CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 163Substance Abuse Treatment and OutcomesSmoking Behavior and CessationOpioid Use Disorder Treatment

Computer-facilitated substance use screening and brief advice for teens in primary care: An international trial

Open access
Harris, Sion Kim, Csémy, Ladislav, Sherritt, Lon, Starostova, Olga, Van Hook, Shari, Johnson, Julie, Boulter, Suzanne, Brooks, Traci +5 more·2012·Pediatrics
DOI 10.1542/peds.2011-1624PMC PMC3362902
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Primary care providers need effective strategies for substance use screening and brief counseling of adolescents. We examined the effects of a new computer-facilitated screening and provider brief advice (cSBA) system. METHODS: We used a quasi-experimental, asynchronous study design in which each site served as its own control. From 2005 to 2008, 12- to 18-year-olds arriving for routine care at 9 medical offices in New England (n = 2096, 58% females) and 10 in Prague, Czech Republic (n = 589, 47% females) were recruited. Patients completed measurements only during the initial treatment-as-usual study phase. We then conducted 1-hour provider training, and initiated the cSBA phase. Before seeing the provider, all cSBA participants completed a computerized screen, and then viewed screening results, scientific information, and true-life stories illustrating substance use harms. Providers received screening results and “talking points” designed to prompt 2 to 3 minutes of brief advice. We examined alcohol and cannabis use, initiation, and cessation rates over the past 90 days at 3-month follow-up, and over the past 12 months at 12-month follow-up. RESULTS: Compared with treatment as usual, cSBA patients reported less alcohol use at follow-up in New England (3-month rates 15.5% vs 22.9%, adjusted relative risk ratio [aRRR] = 0.54, 95% confidence interval 0.38–0.77; 12-month rates 29.3% vs 37.5%, aRRR = 0.73, 0.57–0.92), and less cannabis use in Prague (3-month rates 5.5% vs 9.8%, aRRR = 0.37, 0.17–0.77; 12-month rates 17.0% vs 28.7%, aRRR = 0.47, 0.32–0.71). CONCLUSIONS: Computer-facilitated screening and provider brief advice appears promising for reducing substance use among adolescent primary care patients.

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 · 10.1542/peds.2011-1624

Cites

69 of 69 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?

  • SBI has been found effective in reducing low, moderate, and high-risk substance use among youth in the US, Czech Republic, and South Africa.

    “It has been found to be effective in reducing low, moderate, and high-risk substance use among youth in the US (Winters et al., 2014), Czech Republic (Harris et al., 2012) and South Africa (Carney et al., 2020).”

    From Adapting a substance use screening and brief intervention for peer-delivery and for youth in Kenya (2023) · cites this paper as Harris et al., 2012

    The Results report that computer-facilitated screening and brief advice reduced cannabis use among adolescents in Prague at both follow-ups. They also report no significant effect on overall substance use or alcohol use in Prague. The Intervention Protocol describes low, medium, and high risk levels, but the reported effectiveness findings are not broken down by those levels. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Most research has focused on short-term outcomes.

    “most research has focused on short-term outcomes [18,34]”

    From Young Adult Substance Use and Healthcare Use Associated With Screening, Brief Intervention and Referral to Treatment in Pediatric Primary Care. (2022) · cites this paper as [18]

    The Data Analyses section describes this trial’s 3- and 12-month outcomes, and the Discussion mentions one earlier study with a 6-month follow-up. Neither passage establishes that most research has focused on short-term outcomes; searches for statements about the duration of prior studies found no such assessment in our copy. Page numbers were not available. (LLM, conf=0.72)

    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

1 of the 70 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. [34]34. Csemy L, Knight JR, Starostova O, Sherritt L, Kabicek P, Van Hook S. Adolescents sub- stance abuse screening program: experi- ence with Czech adaptation of the CRAFFT screening test. Vox Pediatriae. 2008;8(6): 35-36
  2. [42]42. Euromonitor International. Who Drinks What? Identifying International Drinks Con- sumption Trends. 2nd edition London: Euro- monitor International Ltd; 2011
  3. [59]59. De Micheli D, Fisberg M, Formigoni ML. Study on the effectiveness of brief in- tervention for alcohol and other drug use directed to adolescents in a primary health care unit [in Portuguese]. Rev Assoc Med Bras. 2004;50(3):305-313

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Harris, S. K., Csémy, L., Sherritt, L., Starostova, O., Van Hook, S., Johnson, J., Boulter, S., Brooks, T., Carey, P., Kossack, R., Kulig, J. W., Van Vranken, N., & Knight, J. R.
Affiliations
  • Boston Children's Hospital (US)
  • National Institute of Mental Health (CZ)
  • Charles University (CZ)
  • Department of Pediatrics, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts;
  • Concord Hospital (US)
  • Cambridge Health Alliance (US)
  • Family Practice Associates, Cambridge Health Center, Cambridge, Vermont;
  • Reliant Medical Group (US)
  • Tufts Medical Center (US)
  • Dartmouth-Hitchcock Concord, Pediatrics, Concord, New Hampshire
Corresponding author
Harris, Sion Kim
ORCID
Venue
Pediatrics
Publisher
American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP)
Published
2012-06-01
Volume
129
Issue
6
Pages
1072-1082
ISSN
  • 0031-4005 (ISSN-L)
  • 1098-4275
DOI
10.1542/peds.2011-1624
PMC
PMC3362902
OpenAlex
W2125013925
Semantic Scholar
842e38c17fdfec3628590eb154b10b2e7b656410
Cited by
163
References
70
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 12 · 2019: 44 · 2018: 10 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 19 · 2015: 17 · 2014: 9 · 2013: 8
FWCI
8.14
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • PEDIATRICS (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • J.F Maddox Foundation
  • National Institutes of Health
  • U.S. Public Health Service (T71NC0009, T20MC07462)
  • National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (K07AA013280)
  • National Institute on Drug Abuse (R01DA018848)
  • Maternal and Child Health Bureau (T20MC07462)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Substance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Smoking Behavior and Cessation
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Opioid Use Disorder Treatment
Keywords
brief advice, adolescent substance use, alcohol consumption, cannabis use, primary care, provider training, substance use prevention, substance use initiation, substance use cessation, harm reduction messaging
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Child, Diagnosis, Computer-Assisted, Female, Follow-Up Studies, Humans, Male, New England, Primary Health Care, Substance Abuse Detection, Czech Republic, Substance-Related Disorders, Internationality, Self Report

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