Feasibility of a 2-Part Substance Use Screener Self-Administered by Patients on Paper: Observational Study
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: Measurement-based care in behavioral health uses patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) to screen for mental health symptoms and substance use and to assess symptom change over time. While PROMs are increasingly being integrated into electronic health record systems and administered electronically, paper-based PROMs continue to be used. It is unclear if it is feasible to administer a PROM on paper when the PROM was initially developed for electronic administration. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to examine the feasibility of patient self-administration of a 2-part substance use screener-the Tobacco, Alcohol, Prescription medications, and other Substances (TAPS)-on paper. This screener was originally developed for electronic administration. It begins with a limited number of questions and branches to either skip or reflex to additional questions based on an individual's responses. In this study, the TAPS was adapted for paper use due to barriers to electronic administration within an urgent care behavioral health clinic at an urban health safety net hospital. METHODS: From August 2021 to March 2022, research staff collected deidentified paper TAPS responses and tracked TAPS completion rates and adherence to questionnaire instructions. A retrospective chart review was subsequently conducted to obtain demographic information for the patients who presented to the clinic between August 2021 and March 2022. Since the initial information collected from TAPS responses was deidentified, demographic information was not linked to the individual TAPS screeners that were tracked by research staff. RESULTS: A total of 507 new patients were seen in the clinic with a mean age of 38.7 (SD 16.6) years. In all, 258 (50.9%) patients were male. They were predominantly Black (n=212, 41.8%), White (n=152, 30%), and non-Hispanic or non-Latino (n=403, 79.5%). Most of the patients were publicly insured (n=411, 81.1%). Among these 507 patients, 313 (61.7%) completed the TAPS screener. Of these 313 patients, 76 (24.3%) adhered to the instructions and 237 (75.7%) did not follow the instructions correctly. Of the 237 respondents who did not follow the instructions correctly, 166 (70%) answered more questions and 71 (30%) answered fewer questions than required in TAPS part 2. Among the 237 patients who did not adhere to questionnaire instructions, 44 (18.6%) responded in a way that contradicted their response in part 1 of the screener and ultimately affected their overall TAPS score. CONCLUSIONS: It was challenging for patients to adhere to questionnaire instructions when completing a substance use screener on paper that was originally developed for electronic use. When selecting PROMs for measurement-based care, it is important to consider the structure of the questionnaire and how the PROM will be administered to determine if additional support for PROM self-administration needs to be implemented.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,012 | 0,033 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,002 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».