Email updates

Keep up to date with the latest news and content from Addiction Science & Clinical Practice and BioMed Central.

This article is part of the supplement: International Network on Brief Interventions for Alcohol and Other Drugs (INEBRIA) Meeting 2011

Open Access Open Badges Meeting abstract

Screening for adolescent alcohol and drug use in pediatrics: predictors and implications for practice and policy

Stacy Sterling1*, Andrea Hessel1 and Charles Wibbelsman2

  • * Corresponding author: Stacy Sterling

Author Affiliations

1 Kaiser Permanente Northern California Division of Research, Oakland, CA, USA

2 Kaiser Permanente Northern California/San Francisco Medical Center, San Francisco, CA, USA

For all author emails, please log on.

Addiction Science & Clinical Practice 2012, 7(Suppl 1):A15  doi:10.1186/1940-0640-7-S1-A15

The electronic version of this article is the complete one and can be found online at:

Published:9 October 2012

© 2012 Sterling et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Meeting abstract

We describe findings from a web survey of pediatric primary care providers (PCPs) and a pilot study of a screening, brief intervention, and referral to treatment (SBIRT) model of primary care-based adolescent behavioral health care. The survey (N = 437) examined PCP attitudes and knowledge, patient characteristics, and environmental influences, (e.g., mental health parity and medical marijuana laws). We examined how PCP, panel, and organizational characteristics influence screening practices. The pilot examined whether SBIRT versus usual care increased problem identification and specialty treatment rates and the feasibility of SBIRT in pediatric patients. Respondents were less concerned about alcohol than other drug use, rated alcohol use as more difficult to discuss (19% versus 15%) and diagnose (56% versus 70%) than depression, and were more comfortable discussing sexual practices than alcohol (32% versus 22%). They were more likely to screen boys than girls (male PCPs were even more likely: 23% versus 6% [p < 0.0001]). Self-reported screening rates were far higher than electronic medical record (EMR)-documented rates for all substances. Experience, specialty, and recent AOD training (all p < 0.05) predicted self-reported rates; only patient age predicted actual rates. Organizational approaches (e.g., EMR tools and workflow) may matter more than PCP or patient characteristics in determining screening. Respondents reported that SBIRT was highly feasible and that it improved care; more (77) teens receiving SBIRT were referred for further assessment than those receiving usual care, and specialty treatment initiation increased from 8.73% to 12% (p < 0.0001). Organizational factors, lack of training, and discomfort with screening may impact adolescent screening and intervention. Integrated models of care for adolescent behavioral health care should be considered.