Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31615549›Full record

Trial reportAddiction science & clinical practice2019

Electronic self-administered screening for substance use in adult primary care patients: feasibility and acceptability of the tobacco, alcohol, prescription medication, and other substance use (myTAPS) screening tool.

Angéline Adam, Robert P Schwartz, Li-Tzy Wu, Geetha Subramaniam, Eugene Laska, Gaurav Sharma, Saima Mili, Jennifer McNeely

Open access · goldAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Addiction science & clinical practice, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
2.6field-weighted citation impact, top 10% of its field
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

24 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 43 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Strategies to improve smoking cessation rates in primary care.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2021
    Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Observational
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

8 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.

Angéline AdamDepartment of Population Health, New York University (NYU) School of Medicine, 180 Madison Avenue, 17th floor, New York, NY, 10016, USA. Angeline.adam@nyulangone.org.ORCID 0000-0002-4874-7758
Robert P SchwartzFriends Research Institute, 1040 Park Avenue, Suite 103, Inc, Baltimore, MD, 21201, USA.
Li-Tzy WuDepartment of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Department of Medicine and Duke Clinical Research Institute, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC, 27710, USA.
Geetha SubramaniamCenter for the Clinical Trials Network, National Institute on Drug Abuse, National Institutes of Health, 6001 Executive Boulevard, Bethesda, MD, 20892, USA.
Eugene LaskaDepartment of Psychiatry, NYU Langone School of Medicine, New York, NY, 10016, USA.
Gaurav SharmaThe EMMES Corporation, 401 North Washington Street, Rockville, MD, 20850, USA.
Saima MiliDepartment of Population Health, New York University (NYU) School of Medicine, 180 Madison Avenue, 17th floor, New York, NY, 10016, USA.
Jennifer McNeelyDepartment of Population Health, New York University (NYU) School of Medicine, 180 Madison Avenue, 17th floor, New York, NY, 10016, USA.
New York University · USClinical Research Institute · USEmmes (United States) · USFriends Research Institute · USNational Institutes of Health · US

Funding

Project-003UG1DA013035 · NIDA · NEW YORK UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE · PI Aimee N Campbell, Jennifer McNeely · 2015 to 2026
$130.3M
CU PARTNERS: NY/LONG ISLAND REGIONAL NODEU10DA013035 · NIDA · NEW YORK STATE PSYCHIATRIC INSTITUTE DBA RESEARCH FOUNDATION FOR MENTAL HYGIENE, INC · PI NUNES, EDWARD V., ROTROSEN, JOHN P · 2001 to 2015
$47.6M
Southern Consortium Node of the Clinical Trials NetworkU10DA013727 · NIDA · MEDICAL UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA · PI BRADY, KATHLEEN T. · 2000 to 2015
$34.4M
Clinical Trials Network: Mid-Atlantic Integrated Care Research CollaborativeUG1DA013034 · NIDA · JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY · PI SCHWARTZ, ROBERT P, STITZER, MAXINE L · 2015 to 2019
$11.0M
Project-003UG1DA040317 · NIDA · DUKE UNIVERSITY · PI WU, LI-TZY · 2015 to 2019
$9.0M
National Institute on Drug Abuse cooperative agreements 5 U01 DA 012034National Institute on Drug Abuse cooperative agreements U10DA013727NIDA NIH HHS U10 DA013035NIDA NIH HHS UG1 DA013034NIDA NIH HHS UG1 DA013035NIDA NIH HHS UG1 DA040317Swiss Foundation for Alcohol Research 293
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe TAPS Tool is a substance use screening and brief assessment instrument that was developed for use in primary care medical settings. It is one of the first screening instruments to provide rapid assessment of all commonly used substance classes, including illicit and prescription opioids, and is one of the only available screeners designed and validated in an electronic self-administered format (myTAPS). This secondary analysis of data from the TAPS Tool validation study describes the feasibility and acceptability of the myTAPS among primary care patients.

methodsAdult patients (N = 2000) from five primary care clinics completed the TAPS Tool on a tablet computer (myTAPS), and in an interviewer-administered format. Requests for assistance and time required were tracked, and participants completed a survey on ease of use, utilization of audio guidance, and format preference. Logistic regression was used to examine outcomes in defined subpopulations, including groups that may have greater difficulty completing an electronic screener, and those that may prefer an electronic self-administered approach.

resultsAlmost all participants (98.3%) reported that the myTAPS was easy to use. The median time to complete myTAPS screening was 4.0 min (mean 4.48, standard deviation 2.57). More time was required by participants who were older, Hispanic, Black, or reported non-medical prescription drug use, while less time was required by women. Assistance was requested by 25% of participants, and was more frequently requested by those who with lower education (OR = 2.08, 95% CI 1.62-2.67) or age > 65 years (OR = 2.79, 95% CI 1.98-3.93). Audio guidance was utilized by 18.3%, and was more frequently utilized by participants with lower education (OR = 2.01, 95% CI 1.54-2.63), age > 65 years (OR = 1.79, 95% CI 1.22-2.61), or Black race (OR = 1.30, 95% 1.01-1.68). The myTAPS format was preferred by women (OR = 1.29, 95% CI 1.00-1.66) and individuals with drug use (OR = 1.43, 95% CI 1.09-1.88), while participants with lower education preferred the interviewer-administered format (OR = 2.75, 95% CI 2.00-3.78).

conclusionsOverall, myTAPS screening was feasible and well accepted by adult primary care patients. Clinics adopting electronic screening should be prepared to offer assistance to some patients, particularly those who are older or less educated, and should have the capacity to use an interviewer-administered approach when required.

Indexed as

AdolescentAdultAgedAge FactorsAlcoholismAnalgesics, OpioidComputers, HandheldFeasibility StudiesFemaleHumansLogistic ModelsMaleMass ScreeningMiddle AgedOpioid-Related DisordersPrimary Health CareAnalgesics, OpioidAcceptability of health careAlcohol abuseAlcohol screeningDrug abuse screeningElectronic screeningPrimary careSelf-administered screeningSubstance use disorders

Identifiers

PMID31615549
PMCPMC6794766
OpenAlexW2981240656

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.