10 research outputs found
Recommended from our members
Screening for Adolescent Alcohol Use in the Emergency Department: What Does It Tell Us About Cannabis, Tobacco, and Other Drug Use?
BackgroundThe pediatric emergency department (PED) represents an opportune time for alcohol and drug screening. The National Institute of Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA) recommends a two-question alcohol screen for adolescents as a predictor of alcohol and drug misuse.ObjectiveA multi-site PED study was conducted to determine the association between the NIAAA two-question alcohol screen and adolescent cannabis use disorders (CUD), cigarette smoking, and lifetime use of other drugs.MethodsParticipants included 12-17-year olds (n = 4834) treated in one of 16 participating PEDs. An assessment battery, including the NIAAA two-question screen and other measures of alcohol, tobacco and drug use, was self-administered on a tablet computer.ResultsA diagnosis of CUD, lifetime tobacco use or lifetime drug use was predicted by any self-reported alcohol use in the past year, which indicates a classification of moderate risk for middle school ages and low risk for high school ages on the NIAAA two-question screen. Drinking was most strongly predictive of a CUD, somewhat weaker for lifetime tobacco use, and weakest for lifetime drug use. This same pattern held for high school and middle school students and was stronger for high school students over middle school students for all three categories. This association was also found across gender, ethnicity and race. The association was strongest for CUD for high school students, sensitivity 81.7% (95% CI, 77.0, 86.5) and specificity 70.4% (95% CI, 68.6, 72.1). Conclusions/Importance: A single question about past year alcohol use can provide valuable information about other substance use, particularly marijuana
Recommended from our members
Reliability and Validity of the Newton Screen for Alcohol and Cannabis Misuse in a Pediatric Emergency Department Sample
ObjectivesTo determine the test-retest reliability, concurrent, convergent, and discriminant validity of a recently devised screen (the Newton screen) for alcohol and cannabis use/misuse, and its predictive validity at follow-up.Study designAdolescents, 12-17 years old (n = 4898), treated in 1 of 16 participating pediatric emergency departments across the US were enrolled in a study as part of a larger study within the Pediatric Emergency Care Applied Research Network. Concurrent and predictive validity (at 1, 2, and 3 years of follow-up) were assessed in a random subsample with a structured Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders-based interview. Convergent validity was assessed with the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification, a widely used alcohol screening measure.ResultsThe sensitivity of the Newton screen for alcohol use disorder at baseline was 78.3% with a specificity of 93.0%. The cannabis use question had a baseline sensitivity of 93.1% and specificity of 93.5% for cannabis use disorder. Predictive validity analyses at 1, 2, and 3 years revealed high specificity but low sensitivity for alcohol and high specificity and moderate sensitivity for cannabis.ConclusionsThe Newton screening instrument may be an appropriate brief screening tool for use in the busy clinical environment. Specificity was high for both alcohol and cannabis, but sensitivity was higher for cannabis than alcohol. Like other brief screens, more detailed follow-up questions may be necessary to definitively assess substance misuse risk and the need for referral to treatment
Recommended from our members
Predictive Validity of a 2-Question Alcohol Screen at 1-, 2-, and 3-Year Follow-up.
The National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA) 2-question screen is a valid adolescent alcohol screening tool. No studies have examined if this tool predicts future alcohol problems. We conducted a study at 16 pediatric emergency departments to determine the tool's predictive validity for alcohol misuse and alcohol use disorders (AUDs). Participants (N = 4834) completed a baseline assessment battery. A subsample of participants completed the battery at 1, 2, and 3 years follow up. Of the 2209 participants assigned to follow-up, 1611 (73%) completed a 1-year follow-up, 1591 (72%) completed a 2-year follow-up, and 1377 (62%) completed a 3-year follow-up. The differences in AUDs between baseline NIAAA screen nondrinkers and lower-risk drinkers were statistically significant at 1 year (P = .0002), 2 years (P <.0001), and 3 years (P = .0005), as were the differences between moderate- and highest-risk drinkers at 1 and 2 years (P < .0001 and P = .0088, respectively) but not at 3 years (P = .0758). The best combined score for sensitivity (86.2% at 1 year, 75.6% at 2 years, and 60.0% at 3 years) and specificity (78.1% at 1 year, 79.2% at 2 years, and 80.0% at 3 years) was achieved by using "lower risk" and higher as a cutoff for the prediction of a Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition diagnosis. The NIAAA 2-question screen can accurately characterize adolescent risk for future AUDs. Future studies are needed to determine optimaluse of the screen