Substance Screening and Referral for Substance Abuse Treatment in an Integrated Mental Health Care Program
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This study examined rates of substance screening and referral for substance abuse treatment as part of an integrated care program providing mental health services to low-income patients in primary care. METHODS: Adults (N=11,150) who were enrolled in the program between 2008 and 2010 were included. Primary outcomes included substance screening rates, treatment referral rates, and correlates of accessing recommended treatment. RESULTS: A total of 7,513 (67%) participants were screened for substance abuse. Among the 2,856 (38%) participants with a positive screen, 1,344 (47%) were referred for treatment. After adjustment for covariates, accessing recommended treatment was associated with past substance abuse treatment history, alcohol use, heavy drug use, posttraumatic stress disorder, and number of follow-up contacts with a care manager. CONCLUSION: This study of a vulnerable population highlights missed opportunities for identifying and referring patients in primary care to substance abuse treatment.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".