ArticleJAMA network open2025
Substance Use Screening, Brief Intervention, and Referral to Treatment Among Youth-Serving Clinicians.
Article in JAMA network open, 2025. 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.
- 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
- Adolescent Substance Use Screening in the Emergency Department.Journal of the American College of Emergency Physicians open · 2026Review
- Prevention and Management of Opioid use Disorder and Overdose in Adolescents and Young Adults.Current psychiatry reports · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Importance: Despite decreasing substance use by adolescents in recent years, overdose rates continue to rise. Morbidity and mortality from substance use is preventable if detected; however, screening practices among youth-serving clinicians are unknown. Objective: To describe youth-serving clinicians' screening, brief intervention, and referral to treatment practices for substance use disorders (SUDs) among adolescents. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study used DocStyles data from September 5 to October 12, 2023, on clinical practice settings in the US. Responding clinicians included family physicians, internal medicine physicians, pediatricians, nurse practitioners, and physician assistants. Exposure: Delivery of services to youths aged 17 years or younger. Main Outcomes and Measures: Screening, brief intervention, and referral to treatment practices, including screening frequency and type of screening tool used, and screening at every well visit using a screening tool were assessed using descriptive statistics and multivariable logistic regression. Results: Of 1047 youth-serving clinicians (mean [SD] age, 45.3 [11.4] years; 555 male [53.0%]), 467 (44.6%) were family physicians, 250 (23.9%) were pediatricians, 132 (12.6%) were internal medicine physicians, 107 (10.2%) were nurse practitioners, and 91 (8.7%) were physician assistants (survey response rate, 57%). Median years in practice was 13 (IQR, 7-23 years). Most clinicians (634 [60.6%]) reported that skills in SUD diagnosis were relevant to their practice, and 800 (76.4%) reported seeing at least 1 adolescent with an SUD monthly. A majority of clinicians (596 [56.9%]) reported screening for SUDs at every well visit, with a high proportion of pediatricians reporting screening at every well visit (173 of 250 [69.2%]). Clinicians who screened at every well visit were more likely to use a screening tool (odds ratio, 1.87 [95% CI, 1.44-2.44]). Only 411 clinicians (39.3%) reported screening at every well visit using a screening tool; 321 clinicians (30.7%) offered all components of screening, brief intervention, and referral to treatment practice. Clinicians who reported seeing 5 or more adolescents with an SUD per month had a higher odds of screening with a standardized tool at every annual well visit (adjusted odds ratio, 2.19 [95% CI, 1.30-3.71]). Conclusions and Relevance: These findings suggest that while most clinicians report screening youths for SUDs at least sometimes, a substantial proportion screened only intermittently. Efforts to improve screening rates through education and systems-based practice changes may facilitate offering anticipatory guidance and SUD treatment in all youth-serving clinical settings.
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.