Screening and brief intervention for drug use in primary care: the assessing screening plus brief intervention’s resulting efficacy to stop drug use (ASPIRE) randomized trial
Open accessAbstract
The efficacy of universal screening and brief intervention (SBI) for drug use among primary care (PC) patients is unknown. In this randomized trial (the Assessing Screening Plus brief Intervention’s Resulting Efficacy to stop drug use (ASPIRE) study) we tested the efficacy of a brief negotiated interview (BNI), and an adaptation of motivational interviewing (AMI), compared to no BI. Primary care patient participants had Alcohol, Smoking and Substance Involvement Screening Test (ASSIST) drug specific scores of ≥4. Primary outcome at 6 months was number of days use of the drug of most concern (DOMC) in the past 30 days. Of 528 subjects, DOMC was: marijuana 63%, opioid 17% (prescription opioid 11%), and cocaine 19%. ASSIST score was ≥27 (consistent with dependence) for 18%, mean days DOMC use (of 30 days) was 14.4. At 6 months, 98% completed follow-up and mean days DOMC use was 14.0. Mean adjusted days use of the DOMC at 6 months (negative binomial regression) was 11.5 (no BI) vs. 11.2 (BNI) (incidence rate ratio (IRR) 0.97, 95% CI 0.77-1.22) and 12.1 (AMI) (IRR 1.05, 95% CI 0.84-1.32) (p=0.81 for both comparisons vs. no BI). There were also no significant effects in analyses stratified by DOMC or ASSIST score. In this trial, BNI and AMI did not have efficacy for decreasing drug use. If other trials yield consistent results, widespread implementation of drug screening and BI should be reconsidered, and research should focus on alternative ways to address drug use and consequences in primary care settings. Funding was provided by the US National Institutes of Health (National Institute on Drug Abuse and National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences).
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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?
Evidence for the effectiveness of SBIRT is much more limited for other drug use and in settings other than primary care.
“However, some studies have noted that evidence for the effectiveness of SBIRT is much more limited for other drug use and in settings other than primary care (21).”
From Community-Based Screening, Brief Intervention, and Referral for Treatment for Unhealthy Tobacco Use: Single Arm Study Experience and Implementation Success in Rural and Semi-Rural Settings, South-West Nigeria (2016) · cites this paper as [21]
The Conclusions report that brief interventions did not decrease drug use in this primary-care trial, supporting concern about effectiveness for drug use. The Methods show that participants were primary-care patients; the paper does not assess evidence in settings other than primary care. No page numbers are available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.86)
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
Still being checked.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Screening and Brief Intervention for Unhealthy Drug Use: Little or No Efficacy
Saitz, R. (2014) · Frontiers in Psychiatry · doi:10.3389/fpsyt.2014.00121 · Cited by 78 · see citing works
Self-citationPain acceptance and opiate use disorders in addiction treatment patients with comorbid pain
Lin, L. (., Bohnert, A. S. B., Price, A. M., Jannausch, M., Bonar, E. E., & Ilgen, M. A. (2015) · Drug and Alcohol Dependence · doi:10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2015.10.017 · Cited by 20 · see citing works
Rolin-Gilman, C., Fournier, B., & Cleverley, K. (2017) · Pain Management Nursing · doi:10.1016/j.pmn.2017.03.002 · Cited by 9 · see citing works
Lasebikan, V. O., & Ola, B. A. (2016) · Frontiers in Psychiatry · doi:10.3389/fpsyt.2016.00134 · Cited by 8 · see citing works
“However, some studies have noted that evidence for the effectiveness of SBIRT is much more limited for other drug use and in settings other than primary care (21).”
BackgroundZenón, F., Jorge, I., Cruz, A. M., Suarez, E. L., Segarra, A. C., Vázquez, J., Meléndez, L. M., & Serrano, H. (2015) · PROTEOMICS - CLINICAL APPLICATIONS · doi:10.1002/prca.201400204 · Cited by 5 · see citing works
- Authors
- Saitz, R., Palfai, T. P., 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
- ORCID
- Venue
- Addiction Science & Clinical Practice
- Published
- 2013-09
- Volume
- 8
- Issue
- S1
- ISSN
- 1940-0632 (ISSN-L)
- 1940-0640
- PMC
- PMC3766125
- OpenAlex
- W1725753225
- Semantic Scholar
- 1e08c6b001e7a94e42f442623a8285deb6e9e0cc
- Cited by
- 5
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2017: 1 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 1
- FWCI
- 0.97
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Addiction Science & Clinical Practice (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- 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 › Physiology › Smoking Behavior and Cessation
- Keywords
- screening and brief intervention, drug use, primary care, motivational interviewing, ASSIST, substance use screening, cannabis use, prescription opioid use, cocaine use, drug addiction, intervention efficacy
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