Inventory of Spirituality in Alcohol/Other Drug Research: Psychometric Dimensions

This article describes the Christian Inventory of Spirituality (CIS), developed to measure changes in feeling, thinking, and behaviors toward self, others, and God accompanying spiritual transformation of persons completing Christian spiritually based alcohol/other drugs (AOD) recovery programs. The initial item pool was generated in focus groups with program participants. Exploratory factor analysis identified 48 items in five spiritual dimensions. The instrument's reliability was evaluated with data from 954 respondents from 31 programs in Texas and California. Stability, construct validity, and preliminary normative data testing were examined. Analysis revealed a useful, reliable, valid, and stable measure of spiritual change.     

Alcohol and Other Drug Dependency Treatment:

No abstract available for this article.     

Assessing Alcohol and Other Drug Problems (AOD) among Sexually Transmitted Disease (STD) Clinic Patients with a Modified Cage-A: Implications for AOD Intervention Services and STD Prevention

The close link between alcohol and other drug abuse and STD morbidity and the positive impact of AOD intervention services in reducing STD morbidity, led the New York State Office of Alcoholism and Substance Abuse Services (OASAS) and the New York City Bureau of STD Control (BSTDC) to assess the prevalence of AOD problems among STD clinic patients. Assessing problematic AOD involvement among STD patients was of interest to BSTDC for STD prevention and to OASAS, for new AOD case-finding and early intervention. During fall, 2000, 100 STD patients in each of the 7 full-time BSTDC clinics in New York City were solicited in clinic waiting rooms; eligible patients were screened individually and anonymously with a modified CAGE-A (mCA). The mCA asks 4 questions about problematic AOD use “ever” (i.e., “lifetime”) and currently (i.e., “in the past 30 days) rather than “in the past 12 months” of the CAGE and uses two or more “Yes” answers as a “positive” screen. The mCA also asks for age, sex, ethnicity, prior AOD treatment, and interest in an AOD referral. Only 2 of 704 eligible patients refused mCA screening, n = 702. Sixty percent were male, 87.7% Black and/or Hispanic, and 69%, ≤35 years old. Of the sample screened, 30.5% were “positive” on the “ever” and 16.5%, on “the past 30 days,” mCA questions. 13.2% reported prior AOD treatment, 1.4% were in AOD treatment or about to start, and <1% wanted an AOD referral. Eight of 10 STD patients currently in AOD treatment screened positive on the “ever” mCA questions. The AOD prevalence rates observed here were deemed high since: 1) CAGE (and CAGE-A) data on general hospital and emergency room admissions showed positive screening rates of only 5–14 % and 2) only an estimated 6–7% of adults in New York have received any formal intervention with an AOD problem, less than half the rate found for treatment alone with the STD patients in this study. The results support implementing AOD screening and intervention services in STD clinics since an estimated 11,000 patients annually would screen positive but now are undetected and untreated. As AOD intervention services also can reduce risky sexual behavior, providing them could expand STD prevention services significantly. Policy, funding, and evaluation issues related to implementing AOD intervention services in STD and other public health clinics also are discussed.     

Group-Delivered Brief Intervention versus Standard Care for Mixed Alcohol/Other Drug Problems

Abstract

This study compared a Motivational Interviewing inspired group intervention with standard care in naturalistic alcohol/other drug abuse samples. A community-recruited alcohol/other drug abuse or dependent sample (N = 67) was provided up to four sessions of groupadapted Motivational Interviewing (GAMI). Newly admitted patients (N = 64) in two multimodal treatment settings were also recruited. Quasi-experimental comparison of outcomes from GAMI versus real-world standard care (SC) indicated significant within-group improvement on all main outcomes in both groups. SC was associated with significantly more abstinence days, and better family and social outcomes at six-month posttreatment compared to GAMI. Differences in reductions in alcohol or drug-related dysfunction were not detected. Thus, group-delivered MI intervention was associated with significant improvements in alcohol/other drug use outcomes. However, consideration of group-delivered MI as a replacement for more intensive standard care is, for the moment, uncertain.     

Barriers of and Facilitators to Physician Recommendation of Colorectal Cancer Screening

BACKGROUND Colorectal cancer screening (CRCS) has been demonstrated to be effective and is consistently recommended by clinical practice guidelines. However, only slightly over half of all Americans have ever been screened. Patients cite physician recommendation as the most important motivator of screening. This study explored the barriers of and facilitators to physician recommendation of CRCS. METHODS A 3-component qualitative study to explore the barriers of and facilitators to physician recommendation of CRCS: in-depth, semistructured interviews with 29 purposively sampled, community- and academic-based primary care physicians; chart-stimulated recall, a technique that utilizes patient charts to probe physician recall and provide context about the barriers of and facilitators to physician recommendation of CRCS during actual clinic encounters; and focus groups with 18 academic primary care physicians. Grounded theory techniques of analysis were used. RESULTS All the participating physicians were aware of and recommended CRCS. The overwhelmingly preferred test was colonoscopy. Barriers of physician recommendation of CRCS included patient comorbidities, prior patient refusal of screening, physician forgetfulness, acute care visits, lack of time, and lack of reminder systems and test tracking systems. Facilitators to physician recommendation of CRCS included patient request, patient age 50–59, physician positive attitudes about CRCS, physician prioritization of screening, visits devoted to preventive health, reminders, and incentives. CONCLUSION There are multiple physician, patient, and system barriers to recommending CRCS. Thus, interventions may need to target barriers at multiple levels to successfully increase physician recommendation of CRCS. The results of this paper were previously presented at the 27th Annual Meeting of the Society of General Internal Medicine, May 15, 2004, Chicago, IL. Jamin S. Brown, M.D. is currently completing his training in ophthalmology in the Department of Ophthalmology, University of Washington, Seattle, WA     

Alcohol and Other Drug Use among College Students: Intimate Partner Violence and Health-Compromising Behaviors

A survey was conducted with 400 male and female college students to examine the relationships among intimate partner violence (IPV), alcohol and other drug use, and health-compromising behaviors. The results indicated that IPV was directly related to alcohol use. The results further indicated that alcohol and drug use are directly and IPV is indirectly associated with risky sexual behaviors. Victimized male and female students had higher rates of alcohol and drug use and other health-compromising behaviors compared to nonvictimized male and female students. Implications are suggested for collegiate prevention programs.     

Randomized controlled trial of the effects of completing the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test questionnaire on self-reported hazardous drinking

AIMS: The direct effects of screening on drinking behaviour have not previously been evaluated experimentally. We tested whether screening reduces self-reported hazardous drinking in comparison with a non-screened control group. DESIGN: Two-arm randomized controlled trial (RCT), with both groups blinded to the true nature of the study. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: A total of 421 university students aged 18-24 years, recruited in five London student unions. INTERVENTIONS: Both groups completed a brief pen-and-paper general health and socio-demographic questionnaire, which for the experimental group also included the 10-item Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT) screening questionnaire. MEASUREMENTS: The primary outcome was the between-group difference in AUDIT score at 2-3-month follow-up. Eight secondary outcomes comprised other aspects of hazardous drinking, including dedicated measures of alcohol consumption, problems and dependence. FINDINGS: A statistically significant effect size of 0.23 (0.01-0.45) was detected on the designated primary outcome. The marginal nature of the statistical significance of this effect was apparent in additional analyses with covariates. Statistically significant differences were also obtained in three of eight secondary outcomes, and the observed effect sizes were not dissimilar to the known effects of brief interventions. CONCLUSIONS: It is unclear to what extent these findings represent the effects of screening alone, a Hawthorne effect in which drinking behaviour has changed in response to monitoring, or whether they indicate reporting bias. These possibilities have important implications both for the dissemination of screening as an intervention in its own right and for behavioural intervention trials methodology.     

Screening Trauma Patients With the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test and Biomarkers of Alcohol Use

Background:  Alcohol screening and brief interventions have been shown to reduce alcohol-related morbidity in injured patients. Use of self-report questionnaires such as the Alcohol Use Disorder Identification Test (AUDIT) is recommended as the optimum screening method. We hypothesized that the accuracy of screening is enhanced by combined use of the AUDIT and biomarkers of alcohol use in injured patients.
Methods:  The study was conducted in the emergency department of a large, urban, university hospital. Patients were evaluated with the AUDIT, and blood sampled to determine carbohydrate-deficient transferrin, gamma-glutamyl-transferase, and mean corpuscular volume. Alcohol problems were defined as presence of ICD-10 criteria for dependence or harmful use, or high-risk drinking according to World Health Organization criteria (weekly intake >420 g in males, >280 g in females). Screening accuracy was determined using Receiver Operating Characteristic curves.
Results:  There were 787 males and 446 females in the study. Median age was 33 years. The accuracy of the AUDIT was good to excellent, whereas all biomarkers performed only fairly to poorly in males, and even worse in females. At a specificity >0.80, sensitivity for all biomarkers was <0.43, whereas sensitivity for the AUDIT was 0.76 for males and 0.81 for females. The addition of biomarkers added little additional discriminatory information compared to use of the AUDIT alone.
Conclusions:  Screening properties of the AUDIT are superior to %CDT, MCV, and GGT for detection of alcohol problems in injured patients and are not clinically significantly enhanced by the use of biomarkers.     

Readiness to Change Profiles in Two Different Groups of Alcohol/Other Drug Abusers in the United States and Finland

Information on alcohol/other drug abusers' readiness to change is needed for the individual planning of treatment. We investigated the readiness to change profiles of Finnish and North American alcohol/other drug abusers. The Finnish subjects (N = 780) were unselected alcoholics and polydrug users receiving inpatient treatment. The North American subjects (N = 946) were selected outpatient alcoholics treated on Project MATCH. Readiness to change was measured with the URICA (University of Rhode Island Change Assessment Scale). In the cluster analyses the subjects were placed in groups. The findings indicated that the readiness to change profiles of Americans and Finns are similar in form, but there were quantitative differences in grouping. The Finns' profiles were more often of the type resisting change compared to those of the Americans. These differences are most likely due to the fact that the Finnish subjects were unselected inpatients whereas the Americans were selected outpatients. The article considers the significance of the findings in the light of earlier profile studies and the treatment of alcohol/other drug abuse.     

Screening Trauma Patients for Alcoholism According to NLAAA Guidelines with Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test Questions

Drinking pattern criteria (drinking frequency and number of drinks per occasion) issued by the National Institute on Alcohol and Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA) to screen primary practice patients for alcohol problems were evaluated in 1216 injured patients treated in a regional trauma center. Vehicular crash victims predominated (50.2%, of whom 64.5% were drivers), followed by victims of violence (31.2%) and nonviolent-injury victims (18.5%). Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT) questions #1 (drinking frequency) and #2 (drinks/day) were used to assess the patients for current alcohol dependence (CAD). AUDIT responses roughly approximating NIAAA guidelines (high threshold: drinks ≥ 4 times/week, ≥ 5 drinks/day) and those indicating less drinking (low threshold: drinks ≥ 2-3 times/week, ≥3 drinks/day) were chosen. Comparisons were made relative to sensitivity and specificity of responses in detecting CAD. When low threshold responses were used for either question, sensitivity to detect CAD increased overall (#1 from 0.53 to 0.80, #2 from 0.62 to 0.88) as well as among the subgroups of patients, whereas specificity remained high or at acceptable levels overall (#1 from 0.95 to 0.82, #2 from 0.92 to 0.71) and among the subgroups of patients. Study findings suggest that, among injured drivers and other groups of trauma center patients, lesser amounts of drinking should be used as screening criteria for CAD than are used for the general population.     

Effectiveness of a Feedback-Based Brief Intervention to Reduce Alcohol Use in Community Substance Use Disorders Treatment

Feedback brief interventions for alcohol use problems have been highly effective with undergraduate populations. However, there has been little research on the effectiveness of administering feedback alone to community treatment populations. The goal of this study was to assess the effectiveness of a feedback brief intervention in a community treatment setting with patients characterized largely by dependence on alcohol and drugs, ethnic diversity, and low socioeconomic status. It was hypothesized that pretreatment brief individualized feedback would reduce alcohol consumption and increase participation in subsequent substance use disorder (SUD) treatment. Participants were recruited from a public hospital's SUD clinic. After the intake but prior to entry into the treatment as usual, 121 participants were randomized to receive personalized feedback or a condition without feedback. Eighty-seven participants completed post-intervention follow-up interviews and were included in the final analyses. Repeated-measures ANOVAs and MANCOVAs were used to examine variables obtained from the Addiction Severity Index of drinking quantity and frequency, and motivation for treatment. Results indicated that personalized feedback delivered no benefit beyond that of pretreatment assessment procedures (phone screening and intake interview) alone. Intervention conditions did not differ on other outcomes at follow-up, including days of heavy drinking, motivation for treatment, or drug use frequency. Therefore, feedback-based brief interventions may be not helpful in reducing the drinking frequency and intensity of individuals presenting to community-based substance use treatment.     

Comparison of Objective Screening and Self-Report for Alcohol and Drug Use in Traumatically Injured Patients

Alcohol and drug use is prevalent in trauma patients. Concerns over the validity of self-reporting drug use could make nonlaboratory screening problematic. This study sought to validate patient self-report of substance use against objective screening to determine the reliability of self-report in trauma patients. Patients admitted to either the Trauma or Burn services who were at least age 18 were screened for alcohol and drug use with validated screening tools. Exclusion criteria were altered mental status, non English speaking, inability to answer questions for other reasons, under police custody, or admission for <24 hours. Results from admission blood alcohol concentration (BAC) and urine drug screen (UDS) were also collected and compared to self-reported use to determine its reliability. Alcohol use was queried in 128 patients, 101 of whom had a BAC drawn. Of those 101, 34 (33.7%) had a BAC ≥ 0 mg%. Alcohol Use Disorder Identification Test creening revealed 13 (12.9%) patients who were self-reported non drinkers, none of which had a BAC > 0 mg%. Drug use was queried in 133 patients, 93 of whom had a UDS. A positive was found in 26 (28.0%) of the patients, only 12 (46.2%) of whom reported drug use in the past year. Although substance use in trauma patients is prevalent, self-report screening techniques for drugs may be inadequate at determining those patients whom could benefit from brief interventions while in the hospital. Further investigation is needed to determine the discrepancy between alcohol and drug use screening in trauma patients and more acceptable means of drug use discussion.     

Alcohol and Illicit Drug Use as Precipitants of Atrial Fibrillation in Young Adults: A Case Series and Literature Review

Background

Atrial fibrillation in young patients (≤45 years) is uncommon. There is the perception that the precipitant in such cases is alcohol, but we also have noted cases related to illicit drug abuse. There are no clear guidelines on the treatment of atrial fibrillation in patients presenting with “lone atrial fibrillation” precipitated by alcohol or illicit drugs.

Methods

We retrospectively analyzed young (defined as ≤45 years) patients with “lone” atrial fibrillation who were admitted to the hospital with electrocardiographically confirmed diagnosis of atrial fibrillation or atrial flutter, precipitated by either alcohol or illicit drugs, over a 6-year period.

Results

Eighty-eight patients aged ≤45 years were admitted with atrial fibrillation or atrial flutter. In 22 patients, (mean [SD] age 33.6 [8.4] years; 20 male), alcohol (n = 19) and/or illicit drugs (n = 3) were found to be the precipitant. One patient required electrical cardioversion, with the remaining patients cardioverting back to sinus rhythm either pharmacologically or spontaneously. Twelve (54.5%) were investigated for atrial fibrillation burden by 24-hour Holter monitoring and the majority also underwent a transthoracic echocardiogram (81.8%). At discharge, 14 (63.6%) patients were treated with anti-arrhythmic drugs and 10 received either antiplatelets or anticoagulants. Most (85%) patients were followed-up for at least 12 months, during which time 6 had further paroxysms; all of whom continued to abuse either alcohol or illicit drugs.

Conclusions

Alcohol and illicit drugs are arrhythmogenic and are associated with atrial fibrillation. Apart from abstinence, the optimal management of such patients and the long-term effects of these substances on the heart and atrial fibrillation recurrences are still unclear.     

Validation of the Alcohol, Smoking And Substance Involvement Screening Test (ASSIST)

AIM: The concurrent, construct and discriminative validity of the World Health Organization's Alcohol, Smoking and Substance Involvement Screening Test (ASSIST) were examined in a multi-site international study. PARTICIPANTS: One thousand and 47 participants, recruited from drug treatment (n = 350) and primary health care (PHC) settings (n = 697), were administered a battery of instruments. MEASUREMENTS: Measures included the ASSIST; the Addiction Severity Index-Lite (ASI-Lite); the Severity of Dependence Scale (SDS); the MINI International Neuropsychiatric Interview (MINI-Plus); the Rating of Injection Site Condition (RISC); the Drug Abuse Screening Test (DAST); the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT); the Revised Fagerstrom Tolerance Questionnaire (RTQ); and the Maudsley Addiction Profile (MAP). FINDINGS: Concurrent validity was demonstrated by significant correlations between ASSIST scores and scores from the ASI-Lite (r = 0.76-0.88), SDS (r = 0.59), AUDIT (r = 0.82) and RTQ (r = 0.78); and significantly greater ASSIST scores for those with MINI-Plus diagnoses of abuse or dependence (P < 0.001). Construct validity was established by significant correlations between ASSIST scores and measures of risk factors for the development of drug and alcohol problems (r = 0.48-0.76). Discriminative validity was established by the capacity of the ASSIST to discriminate between substance use, abuse and dependence. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis was used to establish cut-off scores with suitable specificities (50-96%) and sensitivities (54-97%) for most substances. CONCLUSIONS: The findings demonstrated that the ASSIST is a valid screening test for identifying psychoactive substance use in individuals who use a number of substances and have varying degrees of substance use.