 3 trained raters who were independent of the study team and blind to study hypotheses, treatment, and assignment. Results: The results indicated the BAS-O has fair to excellent psychometric properties, in terms of good internal consistency, excellent interrater reliability, discriminant validity, and construct validity, and fair predictive validity. A 13-item, 2-factor solution accounted for nearly 80% of the variance, where factor 1 addressed “Autonomy and Planning” (7 items) and factor 2 addressed “Motivation and Problems” (6 items). However, predictive validity was found for only one of the BAS-O factor items (i.e., Telling patients that treatment will address a range of issues related to their opioid use disorder). Conclusions: This study suggests that the BAS-O is a psychometrically valid measure of adherence to the specialized BNI for motivating treatment engagement in patients with opioid use disorders, thus providing a brief (13-item), objective method of evaluating BNI skill performance.

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 · 10.1080/08897077.2017.1294548

Cites

35 of 35 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?

  • One observed change in perceived feasibility was the disappearance of "lack of training" as a reported barrier post-intervention, which may indicate that participants no longer viewed inadequate preparation as an obstacle to SBIRT delivery.

    “One observed change in perceived feasibility was the disappearance of “lack of training” as a reported barrier post-intervention, which may indicate that participants no longer viewed inadequate preparation as an obstacle to SBIRT delivery [31].”

    From Screening, brief intervention, and referral to treatment training for Nigerian primary care physicians: A pilot evaluation of knowledge, attitudes, self-efficacy, and barriers to implementation (2025) · cites this paper as [31]

    The Methods > Procedures passage reports that interventionists received two-hour training, and the Discussion says they could learn to deliver the brief negotiation interview with sufficient adherence. Neither passage reports pre- and post-intervention perceptions of SBIRT delivery or whether “lack of training” disappeared as a reported barrier. Searches for that barrier and for changes in perceived feasibility found no such result in our copy; page numbers were not provided. (LLM, conf=0.76)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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

Authors
Pantalon, M. V., Dziura, J., Li, F.-Y., Owens, P. H., O'Connor, P. G., & D'Onofrio, G.
Affiliations
  • Yale University (US)
  • Yale University School of Public Health, New Haven, Connecticut, USA
  • Department of Internal Medicine, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, USA
  • Department of Emergency Medicine, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, USA
Corresponding author
Pantalon, Michael V.
Venue
Substance Abuse
Published
2017-04
Volume
38
Issue
2
Pages
191-199
ISSN
  • 0889-7077 (ISSN-L)
  • 1547-0164
OpenAlex
W2590670781
Cited by
7
References
35
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 3 · 2019: 1
FWCI
0.26
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Substance Abuse (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
National Institute on Drug Abuse (R01DA025991)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Opioid Use Disorder Treatment
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Substance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Policy Implementation Science
Keywords
opioid use disorder, treatment engagement, scale development, psychometric validation, emergency department care, motivational interviewing, inter-rater reliability, motivation
MeSH terms
Emergency Service, Hospital, Humans, Interview, Psychological, Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice, Opioid-Related Disorders, Patient Acceptance of Health Care, Psychometrics, Surveys and Questionnaires

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