Cited by 24Substance Abuse Treatment and OutcomesInnovations in Medical EducationOpioid Use Disorder Treatment

‘Asking’ but Not ‘Screening’: Assessing Physicians’ and Nurses’ Substance-Related Clinical Behaviors

Agley, Jon, Carlson, Joan M., McNelis, Angela M., Gassman, Ruth A., Schwindt, Rhonda, Crabb, David, Vannerson, Julie·2018·Substance Use & Misuse

Abstract

Background Screening, brief intervention, and referral to treatment (SBIRT) is a promising public health approach for problematic substance use. A core component of SBIRT is the use of formal screening tools to categorize a patient's likely level of risk in order to provide an appropriately-matched service. Training in formal screening is included in many SBIRT training programs, but infrequently is emphasized. Objectives To assess pre-training levels of SBIRT-related clinical behaviors, including screening, this study examined a secondary dataset collected from internal medicine residents and graduate nurse practitioner students. Methods Learners (n = 117) completed 13 self-report items assessing use of SBIRT-related behaviors. Researchers used exploratory factor analysis to identify underlying concepts in the questionnaire, then used mixed ANOVA to compare mean frequency of utilization of each factor (asking, screening, and intervening) by academic program. Results Learners reported asking about substance use frequently, intervening some of the time, and infrequently using formal screening tools. Interaction and between-academic-program effects were significant but small. Conclusions Prior to SBIRT training, most clinical practitioners reported asking patients about substance use, but few reported regularly using formal substance use screening tools. This may have implications for the importance of SBIRT training as part of curricular work, and for the internal content foci…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/10826084.2018.1438806

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

No citation lists for this paper

No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.

References 1 · Cited by 24

Authors
Agley, J., Carlson, J. M., McNelis, A. M., Gassman, R. A., Schwindt, R., Crabb, D., & Vannerson, J.
Affiliations
  • Indiana University Bloomington (US)
  • Indiana University Indianapolis (US)
  • George Washington University (US)
  • Indiana University School of Medicine (US)
Corresponding author
Agley, Jon
Venue
Substance Use & Misuse
Published
2018-02-15
Volume
53
Issue
11
Pages
1834-1839
ISSN
  • 1082-6084 (ISSN-L)
  • 1532-2491
OpenAlex
W2793564760
Cited by
24
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 4 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 1
FWCI
2.93
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Substance Use & Misuse (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA TI025375)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Substance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Innovations in Medical Education
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Opioid Use Disorder Treatment
Keywords
SBIRT, substance use screening, clinical behavior, internal medicine residents, nurse practitioner students, intervention, academic program differences, medical curriculum
MeSH terms
Humans, Internal Medicine, Internship and Residency, Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice, Referral and Consultation, Students, Nursing, Substance-Related Disorders

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