Historique
Article de Périodique
Screening instruments for substance use and brief interventions targeting adolescents in primary care: A literature review (2013)
Auteur(s) :
PILOWSKY, D. J. ;
WU, L. T.
Année :
2013
Page(s) :
2146-2153
Sous-type de document :
Revue de la littérature / Literature review
Langue(s) :
Anglais
Domaine :
Alcool / Alcohol ; Drogues illicites / Illicit drugs
Discipline :
PRO (Produits, mode d'action, méthode de dépistage / Substances, action mode, screening methods)
Thésaurus mots-clés
ADOLESCENT
;
DEPISTAGE
;
ALCOOL
;
PRODUIT ILLICITE
;
CRAFFT
;
INTERVENTION BREVE
;
SOINS DE PREMIER RECOURS
;
ORIENTATION
;
TEST
Autres mots-clés
Note de contenu :
CONTENTS:
1. Introduction
2. Methods:
2.1. Selection of studies
2.2. Inclusion criteria
3. Results:
3.1. Screening for alcohol/drug use in adolescence
3.2. Screening instruments for use with adolescents
3.2.1. CRAFFT
3.2.2. RAFFT
3.2.3. Other screening tools
3.2.4. Comparison of screening tools in adolescent samples
3.3. Intervention and referral to treatment according to risk level:
3.3.1. Low risk
3.3.2. Moderate risk
3.3.3. High risk
3.4. Stepped care
3.5. Brief interventions: summary and future directions
3.6. Biological tests and markers
3.6.1. Drug screening
3.6.2. The use of biomarkers
4. Conclusions and clinical implications
1. Introduction
2. Methods:
2.1. Selection of studies
2.2. Inclusion criteria
3. Results:
3.1. Screening for alcohol/drug use in adolescence
3.2. Screening instruments for use with adolescents
3.2.1. CRAFFT
3.2.2. RAFFT
3.2.3. Other screening tools
3.2.4. Comparison of screening tools in adolescent samples
3.3. Intervention and referral to treatment according to risk level:
3.3.1. Low risk
3.3.2. Moderate risk
3.3.3. High risk
3.4. Stepped care
3.5. Brief interventions: summary and future directions
3.6. Biological tests and markers
3.6.1. Drug screening
3.6.2. The use of biomarkers
4. Conclusions and clinical implications
Résumé :
Background: A review of the literature was conducted to examine substance use screening instruments commonly used with adolescents in medical settings, their comparative usefulness, and SBIRT (Screening, Brief Intervention, and Referral to Treatment).
Methods: We screened two databases (Ovid MEDLINE and PsycINFO) targeting journal articles dealing with screening for alcohol and drug use in adolescence as well as adolescent SBIRT.
Results: Adolescents preferred paper forms and computerized questionnaires over interviews with physicians or nurses. The CRAFFT was the best studied instrument for screening for alcohol/drug use and related problems, and is the only tool with data to support its use in medical settings. Other screening instruments require more testing/evaluation in more representative samples of adolescents in primary care settings. Long term follow-up data to establish the efficacy of SBIRT in adolescence are not available. Innovative computerized approaches to screening for substance use in this population have recently been proposed. Although promising, they require further evaluation.
Conclusions: The CRAFFT has the most consistent data to support its use in primary care settings. The effects of SBIRT in adolescence have not been adequately evaluated. Adolescents' opinions and preferences for SBIRT should be studied to improve their acceptance.
Methods: We screened two databases (Ovid MEDLINE and PsycINFO) targeting journal articles dealing with screening for alcohol and drug use in adolescence as well as adolescent SBIRT.
Results: Adolescents preferred paper forms and computerized questionnaires over interviews with physicians or nurses. The CRAFFT was the best studied instrument for screening for alcohol/drug use and related problems, and is the only tool with data to support its use in medical settings. Other screening instruments require more testing/evaluation in more representative samples of adolescents in primary care settings. Long term follow-up data to establish the efficacy of SBIRT in adolescence are not available. Innovative computerized approaches to screening for substance use in this population have recently been proposed. Although promising, they require further evaluation.
Conclusions: The CRAFFT has the most consistent data to support its use in primary care settings. The effects of SBIRT in adolescence have not been adequately evaluated. Adolescents' opinions and preferences for SBIRT should be studied to improve their acceptance.
Affiliation :
Departments of Epidemiology and Psychiatry, Mailman School of Public Health and Columbia College of Physicians and Surgeons, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA