ArticleHealth services research and managerial epidemiology
An Assessment of SBIRT Prescreening and Screening Outcomes by Medical Setting and Administration Methodology.
Article in Health services research and managerial epidemiology. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Effects of a structured SBIRT training program for hospital nursing leaders on utilization of SBIRT within their medical-surgical units: cohort study.BMC nursing · 2025Article
- Study protocol testing toolkit versus usual care for implementation of screening, brief intervention, referral to treatment in hospitals: a phased cluster randomized approach.Addiction science & clinical practice · 2018Article
- An Initial Assessment of the Utility of Validated Alcohol and Drug Screening Tools in Predicting 30-Day Readmission to Adult General Medicine Wards.American journal of medical quality : the official journal of the American College of Medical Quality · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundScreening, brief intervention, and referral to treatment (SBIRT) is an efficacious prevention practice. However, little research has assessed differences in prescreening outcomes between inpatient and outpatient primary care or among different prescreening administration methods. This study tested whether administration method (self-administered vs interview) and setting (inpatient versus outpatient) predicted prescreening outcomes in a large sample of primary care patients. Then, among patients who prescreened positive, it tested whether full screening scores differed by administration method and setting.
methodsResearchers used binomial logistic regression to assess predicted prescreening outcomes and analysis of variance to assess differences in SBIRT screening scores across a total of 14 447 unique patient visits in 10 outpatient sites and 1 centrally located hospital.
resultsControlling for gender, depression, and other substance use, both medical setting and method of prescreening, predicted prescreening results. Among patients who prescreened positive for alcohol, setting also was associated with mean screening scores. However, outcomes were not uniform by substance (eg, alcohol vs other drugs).
conclusionThe results support previous studies on this topic that had utilized cross-study comparison or that were not specific to SBIRT prescreening/screening mechanisms. At the same time, nuanced findings were observed that had not previously been reported and suggest the need for further research in this area.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.