BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: The National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism developed an alcohol screening instrument for youth based on epidemiologic data. This study examines the concurrent validity of this instrument, expanded to include tobacco and drugs, among pediatric patients, as well as the acceptability of its self-administration on an iPad. METHODS: Five hundred and twenty-five patients (54.5% female; 92.8% African American) aged 12 to 17 completed the Brief Screener for Tobacco, Alcohol, and other Drugs (BSTAD) via interviewer-administration or self-administration using an iPad. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, Fifth Edition substance use disorders (SUDs) were identified using a modified Composite International Diagnostic Interview-2 Substance Abuse Module. Receiver operating characteristic curves, sensitivities, and specificities were obtained to determine optimal cut points on the BSTAD in relation to SUDs. RESULTS: One hundred fifty-nine (30.3%) adolescents reported past-year use of ≥1 substances on the BSTAD: 113 (21.5%) used alcohol, 84 (16.0%) used marijuana, and 50 (9.5%) used tobacco. Optimal cut points for past-year frequency of use items on the BSTAD to identify SUDs were ≥6 days of tobacco use (sensitivity = 0.95; specificity = 0.97); ≥2 days of alcohol use (sensitivity = 0.96; specificity = 0.85); and ≥2 days of marijuana use (sensitivity = 0.80; specificity = 0.93). iPad self-administration was preferred over interviewer administration (z = 5.8; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: The BSTAD is a promising screening tool for identifying problematic tobacco, alcohol, and marijuana use in pediatric settings. Even low frequency of substance use among adolescents may indicate need for intervention.

Background and aims The World Health Organization’s Alcohol, Smoking, and Substance Involvement Screening Test (ASSIST) has strong support as a clinical screening tool and research instrument, but has only been validated with adults. This study evaluated the ASSIST and ASSIST-Lite in an adolescent population. Design Internal consistency, concurrent validity, discriminant validity, and diagnostic accuracy were examined for tobacco, alcohol, and cannabis ASSIST scores. An abbreviated version (the ASSIST-Lite) was evaluated for cannabis. Setting Three community health centers in Baltimore, Maryland, USA. Participants 525 primary care patients, ages 12-17. Measurements Measures included the ASSIST, the CRAFFT screening tool, and items from the Composite International Diagnostic Interview (CIDI) corresponding to substance use disorder criteria in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th edition. Findings The ASSIST had good internal consistency (αs=.68-.88), good concurrent validity with the CRAFFT (r=.41-.76; ps<.001), and was able to discriminate between gradations of cannabis problem severity. In receiver operating characteristics analysis of optimal clinical cut-points, the ASSIST accurately identified tobacco, alcohol, and cannabis use disorders (sensitivities=95%-100%; specificities=79%-93%; area under the curve [AUC]=.90-.94), but did so at minimally low cut-points (indicative of any use in the past 3 months). The ASSIST-Lite performed similarly to the ASSIST in identifying cannabis use disorders (sensitivity=96%; specificity=88%; AUC=.92), also at a minimally low cut-point. However, confirmatory factor analysis of the ASSIST indicated poor model fit. Conclusions The Alcohol, Smoking, and Substance Involvement Screening Test (ASSIST) is promising as a research and screening/brief assessment tool with adolescents, but revisions to clinical risk thresholds are warranted. The ASSIST-Lite is sufficiently informative for rapid clinical screening of adolescents for cannabis use disorders.

Background: The CRAFFT, previously validated against DSM-IV diagnostic criteria, is the most widely used screening instrument for alcohol and other substance misuse in adolescents. The present secondary analysis study sought to compare the CRAFFT with the new DSM-5 diagnostic criteria in order to assess the CRAFFT’s psychometric properties and determine the optimal cut-point for identifying adolescents in need of further assessment. Methods: Participants were primary care patients ages 12-17 (N=525) who were recruited while waiting for a medical appointment in an urban federally qualified health center in Baltimore, Maryland, USA. Participants were administered the CRAFFT and the Composite International Diagnostic Interview, second edition, modified to include the new DSM-5 craving item. We examined the performance of the CRAFFT in identifying any problem use (defined as 1 or more DSM-5 criteria) and any DSM-5 substance use disorder (2 or more DSM-5 criteria) for alcohol or drugs other than tobacco. We examined sensitivity, specificity, and receiver operating characteristic areas under the curve (AUC) to determine the optimal CRAFFT cut-point(s) for predicting any problem use and any DSM-5 substance use disorder (SUD). Results: Examining the CRAFFT as a continuous measure, AUC values were 0.93 for problem use or higher, and 0.97 for DSM-5 SUD. Consistent with previously recommended cut-points for the CRAFFT, the cut-point of 2 performed optimally for identifying adolescents both exhibiting problem use of alcohol or drugs and meeting DSM-5 SUD criteria for alcohol or other drugs. Conclusions: Despite changes in the DSM substance use diagnostic criteria, the CRAFFT continues to demonstrate excellent sensitivity and specificity at its established cut-point of 2. Additional studies examining the CRAFFT in light of the new DSM-5 diagnostic criteria with more diverse populations are warranted.

Background Alcohol, tobacco, and other drug use remains highly prevalent among US adolescents and is a threat to their well-being and to the public health. Clinical trials and meta-analyses evidence supports the effectiveness of Screening, Brief Intervention and Referral to Treatment (SBIRT) for adolescents with substance misuse but primary care providers have been slow to adopt this evidence-based approach. The purpose of this paper is to describe the theoretically informed methodology of an on-going implementation study. Methods This study protocol is a multi-site, cluster randomized trial (N = 7) guided by Proctor’s conceptual model of implementation research and comparing two principal approaches to SBIRT delivery within adolescent medicine: Generalist vs. Specialist. In the Generalist Approach, the primary care provider delivers brief intervention (BI) for substance misuse. In the Specialist Approach, BIs are delivered by behavioral health counselors. The study will also examine the effectiveness of integrating HIV risk screening within an SBIRT model. Implementation Strategies employed include: integrated team development of the service delivery model, modifications to the electronic medical record, regular performance feedback and supervision. Implementation outcomes, include: Acceptability, Appropriateness, Adoption, Feasibility, Fidelity, Costs/Cost-Effectiveness, Penetration, and Sustainability. Discussion The study will fill a major gap in scientific knowledge regarding the best SBIRT implementation strategy at a time when SBIRT is poised to be brought to scale under health care reform. It will also provide novel data to inform the expansion of the SBIRT model to address HIV risk behaviors among adolescents. Finally, the study will generate important cost data that offers guidance to policymakers and clinic directors about the adoption of SBIRT in adolescent health care.

Background The recently published Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders-5 (DSM-5) includes several major revisions to substance use diagnoses. Studies have evaluated the impact of these changes among adult samples but research with adolescent samples is lacking. Methods 525 adolescents (93% African American) awaiting primary care appointments in Baltimore, Maryland were recruited for a study evaluating a substance use screening instrument. Participants were assessed for DSM-5 nicotine, alcohol, and cannabis use disorder, DSM-IV alcohol and cannabis abuse, and DSM-IV dependence for all three substances during the past year using the modified Composite International Diagnostic Interview-2, Substance Abuse Module. Contingency tables examining DSM-5 vs. DSM-IV joint frequency distributions were examined for each substance. Results Diagnoses were more prevalent using DSM-5 criteria compared with DSM-IV for nicotine (4.0% vs. 2.7%), alcohol (4.6% vs. 3.8%), and cannabis (10.7% vs. 8.2%). Cohen's κ, Somers' d, and Cramer's V ranged from 0.70-0.99 for all three substances. Of the adolescents categorized as “diagnostic orphans” under DSM-IV, 7/16 (43.8%), 9/29 (31.0%), and 13/36 (36.1%) met criteria for DSM-5 disorder for nicotine, alcohol, and cannabis, respectively. Additionally, 5/17 (29.4%) and 1/21 (4.8%) adolescents who met criteria for DSM-IV abuse did not meet criteria for a DSM-5 diagnosis for alcohol and cannabis, respectively. Conclusions Categorizing adolescents using DSM-5 criteria may result in diagnostic net widening-particularly for cannabis use disorders-by capturing adolescents who were considered diagnostic orphans using DSM-IV criteria. Future research examining the validity of DSM-5 substance use disorders with larger and more diverse adolescent samples is needed.