Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30850312›Full record

ArticleThe Journal of adolescent health : official publication of the Society for Adolescent Medicine2019

A Comparison of Screening Practices for Adolescents in Primary Care After Implementation of Screening, Brief Intervention, and Referral to Treatment.

Laura B Monico, Shannon Gwin Mitchell, Kristi Dusek, Jan Gryczynski, Robert P Schwartz, Marla Oros, Colleen Hosler, Kevin E O'Grady, Barry S Brown

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in The Journal of adolescent health : official publication of the Society for Adolescent Medicine, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Screening Adolescents for Sensitive Health Topics in Primary Care: A Scoping Review.The Journal of adolescent health : official publication of the Society for Adolescent Medicine · 2022
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Laura B MonicoFriends Research Institute, Baltimore, Maryland. Electronic address: lmonico@friendsresearch.org.
Shannon Gwin MitchellFriends Research Institute, Baltimore, Maryland.
Kristi DusekFriends Research Institute, Baltimore, Maryland.
Jan GryczynskiFriends Research Institute, Baltimore, Maryland.
Robert P SchwartzFriends Research Institute, Baltimore, Maryland.
Marla OrosMosaic Group, Baltimore, Maryland.
Colleen HoslerMosaic Group, Baltimore, Maryland.
Kevin E O'GradyUniversity of Maryland, College Park, Maryland.
Barry S BrownUniversity of North Carolina at Wilmington, Wilmington, North Carolina.

Funding

SBIRT Implementation for Adolescents in Urban Federally Qualified Health CentersR01DA034258 · NIDA · FRIENDS RESEARCH INSTITUTE, INC. · PI MITCHELL, SHANNON GWIN · 2012 to 2015
$2.0M
NIDA NIH HHS R01 DA034258
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThe American Academy of Pediatrics recommends screening adolescents for substance use at all well-child and appropriate acute-care visits. However, many pediatric practices aim for such screenings annually at well-child visits.

methodsAs part of a larger study, 7 urban Federally Qualified Health Center clinics implemented universal screening for risky alcohol and drug use using the Car, Relax, Alone, Forget, Friends, Trouble (CRAFFT) screening tool. The present study compared uptake of screening and screening results at well-child versus acute-care visits.

resultsOver a period of 13 months for which encounter-level electronic medical records data were available, there were 6,346 clinic visits by 3,475 unique patients aged 12-17 years, at which 76.6% (n = 4,865) of visits had a screening for problematic substance use conducted. Rates of screening were 95.1% (2,750/2,891 involving 2,629 unique adolescents) for well-child visits and 61.2% (2,115/3,455 involving 1,535 unique adolescents) for acute-care visits. Rates of positive screening results were 9.0% (248/2,750 involving 245 unique adolescents) for well-child visits and 7.8% (164/2,115 involving 126 unique adolescents) for acute-care visits. Of the 469 unique adolescents screened only during an acute-care visit during that same period, 40 unique adolescents had positive screening results for a positive screening rate of 8.5%.

conclusionsNearly 10% of adolescent patients screened only at acute-care visits would not have been screened if screening was implemented solely at well-child visits, and 40 adolescents reporting substance use would have been missed. The findings highlight the benefits of screening adolescents at every primary care visit to better detect and intervene in adolescents' substance use.

Indexed as

Referral and ConsultationAdolescentChildDelivery of Health CareElectronic Health RecordsFemaleHumansMaleMass ScreeningPrimary Health CareResearchSubstance-Related DisordersAdolescent healthPreventionSBIRTScreeningSubstance use

Identifiers

PMID30850312
PMCPMC6589381

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.