Unhealthy alcohol use is commonly identified in primary care, yet most patients do not receive any treatment services. Pharmacists can complement the work of primary care physicians (PCPs), but it is unknown whether they increase patient access to services for alcohol use problems. To examine implementation outcomes of a primary care–based, pharmacist-delivered service for patients with unhealthy alcohol use. A pragmatic, cluster-randomized trial conducted in a large healthcare system between 9/1/2021 and 8/31/2023. Primary care clinics block-randomized by facility to an intervention arm (N = 8) or Usual Care (N = 8). Primary care providers (204 intervention arm, 132 Usual Care arm) from study clinics. Alcohol Telemedicine Consultation (ATC), involving telephone contact, assessment, motivational enhancement, and specialty referral facilitation. Prescriptions for an FDA-approved alcohol use disorder (AUD) medication and referrals to specialty treatment for individuals (age 18 +) who screened positive for unhealthy alcohol use or received an AUD diagnosis between 9/1/2021 and 8/31/2023 summarized by arm. Bivariate: Collectively, ATC arm providers made 161 referrals to ATC in year 1 and 126 referrals in year 2. Usual Care arm providers made more referrals to specialty treatment (mean (SE) 3.14 (0.28) vs. 2.34 (0.20) in year 1 and 3.24 (0.27) vs.2.43 (0.21) in year 2). Multivariable: Multivariable analyses using zero-inflated Poisson models adjusting for provider characteristics showed that ATC-arm providers prescribed 66

Unhealthy alcohol use is a public health problem with significant health, social and economic impacts. Alcohol screening and brief intervention (ASBI) in adult primary care is an evidence-based approach enabling early identification and intervention of unhealthy alcohol use. However, large-scale implementation and sustainment of ASBI in routine clinical practice remains a challenge, and little is known about its population-level impact. Using electronic health record (EHR) data in a large integrated healthcare system in Northern California that implemented systematic ASBI in adult primary care in mid-2013, this observational study examined: 1) trajectories of ASBI performance over 5 years post systematic implementation, and 2) their associations with both later ASBI performance and alcohol use outcomes. Using the health plan’s EHR data, we calculated annual screening rates of adults with a primary care visit, and brief intervention (BI) rates among those with a positive screen (i.e., reporting alcohol consumption exceeding the age and sex specific daily and weekly low-risk National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism guidelines), for 57 medical facilities from years 2014 to 2021. We conducted latent class growth analysis using annual screening and BI rates to characterize trajectories of ASBI performance from years 2014–2018. Multivariable mixed-effects models were fit to examine the associations of ASBI performance trajectories with later ASBI performance and facility-level alcohol use outcomes. Three distinct screening performance trajectory groups (low-, middle- and high-performance) and four distinct BI performance trajectory groups (low-, improving-, middle- and high-performance) were identified. Facilities in the low-BI-performance group had panels of patients living in more deprived neighborhoods compared to the other 3 BI performance groups. After accounting for repeated measures and adjusting for time and patient panel characteristics, we found that screening and BI performance trajectories during 2014–2018 were significantly associated with screening and BI rates 2019–2021, respectively. We also observed a steeper decline in percentages reporting “exceeding daily drinking limits” and “having 5 + binge drinking days” over time among patients of facilities in the improving- and high-BI-performance groups. Early success in ASBI performance is associated with long-term sustainability and may be associated with long-term population-level drinking outcomes.

Objective: Individuals with unhealthy alcohol use and comorbid depression or anxiety may be vulnerable to alcohol use escalation in times of stress such as the COVID-19 pandemic. Among a cohort of individuals with pre-pandemic unhealthy drinking, we compared changes in alcohol use by whether people had a depression or anxiety diagnosis and examined whether mental health treatment was related to these changes. Method: Using electronic health record data from Kaiser Permanente Northern California, we analyzed drinking changes during the pandemic (3/1/2020-6/30/2022) among adults identified in primary care with unhealthy alcohol use (exceeding daily/weekly recommended limits) pre-pandemic (1/1/2019-2/29/2020). Outcomes were mean changes in number of heavy drinking days (prior 3 months), drinks/week, drinks/day, and drinking days/week. Multivariable linear regression models were fit to (a) compare outcomes of patients with depression or anxiety diagnoses to those without, and (b) among patients with depression or anxiety, estimate associations between mental health treatment and outcomes. Results: The sample included 62,924 adults with unhealthy alcohol use, of whom 12,281 (19.5%) had depression or anxiety. On average, alcohol use significantly decreased across all measures during the pandemic; however, patients with depression or anxiety had greater decreases in drinks/week (adjusted mean difference [aMD] [CI] =-0.34 [-0.55,-0.12]) and drinking days/week (-0.15 [-0.20,-0.10]). No associations were found between mental health treatment and changes in drinking. Conclusions: Contrary to expectations, patients with unhealthy alcohol use and depression or anxiety decreased alcohol use more than those without depression or anxiety during COVID-19, regardless of whether they accessed mental health services. (J. Stud. Alcohol Drugs, 85, 920-926, 2024)

INTRODUCTION:Hazardous drinking is a public health problem affecting approximately 20 % of the U.S. primary care population. Clinical trials have documented the efficacy and effectiveness of Alcohol Screening and Brief Intervention (ASBI), yet widespread implementation remains elusive, and questions remain regarding optimal implementation and sustainment strategies. Kaiser Permanente Northern California (KPNC) implemented systematic ASBI in adult primary care in mid-2013. We used 8 years of electronic health record (EHR) data, combined with surveys which captured primary care provider perceptions organized into PRISM (Practical, Robust Implementation and Sustainability Model) implementation framework domains (Intervention, External Environment, Implementation Infrastructure, and Recipients), to characterize ASBI implementation and sustainment and test how various factors are associated with ASBI rates. METHODS:Using EHR data, we calculated yearly screening rates of adults with a primary care visit, and brief intervention (BI) rates among those with a positive hazardous drinking screen, (exceeding the age and sex-specific daily and weekly low-risk NIH guidelines (≤3 per day and ≤ 7 per week for women and older men; ≤4 per day and ≤ 14 per week for men 18-65)), across KPNC, from 2014 to 2021. We collected web-based survey data, informed by the PRISM domains, from primary care providers (n = 796; 35.5 % RR) to assess perceptions on ASBI implementation and sustainability. RESULTS:Between 1/1/2014 and 12/31/21 there were 5,072,270 completed screenings and 624,167 BIs. After adjusting for patient panel characteristics, we found that facilities with higher Implementation Infrastructure domain scores, indicating more robust implementation capacity, had higher screening and BI rates; facilities with higher Intervention domain scores, indicating positive perceptions of SBIRT evidence, and facilities with higher Recipients domain scores, indicating perceived organizational robustness, clinician culture and management support; and greater perceived patient needs and their likely benefit from SBIRT, had higher BI rates. CONCLUSIONS:Results provide information on factors which may facilitate successful ASBI implementation and sustainability and could inform future ASBI implementation efforts in healthcare system settings. In particular, efforts toward bolstering an organization's implementation infrastructure capacity, prior to embarking on implementation of a systematic ASBI program, could potentially help pave the way for successful implementation.

Background Given significant risks associated with long-term prescription opioid use, there is a need for non-pharmacological interventions for treating chronic pain. Activating patients to manage chronic pain has the potential to improve health outcomes. The ACTIVATE study was designed to evaluate the effectiveness of a 4-session patient activation intervention in primary care for patients on long-term opioid therapy. Methods The two-arm, pragmatic, randomized trial was conducted in two primary care clinics in an integrated health system from June 2015—August 2018. Consenting participants were randomized to the intervention ( n = 189) or usual care ( n = 187). Participants completed online and interviewer-administered surveys at baseline, 6- and 12- months follow-up. Prescription opioid use was extracted from the EHR. The primary outcome was patient activation assessed by the Patient Activation Measure (PAM). Secondary outcomes included mood, function, overall health, non-pharmacologic pain management strategies, and patient portal use. We conducted a repeated measure analysis and reported between-group differences at 12 months. Results At 12 months, the intervention and usual care arms had similar PAM scores. However, compared to usual care at 12 months, the intervention arm demonstrated: less moderate/severe depression (odds ratio [OR] = 0.40, 95%CI 0.18–0.87); higher overall health (OR = 3.14, 95%CI 1.64–6.01); greater use of the patient portal’s health/wellness resources (OR = 2.50, 95%CI 1.42–4.40) and lab/immunization history (OR = 2.70, 95%CI 1.29–5.65); and greater use of meditation (OR = 2.72; 95%CI 1.61–4.58) and exercise/physical therapy (OR = 2.24, 95%CI 1.29–3.88). At 12 months, the intervention arm had a higher physical health measure (mean difference 1.63; 95%CI: 0.27–2.98). Conclusion This trial evaluated the effectiveness of a primary care intervention in improving patient activation and patient-reported outcomes among adults with chronic pain on long-term opioid therapy. Despite a lack of improvement in patient activation, a brief intervention in primary care can improve outcomes such as depression, overall health, non-pharmacologic pain management, and engagement with the health system. Trial Registration The study was registered on 10/27/14 on ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02290223).

Aims This study examined differential changes in alcohol use during the COVID-19 pandemic among adults with unhealthy alcohol use.Methods Among 62 924 adults identified with unhealthy alcohol use in primary care prepandemic (1 January 2019 to 29 February 2020), changes in alcohol use during the pandemic (1 March 2020 to 30 June 2022) were examined using electronic health record data from Kaiser Permanente Northern California. Outcomes were changes in heavy drinking days in the past three months (HDDs) and overall consumption (drinks/week), including continuous and categorical measures. Differences in outcomes by sex, age, race/ethnicity, and alcohol use disorder (AUD) were examined.Results On average, drinking was reduced by 3.0 HDDs (in the past three months) (SD = 18.4) and 4.1 drinks/week (SD = 12.2), but women, certain age groups, White patients, and patients without AUD had smaller decreases than their counterparts. Overall, 9.1% increased, 34.4% maintained, and 56.5% decreased HDDs, and 20.2% increased, 19.8% maintained, and 60.1% decreased drinks/week. Women, patients aged >= 35 years, White patients, and patients with AUD had higher odds of increasing versus decreasing HDDs, and maintaining versus decreasing, compared to their counterparts. Patients aged 18-20 years, White patients, and patients without AUD had higher odds than their counterparts of increasing versus decreasing drinks/week. Women, patients aged 18-20 years, Asian/Pacific Islander, and Latino/Hispanic patients had higher odds of maintaining versus decreasing drinks/week.Conclusions While alcohol use decreased overall among this sample of primary care patients with unhealthy drinking prepandemic, certain subgroups were more likely to increase drinking, suggesting a greater risk of alcohol-related problems.

Objective: While collaborative care is known to improve depressive and anxiety symptoms in primary care, comparative effectiveness studies of virtual collaborative care versus virtual specialty psychiatry treatment in real world settings are lacking. This study examined patient depressive and anxiety symptoms over 6 months in collaborative care versus specialty psychiatry. Methods: This was an observational study with target trial emulation in a large, community-based, integrated health care system. Participants were ≥18 years old with mild-moderate depressive or anxiety symptoms measured by the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 or Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7 Scale. Exclusion criteria included acute suicide risk. Patients were assigned to collaborative care or specialty psychiatry, and symptoms were measured 6 months after treatment initiation using linear mixed-effects regression with inverse probability of treatment weighting. Results: There were N = 10,380 patients (n = 1,607 in collaborative care; n = 8,773 in specialty psychiatry) with depressive disorders and N = 2,935 (n = 570 in collaborative care; n = 2,365 in specialty psychiatry) with anxiety disorders. Model effects at 6 months showed significant symptom improvement for patients in collaborative care (adjusted mean difference [AMD] = -9.0, 95% CI, -9.7, -8.4 for depression; -5.4, 95% CI, -6.2, -4.7 for anxiety) and in specialty psychiatry (AMD = -5.0, 95% CI, -5.6, -4.5 for depression; -2.8, 95% CI, -3.6, -2.1 for anxiety), with patients in collaborative care showing significantly greater improvement compared to those in specialty psychiatry (AMD = -4.0, 95% CI, -4.7, -3.3, P < .0001 for depression; AMD = -2.6, 95% CI, -3.4, -1.8, P < .0001 for anxiety). Conclusions: Virtual collaborative care was at least as effective as specialty psychiatry for depression and anxiety. Collaborative care implementation can support national guidelines regarding depression and anxiety screening and treatment.

INTRODUCTION:The COVID-19 pandemic changed the way healthcare providers delivered most health services, including treatment for alcohol use disorder (AUD). Specialty alcohol treatment remained available through the pandemic, and within some systems treatment use increased likely due to telehealth availability. However, the field knows little about the relationship between the pandemic's expanded access to specialty alcohol treatment and alcohol use outcomes. METHODS:The sample included 14,712 patients from Kaiser Permanente Northern California who screened positive for unhealthy alcohol use in primary care and had an AUD diagnosis or risked developing an AUD by reporting 5 or more heavy drinking days in a 3-month period between 1/1/2019 and 2/29/2020 (pre-pandemic). The study examined the receipt of any specialty alcohol treatment (including at least one outpatient, inpatient, or telehealth specialty treatment encounter, or pharmacotherapy prescription) from 3/1/2020 (pandemic start) to either the first completed follow-up alcohol screening or 6/20/2022 (study period end). The outcomes of alcohol use included changes in heavy drinking days, drinks per week, drinking days per week, and drinks per drinking day between the pre- and post-pandemic periods. RESULTS:On average patients significantly decreased alcohol use across all four alcohol use measures examined, regardless of whether they received treatment. However, those who received any treatment compared to those who did not had greater reductions in alcohol use, with an additional decrease of -3.55 heavy drinking days (95 % CI = -5.93, -1.17), -3.80 drinks per week (95 % CI = -5.18, -2.42), -0.72 drinks per drinking day (95 % CI = -1.14, -0.30), and - 1.01 drinking days per week (95 % CI = -1.30, -0.72). Treatment effects were greatest among patients who exceeded both daily and weekly limits pre-pandemic, with an additional decrease of -10.75 heavy drinking days (95 % CI = -15.28, -6.21), -12.83 drinks per week (95 % CI = -16.31, -9.35), -1.67 drinks per drinking day (95 % CI = -2.19, -1.14), and -2.02 drinking days per week (95 % CI = -2.41, -1.63). CONCLUSIONS:On average, patients decreased alcohol use during the onset of the pandemic, however, those who had any specialty alcohol treatment had significantly greater decreases, suggesting that the hybrid in-person and telehealth treatment approach was effective during the pandemic.

Background Variation in specialty treatment utilization for alcohol use disorder (AUD) by patient subgroups is poorly understood. This study examined whether and how patient risk profiles predict receipt of specialty treatment and whether there are disparities by race and ethnicity. Methods This cohort study included 206,956 adults with heavy alcohol use (that which exceeded National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism guidelines) between June 1, 2013 and December 31, 2014, using electronic health record data from Kaiser Permanente Northern California. Five risk profiles (characterized by daily or weekly heavy drinking and level of health risks) were identified in latent class analysis. Logistic regression models were fit to examine associations between risk profiles, race, ethnicity, and receipt of specialty treatment (including addiction medicine, psychiatry, or integrated behavioral health visits, and AUD pharmacotherapy), adjusting for other patient characteristics. Variation in the association between risk profiles and receipt of specialty treatment by race/ethnicity was also examined. Results Overall, 4.0% of patients received specialty treatment. Latino/Hispanic and Asian/Pacific Islander patients had lower odds of receiving specialty treatment than White patients (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] [95% CI] = 0.80 [0.75, 0.85], and 0.64 [0.59, 0.70], respectively). The substance use disorder and mental health disorder (SUD/MH) risk profile had the highest odds of receiving specialty treatment (10.46 [9.65, 11.34]). Associations between risk profiles and receipt of specialty treatment significantly differed by race/ethnicity. Black patients in the SUD/MH risk profile, and Hispanic/Latino patients in the risk profile with heavy daily drinking and more health risks, had lower odds of receiving specialty treatment than their White counterparts (adjusted ratio of odds ratios [aROR] [95% CI] = 0.69 [0.50, 0.94], and 0.79 [0.67, 0.92], respectively). Conclusions This study provides new insights into racial/ethnic disparities in specialty treatment utilization for alcohol problems. Findings may help inform strategies for tailoring interventions to address heavy alcohol use.

Background: Heavy alcohol use is a growing risk factor for chronic disease, yet little is known about its co-occurrence with other risk factors and health problems. This study aimed to identify risk profiles of adults with heavy alcohol use and examined potential disparities by race and ethnicity.Methods: This cross-sectional study included 211,333 adults with heavy alcohol use (in excess of daily or weekly limits recommended by National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism) between June 1, 2013 and December 31, 2014 in Kaiser Permanente Northern California. Latent class analysis was used to examine how heavy drinking patterns clustered with other behavioral and metabolic risk factors and health problems to form risk profiles. Multinomial logistic regression models were fit to examine associations between race, ethnicity, and risk profiles.Results: A 5-class model was selected as best fitting the data and representing clinically meaningful risk profiles: (1) "heavy daily drinking and lower health risks" (DAILY, 44.3%); (2) "substance use disorder and mental health disorder" (SUD/MH, 2.3%); (3) "heavy weekly drinking and lower health risks" (WEEKLY, 19.6%); (4) "heavy daily drinking and more health risks" (DAILY-R, 18.5%); (5) "heavy weekly drinking and more health risks" (WEEKLY-R, 15.3%). American Indian or Alaska Native (AIAN) and Black patients had higher odds than White patients of being in the SUD/MH, DAILY-R, and WEEKLY-R profiles than the DAILY profile. AIAN, Black, and Latino/Hispanic patients had higher odds than White patients of being in the SUD/MH, DAILY-R, and WEEKLY-R profiles rather than the WEEKLY profile.Conclusions: AIAN, Black, and Latino/Hispanic patients with self-reported heavy drinking were more likely to be in risk profiles with greater alcohol consumption, more health risks, and higher morbidity. Targeted, culturally appropriate interventions for heavy alcohol use that may address other modifiable risk factors are needed to work towards health equity.

Objectives To evaluate associations between alcohol brief intervention (BI) in primary care and 12-month drinking outcomes and 18-month health outcomes among adults with hypertension and type 2 diabetes (T2D). Design A population-based observational study using electronic health records data. Setting An integrated healthcare system that implemented system-wide alcohol screening, BI and referral to treatment in adult primary care. Participants Adult primary care patients with hypertension (N=72 979) or T2D (N=19 642) who screened positive for unhealthy alcohol use between 2014 and 2017. Main outcome measures We examined four drinking outcomes: changes in heavy drinking days/past 3 months, drinking days/week, drinks/drinking day and drinks/week from baseline to 12-month follow-up, based on results of alcohol screens conducted in routine care. Health outcome measures were changes in measured systolic and diastolic blood pressure (BP) and BP reduction ≥3 mm Hg at 18-month follow-up. For patients with T2D, we also examined change in glycohaemoglobin (HbA1c) level and ‘controlled HbA1c’ (HbA1c<8%) at 18-month follow-up. Results For patients with hypertension, those who received BI had a modest but significant additional −0.06 reduction in drinks/drinking day (95% CI −0.11 to −0.01) and additional −0.30 reduction in drinks/week (95% CI −0.59 to −0.01) at 12 months, compared with those who did not. Patients with hypertension who received BI also had higher odds for having clinically meaningful reduction of diastolic BP at 18 months (OR 1.05, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.09). Among patients with T2D, no significant associations were found between BI and drinking or health outcomes examined. Conclusions Alcohol BI holds promise for reducing drinking and helping to improve health outcomes among patients with hypertension who screened positive for unhealthy drinking. However, similar associations were not observed among patients with T2D. More research is needed to understand the heterogeneity across diverse subpopulations and to study BI’s long-term public health impact.

Outcomes of PWH with unhealthy alcohol use, such as alcohol use reduction or progression to AUD, are not well-known and may differ by baseline patterns of unhealthy alcohol use. Among 1299 PWH screening positive for NIAAA-defined unhealthy alcohol use in Kaiser Permanente Northern California, 2013–2017, we compared 2-year probabilities of reduction to low-risk/no alcohol use and rates of new AUD diagnoses by baseline use patterns, categorized as exceeding: only daily limits (72

Importance Substance use disorders are associated with high rates of emergency department (ED) use and challenges engaging with primary care services. Objective To examine 5-year health care engagement and utilization outcomes for participants in the LINKAGE trial, given previously reported associations of LINKAGE with improved care engagement in the short term. Design, Setting, and Participants In this post hoc analysis of a nonrandomized controlled trial, participants were assigned to the LINKAGE or usual care (UC) groups using a nonrandomized 3-month alternating off and on strategy over 30 months. Baseline through 5-year follow-up data were collected from April 2011 to October 2018. The trial was conducted at an urban outpatient addiction treatment clinic within a large health system among patients newly enrolled in addiction treatment. Data analysis was conducted from April 2021 to February 2022. Intervention The LINKAGE intervention included 6 group-based sessions emphasizing patient agency, skill, and motivation in navigating health care services as well as a facilitated telephone or email connection with a primary care practitioner. The UC group received medical education. Main Outcomes and Measures Substance use problem discussions with primary care practitioners (by patient self-report at 1-, 2-, and 5-year follow-up interview) and annual use of the electronic patient portal, primary care, and ED based on electronic health records. Results A total of 503 participants, with a mean (SD) age of 42 (12) years, 346 (69%) male participants and 37 (7%) African American, 34 (7%) Asian, and 101 (20%) Hispanic participants, were assigned to LINKAGE (252 participants) or UC (251 participants). Compared with UC participants, LINKAGE participants were significantly more likely to discuss substance use problems with a primary care practitioner at 1-year follow-up (risk ratio [RR], 1.30; 95% CI, 1.03-1.65; P = .03) and use the electronic patient portal at 1- and 2-year follow-up (eg, messaging clinicians at 2 years: RR, 1.24; 95% CI, 1.04-1.47; P = .02). The LINKAGE group had small, statistically significant 5-year annual increases in primary care use (RR, 1.03; 95% CI, 1.003-1.07; P = .03) and significant annual decreases in substance-related ED use (RR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.64-0.97; P = .03), relative to UC. The LINKAGE group did not significantly differ from the UC group on other types of ED utilization. Conclusions and Relevance In this study, a patient activation intervention embedded in outpatient addiction treatment was associated with sustained improvements in health care engagement beyond previously reported 6-month outcomes and with long-term improvements in health care use patterns. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01621711

BACKGROUND:Despite high prevalence of polysubstance use, recent data on concurrent alcohol use in patients with specific substance use disorders (SUDs) are lacking.OBJECTIVE:To examine associations between specific SUDs and alcohol consumption levels.METHODS:Using electronic health record data, we conducted a cross-sectional study of 2,720,231 primary care adults screened for alcohol use between 2014 and 2017 at Kaiser Permanente Northern California. Alcohol consumption levels were categorized as no reported use, low-risk use, and unhealthy use (exceeding daily, weekly, or both recommended drinking limits). Using multinomial logistic regression, and adjusting for sociodemographic and health characteristics, we examined the odds of reporting each alcohol consumption level in patients with a prior-year SUD diagnosis (alcohol, cannabis, cocaine, inhalant, opioid, sedative/anxiolytic, stimulant, other drug, nicotine, any SUD except nicotine) compared to those without.RESULTS:The sample was 52.9% female, 48.1% White; the mean age was 46 years (SD = 18). Patients with SUDs were less likely to report low-risk alcohol use relative to no use compared with patients without SUDs. Patients with alcohol or nicotine use disorder had higher odds of reporting unhealthy alcohol use relative to no use; however, patients with all other SUDs (except cocaine) had lower odds. Among patients who reported any alcohol use (n = 861,427), patients with SUDs (except opioid) had higher odds of exceeding recommended limits than those without.CONCLUSION:The associations of unhealthy alcohol use and SUDs suggest that screening for both alcohol and drug use in primary care presents a crucial opportunity to prevent and treat SUDs early.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS Although screening for unhealthy alcohol use is becoming more common, severe alcohol use disorders (AUDs) associated with the most severe medical and socio-economic sequelae still often go unidentified in primary care. To improve identification of severe AUDs and aid clinical decision-making, we aimed to identify a threshold of heavy drinking days (HDDs) associated with severe AUDs. DESIGN, SETTING, CASES This cohort study analyzed electronic health record data of 138,765 adults who reported ≥1 HDD (4+ drinks/occasion for women and men ≥65 years, 5+ for men 18-64) during a 3-month-period at a routine alcohol screening in primary care in a large Northern California, USA healthcare system from 2014 to 2017. Our sample was 66.5% male, 59.7% White, 11.0% Asian/Pacific Islander, 5.0% Black, 17.4% Latino/Hispanic and 7.0% other/unknown race/ethnicity; the mean age was 40.6 years (SD=15.2). MEASUREMENTS We compared sensitivity and specificity of different thresholds of the reported number of HDDs during a 3-month period for predicting severe AUD diagnoses in the following year, in the full sample, and by sex and age. FINDINGS The prevalence of severe AUD diagnoses in the year after the screening was 0.6%. The optimal threshold predicting future severe AUD diagnoses in the full sample was ≥5 HDDs during a 3-month period (sensitivity=68.9%, 95% confidence interval [CI]=65.9, 72.0; specificity=63.2%, 95% CI=62.9, 63.4), but varied by sex and age. Women had a lower threshold than men (4 vs. 6 HDDs), which decreased as women aged (from 5 HDDs among 18-24 years to 4 HDDs ≥25 years), but increased as men aged (from 5 HDDs among 18-24 years, to 6 HDDs among 25-64 years, to 7 HDDs ≥65 years). CONCLUSIONS Five or more heavy drinking days in a 3-month period may indicate heightened risk of future severe alcohol use disorder in an adult primary care population. The optimal thresholds are lower for women than for men, and thresholds decrease as women age but increase as men age.

BACKGROUND:Alcohol screening, brief intervention and referral to treatment (SBIRT) in adult primary care is an evidence-based, public health strategy to address unhealthy alcohol use, but evidence of effectiveness of alcohol brief intervention (ABI) in real-world implementation is lacking.METHODS:We fit marginal structural models with inverse probability weighting to estimate the causal effects of ABI on 12-month drinking outcomes using longitudinal electronic health records data for 312,056 adults with a positive screening result for unhealthy drinking between 2014 and 2017 in a large healthcare system that implemented systematic primary care-based SBIRT. We examined effects of ABI with and without adjusting for receipt of specialty alcohol use disorder (AUD) treatment, and whether effects varied by patient demographic characteristics and alcohol use patterns.RESULTS:Receiving ABI resulted in significantly greater reductions in heavy drinking days (mean difference [95% CI] = -0.26 [-0.45, -0.08]), drinking days per week (-0.04 [-0.07, -0.01]), drinks per drinking day (-0.05 [-0.08, -0.02]) and drinks per week (-0.16 [-0.27, -0.04]). Effects of ABI on 12-month drinking outcomes varied by baseline consumption level, age group and whether patients already had an AUD, with better improvement in those who were drinking at levels exceeding only daily limits, younger, and without an AUD.CONCLUSIONS:Systematic ABI in adult primary care has the potential to reduce drinking among people with unhealthy drinking considerably on both an individual and population level. More research is needed to help optimize ABI, in particular tailoring it to diverse sub-populations, and studying its long-term public health impact.

Cannabis use among individuals before and during pregnancy is increasing alongside the proliferation of new products with various modes of administration. Preconception cannabis use is a strong predictor of prenatal cannabis use. Yet little is known about how individuals administer cannabis during the preconception period, particularly in socioeconomically vulnerable populations. This study examined the prevalence and correlates of modes of cannabis administration (smoke, vape, blunts, edible/oral, dabs/wax, lotion/topical) during the year before conception, among patients who self-reported preconception cannabis use during universal screening in prenatal care. Descriptive statistics included sociodemographic characteristics, preconception cannabis use frequency, and modes of administration. Chi-square tests examined whether mode was associated with sociodemographic characteristics and use frequency. The sample (N = 11,936, screened from February 2020-May 2021) was 59.8% non-White and 26.1% were < 26 years old; 50.7% reported monthly or less, 21.8% weekly, and 27.4% daily preconception cannabis use; 69.7% smoked (any method), 34.5% smoked blunts, 53.4% used edibles/oral, 28.2% vaped, 9.9% used lotion/topical; 54.2% reported 1 mode, 30.4% reported 2 modes, 15.4% reported 3+ modes. Smoking was more common among daily users, younger patients, those with greater neighborhood deprivation, and Black and Hispanic patients, while edibles/oral were more common among ≤ monthly users, older patients, those with less neighborhood deprivation, and Asian patients. Use of other modes also varied by sociodemographic characteristics and use frequency. Research is needed to understand preconception cannabis use in vulnerable subpopulations, continuation of use during pregnancy, and whether health risks associated with preconception and prenatal cannabis use differ by administration mode.

Background Collaborative care is an evidence-based multidisciplinary model shown to improve patient depression and anxiety outcomes. Although there is robust literature showing the effectiveness of collaborative care on depression and anxiety symptoms, there is little published on outcomes of collaborative care implementation or the efficacy of collaborative care compared with psychiatric referrals. Reported here is a study protocol examining a novel depression and anxiety collaborative care program in a large, integrated health care system. Methods This is a mixed methods study of the Achieving Depression and Anxiety Patient-Centered Treatment (ADAPT) program as compared to outpatient psychiatric care at Kaiser Permanente Northern California, a large, integrated health care delivery system. The ADAPT program was designed using collaborative care principles, including measurement-based care, accurate diagnosis, and population management. Eligible participants will be ≥ 18 years old with mild to moderate-severe depressive symptoms as measured by the Patient Health Questionnaire-9. Exclusion criteria include acute suicide risk and serious mental health comorbidities. Implementation is examined using the reach, effectiveness, adoption, implementation, and maintenance (RE-AIM) framework and interviews with program stakeholders. Results Pending. Conclusion Study data will help inform future collaborative care efforts while expanding the literature base. The Achieving Depression and Anxiety Patient-Centered Treatment program may improve patient outcomes and access to quality depression and/or anxiety care.