An electronic screen for triaging adolescent substance use by risk levels.

IMPORTANCE Screening adolescents for substance use and intervening immediately can reduce the burden of addiction and substance-related morbidity. Several screening tools have been developed to identify problem substance use for adolescents, but none have been calibrated to triage adolescents into clinically relevant risk categories to guide interventions. OBJECTIVE To describe the psychometric properties of an electronic screen and brief assessment tool that triages adolescents into 4 actionable categories regarding their experience with nontobacco substance use. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS Adolescent patients (age range, 12-17 years) arriving for routine medical care at 2 outpatient primary care centers and 1 outpatient center for substance use treatment at a pediatric hospital completed an electronic screening tool from June 1, 2012, through March 31, 2013, that consisted of a question on the frequency of using 8 types of drugs in the past year (Screening to Brief Intervention). Additional questions assessed severity of any past-year substance use. Patients completed a structured diagnostic interview (Composite International Diagnostic Interview-Substance Abuse Module), yielding Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (Fifth Edition) substance use diagnoses. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES For the entire screen and the Screening to Brief Intervention, sensitivity and specificity for identifying nontobacco substance use, substance use disorders, severe substance use disorders, and tobacco dependence were calculated using the Composite International Diagnostic Interview-Substance Abuse Module as the criterion standard. RESULTS Of 340 patients invited to participate, 216 (63.5%) enrolled in the study. Sensitivity and specificity were 100% and 84% (95% CI, 76%-89%) for identifying nontobacco substance use, 90% (95% CI, 77%-96%) and 94% (95% CI, 89%-96%) for substance use disorders, 100% and 94% (95% CI, 90%-96%) for severe substance use disorders, and 75% (95% CI, 52%-89%) and 98% (95% CI, 95%-100%) for nicotine dependence. No significant differences were found in sensitivity or specificity between the full tool and the Screening to Brief Intervention. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE A single screening question assessing past-year frequency use for 8 commonly misused categories of substances appears to be a valid method for discriminating among clinically relevant risk categories of adolescent substance use.