Purpose

Unhealthy behaviors contribute to half of U.S. deaths. However, physicians lack sufficient skill in counseling patients to change behaviors. Characterizing effective published curricular interventions for behavior change counseling for medical trainees would inform educators toward improved training.

Method

The authors conducted a systematic literature search of studies published between 1965 and 2011 evaluating curricula on behavior change counseling for medical trainees. Included studies described behavior change counseling, teaching interventions for medical trainees, and assessment of interventions. The authors extracted eligible articles, rated outcomes for learners and patients using Kirkpatrick's hierarchy, and determined study quality.

Results

Of 2,788 identified citations, 109 met inclusion criteria. Most studies were performed in the United States (98), 93 at a single institution, and 81 in primary care settings. Curricular topics for counseling included smoking (67 studies), nutrition (30), alcohol/drug use (26), and exercise (22). Although most studies did not include theoretical frameworks, 39 used the Transtheoretical Model of Change. Sixty-two studies involved eight or fewer hours of curricular time, and 51 spanned four or fewer weeks. The studies with highest-level outcomes and quality employed multiple curricular techniques and included practice of counseling techniques in either simulated or actual clinical settings.

Conclusions

Existing literature suggests that trainees learn behavior change counseling through active, realistic practice and implementation of reminder and feedback systems within actual clinical practice settings. Multiinstitutional medical education research on methods of teaching behavior change counseling that influence patients' health outcomes are needed to ensure trainees' clinical competence and improve patient care.

This year's applicants to medical school took a newly revised version of the Medical College Admission Test. Unlike applicants in the past, they were asked to demonstrate their knowledge and use of concepts commonly taught in introductory psychology courses. The new Psychological, Social, and Biological Foundations of Behavior Test asked applicants to demonstrate the ways in which psychological, social, and biological factors influence perceptions and reactions to the world; behavior and behavior change; what people think about themselves and others; the cultural and social differences that influence well-being; and the relationships among social stratification, access to resources, and well-being. Building from the classic biopsychosocial model, this article provides the rationale for testing psychology concepts in application to medical school. It describes the concepts and skills that the new exam tests and shows how they lay the foundation for learning in medical school about the behavioral and sociocultural determinants of health. This article discusses the implications of these changes for undergraduate psychology faculty and psychology curricula as well as their importance to the profession of psychology at large.

Background

Poly-use of tobacco, cannabis, and electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) is an emerging problem in the general population. The current study investigated poly-use of these products and receipt of smoking cessation counseling in a primary care setting.

Methods

We conducted a cross-sectional secondary data analysis from a trial of a tablet intervention to increase provider delivery of the 5As (Ask, Advise, Assess, Assist, Arrange follow-up), a brief counseling intervention for smoking cessation, in 3 diverse primary care clinics in San Francisco, CA from 2014 to 2015. Participants were currently smoking cigarettes (N = 601; mean age = 50.8; 38.1% female) and reported information on past 30-day cigarette and e-cigarette use and past 3-month cannabis use. We classified participants into 4 groups: (1) cigarette-only, (2) dual-use of cigarettes and e-cigarettes, (3) dual-use of cigarettes and cannabis, (4) poly-use of cigarettes, e-cigarettes, and cannabis, and examined correlates of use.

Results

Only cigarette smoking was reported by 48.6% of participants, 30.4% reported use of cigarettes and cannabis, 10.5% reported use of cigarettes and e-cigarettes, and 10.5% reported use of cigarettes, e-cigarettes, and cannabis. Cigarette-only smokers did not differ from other groups by cigarette smoking behavior and motivation to quit. Patients reporting dual-use of cigarettes and e-cigarettes had a higher likelihood of receiving the Arrange step and all 5As compared to cigarette-only smokers.

Conclusions

Providers should screen for co-use of cigarettes and other nicotine/cannabis products and consider co-use when delivering smoking cessation treatment and evaluating treatment outcomes. Development of guidelines to help facilitate provider training is needed.

Objectives

Screening, Brief Intervention, and Referral to Treatment (SBIRT) can effectively identify and address substance misuse and substance use disorders (SUDs), and can be delivered by a range of trained health professionals. Yet, barriers remain to effective training and implementation of SBIRT in health and social service settings, and models of interprofessional collaboration in SBIRT delivery are underdeveloped.

Methods

We reviewed current literature regarding SBIRT effectiveness, training, and implementation by physicians, nurses, psychologists, and social workers. An SBIRT expert and representative from each health profession synthesized literature and training experiences to inform the development of interprofessional training and collaborative implementation strategies.

Results

Each of the health professions involved in SBIRT training and implementation have strengths and weaknesses that influence how SBIRT is taught, learned, and delivered. Some of these are specific to the components of SBIRT, for example, screening versus brief intervention, whereas others depend on profession-driven competencies, for example, motivational interviewing. Professional organizations have encouraged a range of tailored SBIRT training initiatives, but true interprofessional training and the implementation of collaborative, team-based care are largely unrealized.

Conclusions

SBIRT can be a valuable approach to screening and treatment for SUDs when delivered by a range of healthcare professionals. A more nuanced understanding of the assumptions and characteristics of each profession, informed by the emerging field of implementation science, may shape more effective training curricula and highlight interprofessional models of SBIRT delivery that maximize the strengths of each profession.

Background

Electronic cigarette (e-cigarette) use is rising in both the general and clinical populations. Little is known about e-cigarette use in primary care, where physicians report discussing e-cigarette use with patients.

Objective

Identify how and why smokers in primary care use e-cigarettes.

Design

Cross-sectional secondary data analysis from a randomized controlled trial of a tablet intervention to deliver the 5As for smoking cessation in primary care.

Participants

Current smokers aged 18 and older in three primary care clinics in San Francisco, CA (N = 788).

Main measures

Patients reported sociodemographics, cigarette smoking habits, quitting readiness, and ever and current use of e-cigarettes. We also asked reasons they have used or would use e-cigarettes. ICD-9 codes from the medical record determined comorbidities.

Key results

Fifty-two percent (n = 408) of patients reported ever using an e-cigarette, and 20% (n = 154) reported past-30-day use. Ever e-cigarette use was associated with younger age and negatively associated with being seen at practices at a public safety-net hospital compared to a practice at University-affiliated hospital. The most common reason for having used e-cigarettes among ever e-cigarette users, and for interest in future use of e-cigarettes among never e-cigarette users, was to cut down cigarette use. The mean number of days of e-cigarette use in the past 30 increased with duration of e-cigarette use. Most current e-cigarette users did not know the nicotine content of their e-cigarettes.

Conclusions

Over half of smokers in primary care have ever used e-cigarettes, and one-fifth are currently using them. Most reported using e-cigarettes to cut down or quit cigarettes. Primary care providers should be prepared to discuss e-cigarettes with patients. Screening for e-cigarette use may help identify and treat patients interested in changing their cigarette smoking habits.

This article describes the use of a brief needs assessment survey in the development of alcohol and drug screening, brief intervention, and referral to treatment (SBIRT) curricula in 2 health care settings in the San Francisco Bay Area. The samples included university medical center faculty (n = 27) and nonphysician community health and social service providers in a nearby suburban county (n = 21). Informed by curriculum development theory and motivational interviewing strategies, questions regarding clinical and educational priorities, perceived importance and confidence with screening and intervention techniques, and referral resource availability were included. Medical center faculty expressed greater concern about limited appointment time (P = .003), adequacy of training (P = .025), and provider confidence (P = .038) as implementation obstacles and had lower confidence in delivering SBIRT (P = .046) and providing treatment referrals (P = .054) than community providers. The authors describe their approach to integrating needs assessment results into subsequent curriculum development. Findings highlight potential differences between physician and nonphysician training needs.

Background

Screening, brief intervention, and referral to treatment (SBIRT) improves identification and intervention for patients at risk for developing an alcohol use disorder (AUD). Residency curriculum is designed to teach SBIRT skills, but resources are needed to promote skill implementation. The electronic health record (EHR) can facilitate implementation through integration of decision-support tools. The authors developed electronic tools to facilitate documentation of alcohol assessment and brief intervention and to reinforce skills from an SBIRT curriculum. This prospective cohort study assessed primary care internal medicine residents' use of SBIRT skills and EHR tools in practice using chart-stimulated recall (CSR).

Methods

Postgraduate year 2 and 3 residents received a 5-hour SBIRT curriculum with skills practice and instruction on SBIRT electronic tools. Participants were then given a list of their patients seen in a 1-year period who were drinking at/above the recommended limit. Trainees selected 3 patients to review with a faculty member in a CSR. Faculty used a 24-item chart checklist to assess application of SBIRT skills and electronic tool use and met with residents to complete a CSR interview. CSR interview notes were analyzed qualitatively to understand application of SBIRT skills and EHR tool use.

Results

Eighteen of 20 residents participated in the CSR, and 5 faculty reviewed 46 patient charts. Residents documented alcohol use (84.2% of charts) and assessment of quantity/frequency of use (71.0%) but were less likely to document assessment for an AUD (34%), an appropriate plan (50.0%), or follow-up (55%). Few residents used EHR tools. Residents reported barriers in addressing alcohol use, including lack of knowledge, patient barriers, and time constraints.

Conclusions

More intensive training in SBIRT with opportunities for practice and feedback may be necessary for residents to consistently apply SBIRT skills in practice. EHR tools need to be better integrated into the clinic workflow in order to be useful.

This clinical case presentation and discussion illustrates a culturally adapted alcohol and drug use intervention using the Screening, Brief Intervention, and Referral to Treatment (SBIRT) approach, incorporating motivational interviewing skills. This case conference serves to complement the accompanying review article on SBIRT with diverse cultural groups, placing information from the review in the context of a typical clinical setting. In this example, SBIRT is provided in a primary care clinic to a Latino patient who reports hazardous drinking, depression, chronic pain and use of prescription opioids.

Background

Digital health interventions using hybrid delivery models may offer efficient alternatives to traditional behavioral counseling by addressing obstacles of time, resources, and knowledge. Using a computer-facilitated 5As (ask, advise, assess, assist, arrange) model as an example (CF5As), we aimed to identify factors from the perspectives of primary care providers and clinical staff that were likely to influence introduction of digital technology and a CF5As smoking cessation counseling intervention. In the CF5As model, patients self-administer a tablet intervention that provides 5As smoking cessation counseling, produces patient and provider handouts recommending next steps, and is followed by a patient-provider encounter to reinforce key cessation messages, provide assistance, and arrange follow-up.

Methods

Semi-structured in-person interviews of administrative and clinical staff and primary care providers from three primary care clinics.

Results

Thirty-five interviews were completed (12 administrative staff, ten clinical staff, and 13 primary care providers). Twelve were from an academic internal medicine practice, 12 from a public hospital academic general medicine clinic, and 11 from a public hospital HIV clinic. Most were women (91 %); mean age (SD) was 42 years (11.1). Perceived usefulness of the CF5As focused on its relevance for various health behavior counseling purposes, potential gains in counseling efficiency, confidentiality of data collection, occupying patients while waiting, and serving as a cue to action. Perceived ease of use was viewed to depend on the ability to accommodate: clinic workflow; heavy patient volumes; and patient characterisitics, e.g., low literacy. Social norms potentially affecting implementation included beliefs in the promise/burden of technology, priority of smoking cessation counseling relative to other patient needs, and perception of CF5As as just "one more thing to do" in an overburdened system. The most frequently cited facilitating conditions were staffing levels and smoking cessation resources and training; the most cited hindering factors were visit time constraints and patients' complex health care needs.

Conclusions

Integrating CF5As and other technology-enhanced behavioral counseling interventions in primary care requires flexibility to accommodate work flow and perceptions of overload in dynamic environments. Identifying factors that promote and hinder CF5As adoption could inform implementation of other CF behavioral health interventions in primary care.