ArticlePediatric quality & safety
Substance Use Screening in a Large Pediatric Primary Care Network: A Quality Improvement Project.
Article in Pediatric quality & safety. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Digital Interventions to Facilitate Screening, Brief Interventions, and Referral to Treatment for Substance Use Among Adolescents.Child and adolescent psychiatric clinics of North America · 2026Review
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: This project aimed to introduce substance use screening, using the CRAFFT (Car, Relax, Alone, Forget, Family/Friends, Trouble) screening tool, into the routine care of adolescents using quality improvement strategies and tools. Methods: We expanded a single-site project showing the successful introduction of CRAFFT screening into adolescent care to include the entire 34-site primary care network of a children's hospital in Northeastern Ohio. We deployed quality improvement methodology to facilitate the acceptance and use of the screener. Data showing the percentage of eligible adolescents screened were collected and shared monthly with network providers. Results: The single-site phase increased the screening rate from 3.5% to 72%. The percentage screened for the network phase rose from 0% to >90% in the first 2 months of the project and remained at that level. Of those screened, 85% were low risk, 3% were medium risk, and 2% were high risk. Ten percent of the results were not recorded in a way that allowed for post hoc risk assessment. During the network phase, 35,750 of 38,427 (93%) eligible patients completed the screening form. Conclusions: This project resulted in the highly reliable use of the CRAFFT screener in a large primary care network.
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.