ArticleDrug and alcohol dependence reports2026
Evaluating the implementation of a clinical decision support system for substance use disorder screening in maternal healthcare.
Article in Drug and alcohol dependence reports, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: Screening for substance use disorders (SUDs) during pregnancy is essential but is hindered by barriers, including limited leadership engagement, financial sustainability concerns, and insufficient infrastructure. This study evaluated the implementation in a maternal health clinic of an electronic health record (EHR)-integrated Screening, Brief Intervention, and Referral to Treatment clinical decision support system (SBIRT-CDSS) that incorporated the 5Ps screening tool. We aimed to assess social workers' perceptions of usability and integration, and to compare screening rates, missed referrals, and revenue generation of the SBIRT-CDSS to SBIRT without CDSS. Methods: Our mixed-methods assessments encompassed four phases: (1) pre-implementation acceptability assessment using Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) surveys and qualitative input from social workers; (2) cognitive walkthroughs with mock patients; (3) systems modeling comparing SBIRT-CDSS to SBIRT without CDSS; (4a) post-implementation feedback from social workers at 1 month and (4b) quantitative analysis of SBIRT-CDSS usage, CPT billing, and screen-positive rates after 18 months of deployment. Results: Social workers rated SBIRT-CDSS as easy to use and useful. Systems modeling projected SBIRT-CDSS adoption would increase screening rates, referral rates, and revenue-depending upon extent of CDSS usage. Among 1967 patients with an initial prenatal visit during the 18-month post-implementation period, 1721 (87.5%) had SBIRT screenings documented at that encounter. Among screened patients, 1331 (77.3%) had CPT codes entered and 422 (24.5%) screened positive. Conclusions: SBIRT-CDSS implementation facilitated screening, billing code entry, and substance use identification. Social workers reported high usability and workflow integration. Utilization is expected to enhance referral rates and financial sustainability.
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.