Search

Purpose: This study aimed to elicit pediatric primary care providers' (PCPs) feedback on the acceptability and feasibility of implementing a tablet computer-facilitated Screening and Brief Intervention (cSBI) system for adolescent substance use in their practices., Methods: We trained PCPs at five Boston area practices and enrolled their 12- to 18-year-old patients in a pilot randomized trial of cSBI versus usual care. PCPs completed an 18-item poststudy questionnaire. We computed frequencies and thematically coded open-ended responses., Results: The analysis sample included 49 of 54 participating PCPs (90.7%). Overall, 89.8% of participants agreed the cSBI system was useful, and 81.6% reported increased confidence in providing brief counseling. Most useful were the immediate availability of screen results, talking points on substance use risks, and counseling prompts. Challenges included time and unfamiliarity with tablet computers. Many suggested electronic health record integration of cSBI to improve efficiency., Conclusions: cSBI showed high acceptability and increased confidence among pediatric PCPs. Feasibility could be enhanced by electronic health record integration., (Copyright © 2020 Society for Adolescent Health and Medicine. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

The CRAFFT Substance Abuse Screening Instrument, developed by the Center for Adolescents Substance Abuse Research (CeASAR) (Knight et al., 1999), is a screening tool for high-risk alcohol and drug risk consumption designed for use with adolescents. Since its publication it has been the subject of translations and validations in different countries, populations and contexts that have demonstrated its enormous potential. However, there is still no empirical validation study that would ensure its good psychometric performance in Spain. The aim of this paper is to develop an adapted version of the CRAFFT in Spanish and to analyze its psychometric properties in a sample of Spanish adolescents. For this purpose an individual interview was conducted on 312 adolescents aged between 12 and 18 years of age (M = 15.01; SD = 1.83) from the Galician community. The interview included a part of the Adolescent Diagnostic Interview (ADI) and the Problem Oriented Screening Instrument for Teenagers (POSIT). The results obtained, similar to those found in other countries, allow us to report that the Spanish version of the CRAFFT has a good psychometric behaviorproperties. It was found to have a satisfactory internal consistency with a Cronbach’s alpha value of .74. In terms of sensitivity and specificity, values of 74.4% and 96.4% respectively, were obtained and the area under the ROC curve was .946. The Spanish version of the CRAFFT is made available to researchers and professionals in the field of addictive behaviors, so that it can be used with the necessary psychometric guarantees.

Objective: Alcohol- and drug-related car crashes are a leading cause of death for adolescents in the United States. This analysis tested the effects of a computer-facilitated Screening and Brief Advice (cSBA) system for primary care on adolescents' reports of driving after drinking or drug use (driving) and riding with substance-using drivers (riding)., Method: Twelve- to 18-year-old patients (N = 2,096) at nine New England pediatric offices completed assessments only during the initial 18-month treatment-as-usual (TAU) phase. Subsequently, the 18-month cSBA intervention phase began with a 1-hour provider training and implementation of the cSBA system at all sites. cSBA included a notebook-computer with self-administered screener, immediate scoring and feedback, and 10 pages of scientific information and true-life stories illustrating substance-related harms. Providers received screening results, "talking points" for 2 to 3 minutes of counseling, and a Contract for Life handout. Logistic regression with generalized estimating equations generated adjusted relative risk ratios (aRRR) for past-90-day driving and riding risk at 3- and 12-month follow-ups, controlling for significant covariates., Results: We found no significant effects on driving outcomes. At 3 months, cSBA youth were less likely than TAU to report riding with a drinking driver (aRRR = 0.70, 95% CI [0.49, 1.00]), and less likely to report riding with a driver who had used cannabis or other drugs (aRRR = 0.46, 95% CI [0.29, 0.74]). The effect was even greater (aRRR = 0.34, 95% CI [0.16, 0.71]) for riding with drinking drivers who were adult family members. All effects dissipated by 12-month follow-up., Conclusions: Screening and pediatrician brief advice shows promise for reducing adolescents' risk of riding with substance-using drivers.

Purpose: Adolescents with substance use disorders are more likely to have a current psychiatric disorder. However, when compared with the adult literature, there is relatively limited information regarding the specific co-occurrence of certain mental health diagnoses and substance use disorders in adolescents. The objectives of this study were to build on the previous literature regarding mental health diagnoses and different types of substance use disorders in adolescents, as well as explore the differences, if any, between groupings of mental health diagnosis and type of substance used., Methods: Data were extracted from the clinical records of 483 individuals aged 11-24 years referred for an evaluation at the Adolescent Substance Abuse Program at Boston Children's Hospital. According to DSM-IV-Text Revision criteria, individuals received diagnoses of substance abuse or dependence and any additional psychiatric disorders. Problematic use was included within the sample for greater power analysis. A multivariable logistic regression model estimated the association between psychiatric diagnosis and substance use while adjusting for covariates including age and gender., Results: Multiple significant associations were found, including having any anxiety-related diagnosis and opioid use (odds ratio [OR] = 2.23, p < .001), generalized anxiety disorder and opioids (OR = 3.42, p = .008), cocaine and post-traumatic stress disorder (OR = 3.61, p = .01), and marijuana and externalizing behavior disorders (OR = 2.10, p = .024)., Conclusions: Our study found multiple significant associations between specific substances and certain co-occurring psychiatric disorders. The use of office screening systems to efficiently identify these youths should be a part of routine medical and psychiatric care., (Copyright © 2017 Society for Adolescent Health and Medicine. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Computer self-administration may help busy pediatricians' offices increase adolescent substance use screening rates efficiently and effectively, if proven to yield valid responses. The CRAFFT screening protocol for adolescents has demonstrated validity as an interview, but a computer self-entry approach needs validity testing. The aim of this study was to evaluate the criterion validity and time efficiency of a computerized adolescent substance use screening protocol implemented by self-administration or clinician-administration., Methods: Twelve- to 17-year-old patients coming for routine care at 3 primary care clinics completed the computerized screen by both self-administration and clinician-administration during their visit. To account for order effects, we randomly assigned participants to self-administer the screen either before or after seeing their clinician. Both were conducted using a tablet computer and included identical items (any past-12-month use of tobacco, alcohol, drugs; past-3-month frequency of each; and 6 CRAFFT items). The criterion measure for substance use was the Timeline Follow-Back, and for alcohol/drug use disorder, the Adolescent Diagnostic Interview, both conducted by confidential research assistant interview after the visit. Tobacco dependence risk was assessed with the self-administered Hooked on Nicotine Checklist (HONC). Analyses accounted for the multisite cluster sampling design., Results: Among 136 participants, mean age was 15.0 ± 1.5 years, 54% were girls, 53% were black or Hispanic, and 67% had ≥3 prior visits with their clinician. Twenty-seven percent reported any substance use (including tobacco) in the past 12 months, 7% met criteria for an alcohol or cannabis use disorder, and 4% were HONC positive. Sensitivity/specificity of the screener were high for detecting past-12-month use or disorder and did not differ between computer and clinician. Mean completion time was 49 seconds (95% confidence interval [CI]: 44-54) for computer and 74 seconds (95% CI: 68-87) for clinician (paired comparison, P < .001)., Conclusions: Substance use screening by computer self-entry is a valid and time-efficient alternative to clinician-administered screening.

Substance use is the most common health risk behavior among adolescents and is one of the greatest threats to their current and future health. Universal screening of adolescents in general medical settings can be instrumental in identifying substance use early, before further problems develop and when BIs are more likely to be effective. Screening in and of itself may have some therapeutic effect. Brief screening tools feasible for use by busy medical offices to quickly and reliably assess adolescent risk for a substance use disorder now are available. A recent study found that a physician-conducted CRAFFT screen interview required an average of 74 seconds to complete, whereas a computer self-administered version took an average of 49 seconds. The CRAFFT and AUDIT tools currently have the most evidence for validity among adolescents, whereas the validity of other widely used tools such as DAST-10, NIDA-modified ASSIST (Alcohol, Smoking and Substance Involvement Screening Test), and ultra-brief screens (AUDIT-C, single-item screens) has yet to be established for adolescents. Studies are needed to identify effective strategies to promote universal adolescent screening and the use of valid screening tools in general medical settings. One statewide (Massachusetts) study found that although most (86%) primary care physicians seeing adolescents reported screening adolescents for substance use annually, only 1 in 3 reported using a validated tool (the CRAFFT). The remaining physicians reporting using informal screening procedures, their own questionnaire, or the CAGE. Computerization of screening and integration into the electronic health record appear to be promising strategies to promote universal screening and standardized use of valid screening tools. Increasing adolescent screening rates necessitates supporting physicians' ability to respond effectively to the screen results. To that end, recent evidence-informed practice guides from the AAP and NIAAA provide a structured algorithm for specific recommended responses based on level of risk. Adolescents who are at low or moderate risk for a substance use disorder, who constitute most of those seen in general medical settings, may be effectively counseled with a few minutes of brief advice, particularly after being primed with screening, feedback, and education before seeing their physician. High-risk patients (screen-positives) should receive a brief follow-up assessment to determine the appropriate level of care needed and a BI, using MI principles, to enhance motivation for behavioral change and help-seeking. Indications of acute danger or addiction may necessitate breaking confidentiality to protect patient safety and begin RT. Our review shows a small but growing body of research on the effectiveness of opportunistic BIs following screening of adolescents in clinical settings. Studies to date have largely tested brief alcohol-focused MI-based interventions with adolescents in the ED or trauma care settings; however, the number of studies conducted in primary health care settings is increasing. The strongest BI effects found in these studies tend to be related to harm reduction, such as reduction of substance-related driving/riding, alcohol-related injuries, unplanned sex, and other negative consequences of use. Effects on substance use have been more modest and tend to be stronger at shorter (< or = 6 months) rather than longer follow-up (> or = 12 months). However, many of these studies compared BI to active control conditions, which often included elements of BI (eg, assessment, brief advice, informational handouts). Significant reductions in substance use and related harms were also seen in these control groups, likely making detection ofa BI effect more difficult. A few studies have shown initial support for a prevention effect of BI among abstinent adolescents. At the opposite end of the spectrum, little is known about the effects of BI for adolescents with dependence and needing RT because of a lack of studies. Other areas needing additional research are the effect of BI on adolescent drug use, particularly on use of drugs other than cannabis; the mediators and moderators of BI effects; ways to reinforce and sustain effects over time; and how best to increase SBI implementation in general medical settings and to effectively train physicians. The effect of efforts such as the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration-funded physician residency SBIRT training programs remain to be determined. There has been increasing investigation into the potential of interactive computer technologies to aid SBIRT delivery to adolescents and young adults. A more detailed review of this area of research is beyond the scope of this article, but computer technology is proving to be an acceptable and effective tool in the delivery of BIs to young people, both as physician "extenders" in clinical settings and in the form of stand-alone self-guided programs. Computer technologies likely will play a critical role in promoting the expansion of SBIRT implementation for youth in general medical settings.

Many physicians are referred to state physician health programs (PHPs) for evaluation, monitoring, and treatment of mental health and substance use disorders. Most PHPs are "diversion" or "safe haven" programs, meaning that physicians who suffer from alcohol or drug problems can have their case diverted to the PHP in lieu of being reported to the state licensing board. If the physician agrees to cooperate with the PHP and adhere to any recommendations it might make, the physician can avoid disciplinary action and remain in practice. These programs are therefore quite powerful and yet, to our knowledge, there has not been any systematic scrutiny of the ethical and management issues that arise in standard PHP practice. Given our 20 years of service as associate directors of one state PHP we analyze and evaluate the standard operating procedure of many PHPs and offer ethical critique as well as suggestions for improvement.

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.

Background: Laboratory drug testing programs may be effective in reducing substance use by adolescents, but developmentally appropriate programs have not been described, and it is unknown if adolescents would be willing to participate in drug testing., Objective: To describe a drug testing protocol for adolescents and report on acceptance rate by patients participating in an outpatient adolescent substance abuse program., Methods: Eligible adolescents participating in an outpatient substance abuse treatment program were offered a random laboratory drug testing program that is described in detail in this manuscript. We recorded whether they accepted and, if not, the reason for refusal., Results: Of the first 114 eligible patients, 67 (59%) agreed to participate in a drug testing program (PDT)., Conclusions: A majority of adolescents participating in an outpatient drug treatment program agreed to participate in a drug testing program that requires frequent urine specimens and reports results to parents. Future studies should determine how this program affects treatment outcomes and whether this program is feasible in primary care., (Copyright © 2011 Society for Adolescent Health and Medicine. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Substance use among adolescents is a serious problem worldwide. Despite the commonly held belief that European youth have fewer problems with drinking than American youth, recent data from representative surveys in Europe and the United States suggest that the opposite may be true. While extensive research on youth alcohol and drug use exists in developed countries, data are lacking in other regions of the world. Sharing knowledge across countries and cultures may help us better understand patterns of youth substance use, related problems, and treatment needs, and may increase the likelihood that countries will develop informed social policies for their adolescent populations.

Purpose: This analysis was undertaken to determine whether adolescents who screened positive for high-risk substance use with the CRAFFT questions were also more likely to engage in risky sexual behaviors than their peers, and to determine the test-retest reliability of a substance use-related sexual risk behaviors inventory., Methods: Clinic patients 12-18 years old completed a multi-part questionnaire that included eight demographic items, the CRAFFT substance use screen, and a 14-item scale assessing sexual behaviors associated with substance use. Participants were invited to return 1 week later to complete an identical assessment battery., Results: Of the 305 study participants, 49 (16.1%) had a positive CRAFFT screen result (score of 2 or greater, indicating high risk for substance abuse/dependence) and 101 (33.9%) reported sexual contact during the past 90 days. After controlling for gender, age, race/ethnicity, and number of parents in household, adolescents with a positive CRAFFT screen had significantly greater odds of having sexual contact after using alcohol or other drugs, of having a sexual partner who used alcohol or other drugs, of having sex without a condom, and of having multiple sexual partners within the past year, compared to their CRAFFT negative peers. The substance use-related sexual risk behaviors inventory has acceptable test-retest reliability, and the 10 frequency questions have scale-like properties with acceptable internal consistency (standardized Cronbach's alpha=.79)., Conclusion: Clinicians should pay special attention to counseling CRAFFT-positive adolescents regarding use of condoms and the risks associated with sexual activity with multiple partners, while intoxicated, or with an intoxicated partner.

Objective: Primary care visits provide an opportunity to screen adolescents for substance use and offer early intervention, but little is known about follow-up plans. The objective of this study was to determine recommendations by PCPs and assess the relationship between their diagnostic impressions of substance use severity and plans for intervention., Methods: Data were collected through a prospective observational study conducted at 7 primary care practices in New England. Patients aged 12 to 18 years completed an interview, which included sociodemographic characteristics and the CRAFFT substance abuse screen. PCPs received screen results, noted their diagnostic impression of participants' substance use severity, and recorded follow-up plans. Follow-up plans other than "periodic screening" alone were defined as "active intervention." We examined the relationship of provider impressions with follow-up recommendations by using the chi(2) test., Results: For 2034 adolescents, PCPs recommended no plan for 369 patients, periodic screening for 1557 patients, a return visit for 98 patients, and referral to counseling for 44 patients. PCPs' diagnostic impressions identified 97 (4.8%) patients with problem use and 19 (0.01%) patients with abuse or dependence. Recommendations for active intervention were more likely with patients' higher severity of use. However, 1 in 5 patients thought to have problem use did not receive a recommendation for an active intervention. Parent notification was planned for only 13 patients., Conclusions: When concerned about substance use, PCPs recommend a return visit to their office more than twice as often as referral to counseling, and rarely planned to engage parents. PCPs need enhanced training and strategies for delivery of office-based interventions.

Purpose: The objective of our study was to assess the effects of requiring parental consent upon study participation and self-reported substance-related problems among 14-18-year-olds., Methods: This was a secondary analysis of combined data from two similar studies of adolescent substance use that recruited participants from the same adolescent clinic at Children's Hospital Boston. Study 1 waived parental consent, whereas Study 2 required parental consent. The combined dataset included demographic characteristics and Car, Relax, Alone, Forget, Friends, Trouble (CRAFFT) study screening test responses. The CRAFFT is an orally administered screen that yields a score from 0-6 and that has been shown to be a valid and reliable measure of risk for substance-related problems., Results: The participation refusal rate in Study 1, where consent was waived, was 19.7% (132 of 670 eligible individuals) and in Study 2 (243 of 411 eligible individuals), where consent was required, it was 59.1% (p < .0001). Participants did not differ significantly with respect to gender and age but did differ by self-identified race/ethnicity between the two studies. Because the CRAFFT score distributions were highly skewed, we used the nonparametric Mann-Whitney U test for differences in mean rank. The mean rank in Study 1 was significantly higher than in Study 2 (mean rank 362 vs. 325, p = .02). After controlling for age, gender, and race/ethnicity, the adjusted proportional odds ratio for a one-point increase in CRAFFT score was 1.47 (CI 1.03, 2.10) for Study 1 compared with Study 2., Conclusions: The research requirement of parental consent may result in substantial self-selection bias towards a lower risk sample.

Disturbingly high levels of illicit drug use remain a problem among American teenagers. As the physical, social, and psychological "home away from home" for most youth, schools naturally assume a primary role in substance abuse education, prevention, and early identification. However, the use of random drug testing on students as a component of drug prevention programs requires additional, more rigorous scientific evaluation. Widespread implementation should await the result of ongoing studies to address the effectiveness of testing and evaluate possible inadvertent harm. If drug testing on students is conducted, it should never be implemented in isolation. A comprehensive assessment and therapeutic management program for the student who tests positive should be in place before any testing is performed. Schools have the opportunity to work with parents, health care professionals, and community officials to use programs with proven effectiveness, to identify students who show behavioral risks for drug-related problems, and to make referrals to a student's medical home. When use of an illicit substance is detected, schools can foster relationships with established health care experts to assist them. A student undergoing individualized intervention for using illicit substances merits privacy. This requires that awareness of the student's situation be limited to parents, the student's physician, and only those designated school health officials with a need to know. For the purposes of this statement, alcohol, tobacco, and inhalants are not addressed.

Objectives: To measure the prevalence of positive substance use screen results among adolescent primary care patients and to estimate the prevalence of substance-related problems and disorders., Design: Cross-sectional survey., Setting: A network of primary care practices in New England., Participants: A consecutive sample of 12- to 18-year-old patients (N = 2133), with a study participation rate of 92.7%., Main Exposure: The CRAFFT substance abuse screening test (a full description of this screen is given in the "Introduction")., Outcome Measures: Frequencies of positive screen results were computed for the entire sample, each practice, visit type (well-child care, sick visit, follow-up, or other), and patient status (new vs established). Generalized estimating equation modeling was used to test for difference in proportions. CRAFFT scores, demographic data, and Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (Fourth Edition) diagnostic data from a previous study were used to estimate the prevalence of problematic substance use, abuse, and dependence., Results: Overall, 14.8% of adolescents had positive results on the CRAFFT screen. Prevalence rates differed significantly across practices (P < .001) after adjusting for demographic factors. The highest positive rates on the CRAFFT screen were at school-based health centers (29.5%) and the rural family practice (24.2%), the middle rate was at the adolescent clinic (16.6%), and the lowest rates were at the health maintenance organization (14.1%) and pediatric clinic (8.0%). Sick visits had the highest rate (23.2%). Well-child care visits had a significantly lower rate (11.4%, P < .001). Statistical modeling estimated that 11.3% of all patients had problematic use, 7.1% had abuse, and 3.2% had dependence., Conclusion: Substance abuse screening should occur whenever the opportunity arises, not at well-child care visits only.

Purpose: To identify barriers to adolescent substance abuse screening in primary care., Methods: Focus groups were held at six primary care sites with a total of 38 providers. Providers brainstormed a list of barriers, collectively grouped similar barriers, and voted to produce a final ranked list. Two investigators qualitatively analyzed field notes and transcripts to triangulate findings, ranked the barriers across all sites by the number of groups identifying the barrier, then calculated a mean ranking (MR) for each., Results: The most commonly identified barrier was insufficient time (MR 1.8). Lack of training in how to manage a positive screen was ranked second (MR 1.7), but was linked to the first. Providers reported they had enough time to administer a short screen, but insufficient time to manage a positive result during the well care visit. The need to triage competing problems (MR 3.0), lack of treatment resources (MR 3.3), tenacious parents who would not leave the room for a confidential discussion (MR 2.5), and unfamiliarity with screening tools (MR 3.0) were also noted by more than one group., Conclusions: Insufficient time and lack of training in how to manage positive screens are the greatest barriers to screening adolescents for substance abuse. This suggests that some providers might differentially avoid screening youth who they suspect will screen positive, yet these patients would benefit most from early recognition. More research is needed on effective ways to manage positive substance abuse screens in primary care.

Objective: The objective of this study was to estimate from a random urine drug-testing program for adolescents the proportion of drug tests that are susceptible to interpretation errors., Methods: This was a secondary analysis of a clinical database and chart review from an adolescent outpatient substance abuse program at a large children's hospital. We analyzed from 110 adolescent patients (13-21 years of age) all 710 urine drug test results that were collected between December 2002 and July 2005 and 85 original laboratory reports for tests that were collected between December 2002 and May 2006 and were confirmed positive for opioids. We calculated the percentage of tests that were too dilute to interpret (potential false-negatives) and the percentage of confirmed positive tests for oxycodone that did not result in a positive initial screen (potential false-negatives). We also reviewed clinical information to determine whether confirmed positive tests resulted from legitimate use of prescription or over-the-counter medication (potential false-positives)., Results: Of 710 drug tests, 40 negative tests were too dilute to interpret properly, and 45 of 217 positive tests resulted from prescription medication use for a total of 85 tests that were susceptible to error. Of the 85 confirmatory laboratory reports reviewed, 43 were positive for oxycodone, but only 16 of these had produced a positive opiate screen., Conclusions: Unless proper procedures are used in collecting, analyzing, and interpreting laboratory testing for drugs, there is a substantial risk for error.

Objective: To assess adolescents' preferences for substance abuse screening in primary medical care settings., Design/methods: Twelve- to 18-year-old patients (N = 2133) arriving for routine care at a network of primary care sites completed an interview that included demographic items, the CRAFFT screen, and a questionnaire assessing preferences for screening method (paper questionnaire, computer, oral interview by nurse or doctor). A subgroup (n = 222) completed the CRAFFT directly on the computer., Results: Across the entire sample, paper was the screening administration method most preferred (mean rank (MR) = 2.92, 95%CI 2.87-2.96) vs. computer (MR = 2.38, 2.33-2.43), nurse (MR = 2.43, 2.39-2.47), and doctor (MR = 2.30, 2.25-2.35). Among the participants who received the screening on the computer, however, computer (MR = 3.08, 95%CI 2.42-2.52) was statistically tied with paper (MR = 2.88, 2.75-3.02) and both were ranked significantly higher than nurse (MR = 2.06, 1.94-2.17) and doctor (MR = 1.98, 1.82-2.14). The findings were similar for participants' reports of being "very likely" to be honest when answering substance abuse screening questions., Conclusions: Adolescents should ideally be screened for substance abuse using paper or computer questionnaires.

Misuse of prescription drugs has been a growing problem in the United States affecting all age groups, including adolescents. Recent years have produced many advances in medical management of chronic pain, depression and anxiety, and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. Many of the medications used to treat these disorders, such as the opioids, benzodiazepines, and psychostimulants, also have potential for abuse and dependence. The challenge for the clinician today is to maximize safe and effective treatment with available medication, while preventing the diversion of prescribed medication or the development of substance-related disorders in patients receiving these medications.

Interdisciplinary faculty implemented a project to enhance school personnel's knowledge and skills in screening and motivational interviewing for substance abuse in two Boston high schools.

We developed and pilot tested a 2-session motivational interviewing intervention for substance use among 14- to 18-year-old medical patients. Recruitment and retention were more challenging than anticipated. A substantial number of completers reduced their use of substances and risk of driving after drinking during the 3-month follow-up period.

Purpose: Adolescent cigarette smoking has been reported to be associated with substance use and depression. Less is known about the association between smoking and other mental health symptoms, or the impact of mental health treatment on cigarette smoking and psychiatric morbidity including the substance use disorders. The purpose of this study is to examine the association among adolescent cigarette smoking, mental health symptoms including substance use disorders, and mental health treatment among adolescents treated at a large, hospital-based young adult clinic., Methods: Observational study of 486 adolescent patients presenting for routine medical care., Results: Participants were two-thirds female with an average age of 16.6 years and of diverse ethnic background; 129 (28.6%) reported ever-using tobacco products, and 68 (14%) were current smokers who had an average of 2 cigarettes per day. Current smoking was associated with significantly increased odds of having mental health symptoms and substance use disorders, even after controlling for age and previous mental health treatment, and in both boys and girls., Conclusions: This study supports the increasing appreciation that adolescent tobacco use is clinically important, even at apparently low levels. Adolescent cigarette smoking is generally more common than alcohol and illicit drug use, and these results highlight its multifarious linkages with use of other substances and mental health symptoms. Thus, early identification and intervention of adolescent cigarette smoking may help not only to avert later daily smoking, but also may assist in identifying patients at increased risk for substance use and psychiatric problems.

Aims: To examine the prevalence rates and correlates of non-medical use of prescription stimulants (Ritalin, Dexedrine or Adderall) among US college students in terms of student and college characteristics., Design: A self-administered mail survey., Setting: One hundred and nineteen nationally representative 4-year colleges in the United States., Participants: A representative sample of 10 904 randomly selected college students in 2001., Measurements: Self-reports of non-medical use of prescription stimulants and other substance use behaviors., Findings: The life-time prevalence of non-medical prescription stimulant use was 6.9%, past year prevalence was 4.1% and past month prevalence was 2.1%. Past year rates of non-medical use ranged from zero to 25% at individual colleges. Multivariate regression analyses indicated non-medical use was higher among college students who were male, white, members of fraternities and sororities and earned lower grade point averages. Rates were higher at colleges located in the north-eastern region of the US and colleges with more competitive admission standards. Non-medical prescription stimulant users were more likely to report use of alcohol, cigarettes, marijuana, ecstasy, cocaine and other risky behaviors., Conclusions: The findings of the present study provide evidence that non-medical use of prescription stimulants is more prevalent among particular subgroups of US college students and types of colleges. The non-medical use of prescription stimulants represents a high-risk behavior that should be monitored further and intervention efforts are needed to curb this form of drug use.

Objective: To compare providers' impressions of adolescents' level of substance use with diagnostic classifications from a structured diagnostic interview., Methods: Secondary analysis of data was conducted from a validation study of the CRAFFT substance abuse screening test of 14- to 18-year-old medical clinic patients (n = 533) and their corresponding medical care providers (n = 109) at an adolescent clinic affiliated with a large tertiary care pediatric hospital. Medical care providers completed a form that recorded their clinical impressions of patients' level of alcohol and drug involvement (none, minimal, problem, abuse, dependence) and demographic characteristics. The form included brief diagnostic descriptions for each level of use. After the medical visit, patients completed the Adolescent Diagnostic Interview (ADI), a structured diagnostic interview that yields diagnoses of abuse and dependence according to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition (DSM-IV). On the basis of their past 12 months of alcohol and drug use on the ADI interview, adolescents were classified into 5 mutually exclusive diagnostic groups. "None" was defined by no reported use of alcohol or drugs during the past year. "Minimal use" was defined as use of alcohol or drugs but no report of any substance-related problems. "Problem use" was defined as reporting 1 or more substance-related problems but no diagnosis of abuse or dependence. "Abuse" was defined by meeting any 1 of 4 DSM-IV diagnostic criteria for either alcohol or drug abuse but no diagnosis of dependence. "Dependence" was defined by meeting any 3 of 7 diagnostic criteria for either alcohol or drug dependence, with or without a diagnosis of abuse. Proportions were compared using Fisher exact test. Agreement was assessed with the weighted kappa, and these analyses were stratified by substance used (ie, alcohol vs drug) and demographic characteristics. Sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values were calculated from 2 x 2 tables., Results: Compared with the criterion standard interview, providers identified significantly fewer patients with problem use and abuse and no patients with dependence. Of >100 patients whom the ADI classified with substance problem use, providers correctly identified 18. Of 50 patients who were classified with a diagnosis of alcohol or drug abuse, providers correctly identified 10. Of 36 patients who were classified with a diagnosis of alcohol or drug dependence, providers correctly identified none. For the 86 adolescents who were classified with a substance-related disorder (ie, abuse or dependence), providers' impressions were "none" (24.4%), "minimal use" (50%), "problem use" (15.1%), "abuse" (10.5%), and "dependence" (0%). There was only marginal agreement between providers' impressions and diagnoses related to alcohol use (kappa = .29), drug use (kappa = .31), and any substance use (kappa = .30). Kappa was not significantly affected by the patient's age, but it was by gender. Among boys, kappa was significantly higher for impressions of drug use versus alcohol use (kappa = .48 vs kappa = .27); and, among drug users, kappa was significantly higher among boys compared with girls (kappa = .48 vs kappa = .24). Kappa did not differ significantly across race/ethnicity subgroups, although there is a suggestive trend toward higher agreement for black non-Hispanic compared with white non-Hispanic adolescents (kappa = .35 vs kappa = .21). Kappa did not differ significantly on the basis of the visit type, but the size of this difference (kappa = .36 vs kappa = .24) suggests that the longer well-child visit yielded greater identification of substance-related pathology. Providers' impressions had a sensitivity of .63 for identifying use of alcohol or drugs. However, sensitivity was poor for identification of problem use (.14), abuse (.10), and dependence (0), whereas specificity and positive predictive values were high. Of the 86 adolescents with a diagnosis of abuse or dependence, 75.6% were correctly identified by providers as using substances; however, the level of use in 50% of these adolescents was reported by providers as minimal., Conclusions: In this study, clinical impressions of adolescents' alcohol/drug involvement underestimated substance-related pathology. When providers thought that use was present, there was a very high likelihood that a problem or disorder existed. The use of structured screening devices would likely improve identification of adolescents with substance-related pathology in primary care settings and should be considered for use with all adolescent patients, rather than only those who are perceived to be at higher risk.

Background: Adolescent substance abuse is a serious problem for which effective interventions are needed. To conduct trials of new therapies, investigators need reliable means of identifying potential participants and of measuring outcomes. The objective of this study was to determine the 1-week test-retest reliability of the CRAFFT screening test and of the timeline follow-back (TLFB) calendar method for measuring alcohol, cannabis, and other drug use., Methods: Ninety-three 12- to 18-year-old patients presenting for routine medical care to three urban adolescent clinics were administered the CRAFFT screen in both lifetime and past-year versions and a 90-day TLFB. Both measures were completed on the day of the clinic visit and again 1 week later. We computed kappa coefficients and the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) for the CRAFFT and computed the ICC separately for TLFB self-reports of alcohol and cannabis., Results: For the CRAFFT, kappa for individual items ranged from 0.31 to 0.86, and the ICC was 0.93 (95% confidence interval, 0.90-0.95). However, the total score of the lifetime CRAFFT at time 2 was significantly lower than at time 1; there was no difference in time 1 and time 2 total scores for the past-year version. The ICCs for past-90-days TLFB variables were as follows: drinking days, 0.92; drinks per occasion, 0.87; cannabis days, 0.83; and joints per occasion, 0.76. Past-30-day and past-60-day intervals compared favorably to past-90-day intervals., Conclusions: The CRAFFT screen is a reliable means of screening adolescents for substance abuse, although we recommend using the past-year version. The TLFB is a reliable method of quantifying adolescents' alcohol and cannabis use at intervals of 30, 60, or 90 days., (Copyright 2004 Research Society on Alcoholism)

Objective: To examine rates of behavioural and substance use problems in incarcerated young offenders and to explore rural and urban differences in the expression and severity of these problems., Method: We assessed a sample of 68 confined male young offenders (63.3% rural and 35.3% urban), using the Drug Use Screening Inventory (DUSI) and the Youth Self-Report (YSR)., Results: Based on clinical cut-offs, data showed high rates of externalizing behavioural problems (75.4%) and substance use problems (95.7%). Urban delinquent youths showed higher rates of attention problems, delinquent behaviours, and externalizing behaviours than those in rural communities., Conclusions: Incarcerated young offenders show elevated rates of psychological problems that require treatment. Rural and urban differences in the rates of these problems may reflect differences in community service availability in these areas or in environmental influences on the development of child behavioural problems.

Objective: Substance use disorders (SUDs) are associated with other mental disorders in adolescence, but it is unclear whether less severe substance use problems (SUPs) also increase risk. Because youths with SUPs are most likely to present first to their site of primary care, it is important to establish the presence and patterns of psychiatric comorbidity among adolescent primary care patients with subdiagnostic use of alcohol or other drugs. The objective of this study was to determine the association between level of substance use and psychiatric symptoms among adolescents in a primary care setting., Methods: Patients who were aged 14 to 18 years and receiving routine care at a hospital-based adolescent clinic were eligible. Participants completed the Problem Oriented Screening Instrument for Teenagers Substance Use/Abuse scale, which is designed to detect social and legal problems associated with alcohol and other drugs, and the Adolescent Diagnostic Interview, which evaluates for Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition diagnoses of substance abuse/dependence and 8 types of psychiatric symptoms. We examined gender-specific associations of no/nonproblematic substance use (NSU), SUP, and SUD with psychiatric symptom presence (any symptoms within each type), score (symptom scores summed across all types), and number of types (number of different symptom types endorsed)., Results: Of 538 adolescents (68% female; mean +/- standard deviation age: 16.6 +/- 1.4 years), 66% were classified with NSU, 18% with SUP, and 16% with SUD, and 80% reported having at least 1 type of psychiatric symptom in the previous 12 months. Symptoms of anxiety were most common (60% of both boys and girls), followed by symptoms of depression among girls (51%) and symptoms of attention-deficit disorder (ADD) among boys (47%). Compared with those with NSU, youths with SUP and those with SUD were more likely to report symptom presence for several types of psychiatric symptoms. Girls with SUP or SUD had increased odds of reporting symptoms of mania, ADD, and conduct disorder; girls with SUD were at increased risk for symptoms of depression, eating disorders, and hallucinations or delusions. Boys with SUP had increased odds of ADD symptoms, whereas boys with SUD had increased odds of reporting hallucinations or delusions. Boys with SUP or SUD had increased odds of reporting symptoms of conduct disorder. Youths with SUP and SUD also had higher psychiatric symptom scores and reported a wider range of psychiatric symptom types (number of types) compared with youths with NSU., Conclusions: Like those with SUD, adolescents with subdiagnostic SUP were at increased risk for experiencing a greater number of psychiatric symptoms and a wider range of psychiatric symptom types than youths with NSU. Specifically, adolescents with SUP are at increased risk for symptoms of mood (girls) and disruptive behavior disorders (girls and boys). These findings suggest the clinical importance of SUP and support the concept of a continuum between subthreshold and diagnostic substance use among adolescents in primary care. Identification of youths with SUP may allow for intervention before either the substance use or any associated psychiatric problems progress to more severe levels.

Purpose: To describe the characteristics of body modification among adolescents and to determine whether adolescents who engage in body modification are more likely to screen positive for alcohol and other drug problems than those who do not., Methods: Adolescents aged 14 to 18 years presenting to an urban adolescent clinic for routine health care completed a questionnaire about body modification and a substance use assessment battery that included the 17-item Problem Oriented Screening Instrument for Teenagers Alcohol/Drug Use and Abuse Scale (POSIT-ADS). Body modification was defined as piercings (other than one pair of bilateral earlobe piercings in females), tattoos, scarification, and branding. Problem substance use was defined as a POSIT-ADS score > or =1. Data were analyzed using logistic regression to determine whether the presence of body modification was an independent predictor of problem substance use., Results: The 210 participants had a mean (+/- SD) age of 16.0 (+/- 1.4) years and 63% were female. One hundred adolescents (48%) reported at least one body modification; girls were more likely than boys to have body modification (59% vs. 28%, p < or = .0005). Ninety (42%) reported piercings, 22 (10%) tattoos, 9 (4%) scarification, and 1 (< 1%) branding; 21 (10%) had more than one type of body modification. These were in a variety of locations, most commonly the ear and the nose (piercings) or the extremities (tattoos). One-third of the sample (33%) screened positive for problem substance use on the POSIT-ADS questionnaire. Controlling for age, adolescents with body modification had 3.1 times greater odds of problem substance use than those without body modification (95% CI 1.7, 5.8)., Conclusions: Body modification was associated with self-reported problem alcohol and other drug use among middle adolescents presenting for primary care. More research is needed to determine the clinical and sociocultural significance of body modification and its relationship to substance use in this population., (Copyright Society for Adolescent Medicine, 2003)

Because substance use is highly prevalent among teens, primary care clinicians may not be able to refer all adolescents to drug counselors or mental health care professionals. Pediatricians may therefore find it useful to use the basic principles of office intervention and reserve referral for those patients with the most significant drug and alcohol problems. Brief interventions have proven effective in reducing problematic drinking among adults, and early work among adolescents is promising. Effective interventions include feedback on risks and problems, an emphasis on personal responsibility, a menu of alternatives for change, an empathetic approach, and reinforcement of patient self-efficacy. Motivational interviewing is an effective means of enhancing success in counseling. When a referral is necessary, motivational interviewing can be used to maximize adherence.

The objective of this study was to measure satisfaction with a physician alcohol/drug and behavioral health monitoring program. Participating physicians rated the program's effectiveness, staff professionalism, monitoring and advocacy, relapse services, and sensitivity to women's issues. Correlations between satisfaction and successful recovery, source of referral, and legal involvement were computed. Responders' (N = 87, 82% male) contracts were 82% alcohol/drug and 9% behavioral health; 76% first contracts (no relapse). Sources of referral were self (32.2%), a friend/colleague (31%), the state medical board (14.9%), a hospital chief (11.5%), or a family member (3.4%). Satisfaction was associated with no relapse (mean rank = 47.6 vs. 30.0, p = .005), but not with gender (p = .47), type of contract (p = .39), source of referral (p = .75-.05), or board involvement (p = .24). Participants' reactions to the PHS program were influenced more by positive clinical outcome than other factors.

Presents the account of a physician who is addicted to hydrocodone. How the physician became addicted to the medication; Confrontation of the physician by his employer about his addiction to hydrocodone; View of the physician about his substance abuse problem; Questions about physicians with substance abuse disorders and the number of physicians that may be practicing medicine with such problems; Where physicians should go to get help; Analysis of treatment options for physicians battling substance abuse problems; Legal issues.

Presents a letter to the editor regarding a previously published article which discussed physicians with opioid dependence.