Screening, Brief Intervention, and Referral for Alcohol Use in Adolescents: A Systematic Review

REVIEW ARTICLE Screening, Brief Intervention, and Referral for Alcohol Use in Adolescents: A Systematic Review AUTHORS: Paula J. Yuma-Guerrero, MPH, a Karla A. Lawson, PhD, a Mary M. Velasquez, PhD, b Kirk von Sternberg, PhD, b Todd Maxson, MD, FACS, c and Nilda Garcia, MD, FACS a a Trauma Services, Dell Children s Medical Center of Central Texas, Austin, Texas; b Health Behavior Research and Training Institute, Center for Social Work Research, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas; and c Trauma Services, Children s Hospital of Arkansas, Little Rock, Arkansas KEY WORDS alcohol/drug use, adolescents, injury prevention and control, emergency department ABBREVIATIONS ACS-COT American College of Surgeons Committee on Trauma ADI Adolescent Drinking Inventory AUDIT Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test CI confidence interval ED emergency department MI motivational interviewing OR odds ratio PTSD posttraumatic stress disorder RCT randomized controlled trial SBIRT screening, brief intervention, and referral to treatment Ms Yuma-Guerrero and Drs Lawson, Velasquez, von Sternberg, Maxson, and Garcia contributed to the development of this article, the analysis of the studies reviewed within, the drafting of the article and numerous revisions, creation of the tables, and final approval of the manuscript before submission. www.pediatrics.org/cgi/doi/10.1542/peds.2011-1589 doi:10.1542/peds.2011-1589 Accepted for publication Feb 22, 2012 Address correspondence to Karla A. Lawson, PhD, Trauma Services, Dell Children s Medical Center of Central Texas, 4900 Mueller Blvd, Austin, TX 78723. E-mail: kalawson@seton.org PEDIATRICS (ISSN Numbers: Print, 0031-4005; Online, 1098-4275). Copyright 2012 by the American Academy of Pediatrics FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE: The authors have indicated they have no financial relationships relevant to this article to disclose. FUNDING: No external funding. abstract BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Alcohol use by adolescents is widespread and is connected to a number of negative health and social outcomes. Adolescents receiving emergent care for injuries are often linked with risky use of alcohol. The trauma system has widely adopted the use of screening, brief intervention, and referral to treatment (SBIRT) for preventing alcohol-related injury recidivism and other negative outcomes. The purpose of this article is to review the evidence around SBIRT with adolescent patients in acute care settings. METHODS: This article reviews 7 randomized controlled trials evaluating risky drinking interventions among adolescent patients in acute care settings. All studies took place in the emergency departments of level I trauma centers. RESULTS: Four of the 7 studies reviewed demonstrated a significant intervention effect; however, no one intervention reduced both alcohol consumption and alcohol-related consequences. Two of these 4 studies only included patients ages 18 and older. Subgroup analyses with adolescents engaged in risky alcohol-related behaviors, conducted in 2 of the studies, showed significant intervention effects. Five studies showed positive consumption and/or consequences for all study participants regardless of condition, suggesting that an emergent injury and/or the screening process may have a protective effect. CONCLUSIONS: Based on existing evidence, it is not clear whether SBIRT is an effective approach to risky alcohol use among adolescent patients in acute care. Additional research is needed around interventions and implementation. Pediatrics 2012;130:1 8 PEDIATRICS Volume 130, Number 1, July 2012 1

CONTEXT Risky Use of Alcohol by Adolescents Prevalence and Onset of Exposure Misuse of alcohol by children and adolescents is prevalent in the United States. The 2009 Youth Risk Behavior Survey found that 72.5% of high school students have had at least 1 drink of alcohol, and 24.2% had participated in episodic heavy drinking in the 30 days before taking the survey. 1 Many adolescents initiate alcohol consumption even before high school. 2 The Monitoring the Future survey estimates that 39% of adolescents have tried alcohol by eighth grade. Donovan 3 examined alcohol use reported by children sixth grade and younger in 7 state and 4 national surveys. The results of these surveys suggest that children s experience with alcohol appears to rise significantly between fourth and sixth grade, suggesting that children as young as 9 years of age, if not younger, may be appropriate for intervention. Negative Outcomes Use and misuse of alcohol by adolescents is of great concern because of its association with a number of negative outcomes.ina 30-year prospective study, Odgers et al 4 found that adolescents who were exposed to alcohol and illicit drugs before age 15 were at increased risk for addiction, early pregnancy, crime, and sexually transmitted diseases. In a review of the literature, Zeigler et al 5 found alcohol use in these formative years increases the risk of developing alcohol use disorders and impairs learning through neurodegeneration, impaired functional brain activity, and neurocognitive deficits. These changes to the brain affect transition to adulthood and intellectual development. In addition, large national interview studies demonstrate a link between earlier drinking age and lifetime alcohol abuse and dependence 6 and earlier onset of dependence. 7 Relationship to Injury The literature supports a link between adolescent use of alcohol and injury. A review by Sindelar et al 8 found that results of alcohol-screening studies with adolescents demonstrate alcoholpositive rates from 5% in general emergency department (ED) samples to 50% in samples of injured trauma patients. Adolescents found to be positive for alcohol use in the ED report negative outcomes that mirror those reported by early-onset drinkers in the studies mentioned previously. Spirito et al 9 found that, in addition to higher levels of alcohol consumption and disorders, alcohol-positive adolescents were also more likely to participate in high-injury risk activities and have previous alcoholrelated injuries in comparison with alcohol-negative adolescents. The results of the National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions also demonstrate a link between adolescent drinking and injury. Respondents who initiated drinking before the legal age were significantly more likely to have been injured while drinking and/or unintentionally injure themselves or someone else than those who did not. 10,11 Screening for Risky Use of Alcohol in Pediatric Acute Care Screening Tools A number of published studies detail the reliability, validity, and feasibility of screening tools for detection of risky drinking behaviors among adolescent populations. 12 17 Among the many tools discussed in the literature, some pertinent to adolescents include: the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT), the CRAFFT, the Problem Oriented Screening Instrument for Teenagers, the Adolescent Drinking Inventory (ADI), the RUFT-Cut, and the CAGE. These tools provide an additional benefit to biological markers because they account for typical alcohol behaviors over some span of time, not just alcohol consumption immediately preceding the medical visit. Many of the tools also assess drinking patterns, such as binge drinking and driving while drinking. In studies comparing their performance, the AUDIT and the CRAFFT perform well in adolescent populations. 13 15 Although research on existing and emerging screening tools is ongoing, it is clear that reliable and valid tools exist for detecting risky use of alcohol by adolescents in medical settings. Screening Adolescents in Acute Care Settings A number of studies have examined the screening process among injured adolescent patients in acute care settings. Screening processes can identify more drinkers if they go beyond biochemical testing and observed intoxication. Sindelar-Manning et al 18 found that biochemical testing alone did not sufficiently identify alcohol problems among adolescent patients who were also tested by using the AUDIT and the ADI. Medical providers may significantly underestimate levels of alcohol and drug problems among their adolescent patients, 19 and when providers do screen, it appears their decisions may be biased. In retrospective chart reviews of ED patients aged 13 to 19 years, Colby et al 20 found that physicians were more likely to order tests for patients who were male, injured, older, and treated during nights and weekends, even though a large proportion of patients being treated for alcohol intoxication at the hospital were noninjured females. SBIRT and the Trauma System The American College of Surgeons Committee on Trauma (ACS-COT) sets criteriafor thecareoftraumapatients. 21 Level I trauma centers have the highest capability, followed by level II and level III trauma centers. Hospitals can also meet criteria for the care of pediatric trauma 2 YUMA-GUERRERO et al

REVIEW ARTICLE patients and verify as level I or level II pediatric trauma centers. As of March 24, 2011, the ACS-COT has verified 33 level I and 24 level II pediatric trauma centers. 22 Pediatric trauma patients are generally,15 years of age, 21 although some pediatric and joint pediatric-adult trauma centers may accept older patients. One of the criteria for level I and II trauma centers concerns screening, brief intervention, and referral to treatment (SBIRT) for patients with risky drinking behaviors. 21 Trauma centers at both levels must have a mechanism in place to screen for risky drinking and refer patients to treatment; level I centers must also have the ability to provide those who screen positive with a brief intervention. The ACS-COT does not advise or require specific screening tool (s), intervention strategies, modes of delivery, referrals to treatment, or directions specific to the age of the patient. A number of guides have been published to aid trauma centers in SBIRT program implementation 23 25 ; however, implementation guidelines specific to SBIRT programs for children and adolescents in acute care facilities have yet to be developed. Implementation of SBIRT programs with adolescents varies across trauma and acute care programs. In a study of 177 hospitals treating patients,18 years of age, 26 screening of adolescents in the ED was reported by 18% of the responding hospitals; 26% reported screening admitted trauma patients. Screening was initiated at a variety of ages, and there was no consistent age cutoff point identified. Hospitals reported use of blood alcohol levels as a screening tool at 51% of the hospitals. Other assessment tools (eg, the AUDIT, CRAFFT, CAGE, or another tool) were used for screening at 61% of the responding hospitals. At 31% of the hospitals, the assessment consisted of questions incorporated into a general hospital assessment. At least 1 additional study examining implementation of SBIRT in pediatric acute care settings is currently underway. 27 OBJECTIVE The purpose of this article is to review the evidence concerning SBIRT for risky alcohol use among adolescent patients in acute care settings through a review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Considerations for future research will also be addressed. STUDY SELECTION We have been able to locate 7 RCTs that examined brief interventions for alcohol use by adolescent patients in acute care settings. 28 34 Studies were located through Internet-based searches by using Google Scholar and PubMed. Searches were conducted by using various combinations of these terms: adolescent, pediatric, alcohol, drinking, risky drinking, alcohol misuse, injury, brief intervention, SBIRT, motivational interview, hospital, acute care, emergency department, and randomized controlled trial. Additionally, bibliographies of review articles and original research studies were reviewed to assist in identification of RCTs. Articles examining brief interventions for alcohol use were included given the study met the following criteria: was conducted in an acute care setting in the United States; was empirical research that was randomized, interventional in nature focusing on alcohol use; was not a secondary analysis; and included participants within the adolescent age range (ie, 11 21 years of age). Study selection was a 2-phase process conducted by 3 researchers independently. Phase1consisted of reviewing the title and abstract of articles published before January 2011. If inclusion criteria were met or uncertainty existed, the article continued to the second phase, which consisted of a manual review. When uncertainty existed, 2 researchers manually reviewed the article and discussed it until a consensus was reached. Sixty-one studies were manually examined. A total of 54 studies were removed in phase 2 because of meeting exclusion criteria, resulting in 7 studies being included in this systematic review (Supplemental Table 1). RESULTS Description of the RCTs All of the identified studies took place in the EDs of level I trauma centers. Ages of patients included in the studies varied widely; the study with the youngest age boundary included patients 12 to 20 years of age, 29 and the study with the highest age boundary included patients 18 to 24 years of age. 30 Each of these enrolled participants fell, at least partially, within the American Academy of Pediatrics definition of adolescent, ages 11 through 21 years. 35 Three of the studies used only patients who were receiving treatment of an alcohol-related event, 30 32 2 included only patients who were being treated for an injury, 28,29 and 1 included patients being treated for injury or illness 33 (Supplemental Table 2). The studies used a variety of different measurement tools (Supplemental Table 3) and followed patients for either 6- or 12-month periods. One of the studies addressed a variety of other injury risks with their intervention, 29 and another addressed violence in conjunction with alcohol use. 33 The study conducted by Maio et al 28 is the only one to include patients without a positive screen on some measure of alcohol use. All but one of the studies used motivational interviewing (MI) as the foundation for the intervention(supplemental Table 4). MI is a directive and clientcentered counseling style intended to minimize resistance and increase intrinsic motivation to change. 36 MI has PEDIATRICS Volume 130, Number 1, July 2012 3

been widely used in brief interventions for risky use of alcohol. 37 The remaining study delivered the intervention through an interactive computer program based on social learning theory. 28 Study Results The first of the studies, conducted by Monti et al, 31 involved older adolescents, 18 and 19 years of age (n = 94), who presented to the ED with either a positive blood alcohol concentration or self-report of alcohol use. Participants in the intervention group were provided with a MI intervention, a personalized feedback sheet, and written resources. Participants in the control group were provided with a handout on avoiding drinking and driving and a list of resources for treatment. Both the intervention and control groupsreducedtheirdrinkingat3and6 months after their ED visit (P,.001), with no significant differences between the intervention and control groups. Participants in the control group were significantly more likely to report drinking and driving (odds ratio [OR] = 3.92, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.21 12.72, P,.05) and have a moving violation (OR = 3.94, 95% CI = 1.45 10.74, P,.01). The intervention group was significantly less likely to report an alcohol-related injury than those in the control group during the 6 months after the ED visit (21% vs 50%, P,.01). Those in the intervention group also had significantly fewer alcohol-related problems (eg, problems with friends, parents, or police) in the 6-month follow-up period compared with controls (0.88 6 1.18 vs 1.45 6 1.43, P,.05). Johnston et al 29 conducted an RCT testing the effects of a MI-based intervention designed to reduce injury risk in a number of topic areas among 12- to 20-year-old adolescents receiving injury treatment in an ED. After baseline screening, participants in the intervention group selected one of the risk areas identified by the screening to address in an MI session with a therapist. Risk areas assessed and potentially addressed by the intervention included seatbelt use, bicycle helmet use, driving after drinking, and/ or riding with an impaired driver, binge drinking, and carrying a weapon. The 3 alcohol-related risk areas (driving after drinking, riding with an impaired driver, and binge drinking) were rarely selected by the patient for discussion during the therapist MI session; of 631 patients were enrolled in the study (intervention group, n = 318; control group, n = 312), only 2 participants in the intervention group received an MI for driving after drinking, 8 for riding with an impaired driver, and 13 for binge drinking. The control group received only standard medical care. There were no significant differences between the intervention and control groups on alcohol-related outcomes (driving after drinking, riding with an impaired driver, or binge drinking) at 3- and 6-month follow-up assessments. Participants in both groups reduced prevalence of risk behaviors, including alcohol-related risk behaviors, at both 3- and 6-month followup assessments compared with baseline. Spirito et al 32 tested a brief MI intervention among a sample of 13- to 17-year-old patients (n = 152) who were treated in an ED for an alcohol-related event. The intervention group participated in an MI and received written resources. The control group received standard care, defined as 5 minutes of brief advice and written resources. Both the intervention and control groups reduced drinking during the 1-year study period. The intervention group did not differ from the control group on outcome measures of alcohol use, or on engaging in drinking and driving, alcohol-related injury recidivism, or alcohol-related problems (eg, problems with friends or school). Among a subgroup of adolescents who scored above the clinical cutoff for referral on the ADI at baseline, those who were in the intervention group reduced their number of drinking days per month (P,.01) and their frequency of high-volume drinking (P,.01) significantly more than those in the control group. Maio et al 28 conducted an RCT in an ED comparing an interactive computer program-based intervention with standard of care among 14- to 18-year-old patients (n = 655). The intervention was based on social learning theory and had previously shown success in a school setting. 38 While engaged with the computer program, participants visited virtual rooms at a party and interacted with cartoon characters. Participants made choices at the party and received feedback from the characters on their choices. There were no significant differences between the intervention and control groups on alcohol misuse or binge-drinking measures. At 3 months, both the intervention and control group participants showed a reduction in alcohol misuse and binge drinking, however, at 12 months, these levels had returned to baseline. Among a subgroup of participants who admitted drinking and driving at baseline, the intervention group showed greater improvement on alcohol misuse compared with controls, as did a subgroup of patients admitting to recently riding with an intoxicated driver. A subsequent RCT study by Monti et al 30 examined an MI intervention compared with a feedback-only control group among older patients, 18 to 24 years of age (n = 198), who were receiving ED treatment of an alcohol-related event. The intervention group received telephone booster sessions at 1 and 3 months after the ED visit. Both groups significantly reduced alcohol consumption (number of days drinking, heavy drinking days, and drinks per week) at both 6- and 12-month follow-ups. The intervention group had significantly larger reductions in all 3 consumption outcomes compared with the control 4 YUMA-GUERRERO et al

REVIEW ARTICLE group at both the 6- and 12-month assessments (P,.01 or.001 on all outcomes at both time points). In contrast to findings from their previous study, 31 there were no significant differences between groups in alcohol-related injury events or moving violations. Walton et al 33 included adolescent patients 14 to 18 years of age (n =726) who screened positive for both alcohol use and aggression. Patients who were positive only for alcohol use were not included in the study. Patients were randomly assigned to either the control group or 1 of 2 intervention groups. The intervention was delivered either by a trained therapist or through an interactive computer program. All 3 groups reduced alcohol misuse at 3 months (P =.01) and 6 months, binge drinking at 3 months (P,.001) and 6 months, and alcohol consequences at 3 months (P,.001), with no significant differences between groups. Participants in both of the intervention groups were less likely to report $2 alcohol consequences (eg, missing school) at the 6-month follow-up assessment compared with the control group (P =.03). The effect was stronger for those in the therapist intervention condition than those in the computer intervention condition. When alcohol consequences were analyzed as frequencies rather than dichotomized variables, there were no significant differences between the intervention and control groups. Bernstein and colleagues 34 conducted a 3-group randomized assignment trial to examine the impact the intervention, a brief MI delivered by peer educators who were,25 year of age, has on alcohol consumption and related risks. Participants were 14- to 21-year-old adolescents who presented to a pediatric ED. The adolescents were randomly assigned to 1 of 3 groups: the minimally assessed control group, who only received screening survey; the standard assessment group, who also received additional assessment instruments; and the intervention group. Compared with the standard assessment group, the intervention group was more likely to report efforts to quit drinking at 3 months (P =.001) and 12 months (P,.01), be careful about situations when drinking at 3 months (P,.05) and 12 months (P,.05), and cut back on drinking at 3 months (P,.001). In the subgroup of participants with AUDIT scores below the clinical cutoff, the intervention group was more likely to report efforts to quit drinking and/or cut back on drinking. In the subgroup of participants who were positive for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) via the Post Traumatic Stress Disorder Checklist - Civilian, the intervention group was more likely to report efforts to quit drinking. In the subgroup of participants who were negative for PTSD, the intervention group was more likely to report efforts to be careful about situations when drinking and/or cut back on drinking. In the subgroup of older participants (18 21 years of age), the intervention group was more likely to report efforts to quit drinking, to be careful about situations when drinking, and/or to cut back on drinking. There was no significant difference on measures of alcohol consumption frequency. Because of the rarity of the number of accidents, alcohol-related admissions, injuries, sexually transmitted infections, pregnancies, and amount of treatment received from state-funded sources for alcohol problems, power was low and too small for statically meaningful comparisons between groups. 34 DISCUSSION Results of the 7 studies are inconclusive. Three of the 7 RCTs reviewed showed no differences between the intervention and control groups when looking at the population as a whole on either alcohol consumption or consequences. 28,29,32 Six of the 7 studies reviewed showed positive alcohol consumption and/or consequences effects for all participants regardless of study condition. 29 34 The one study that did not show sustained positive effects among both groups 28 did not restrict its sample to injured patients or to patients who screened positive for risky use of alcohol. Therefore, it is possible that screening for risky alcohol use and/ or sustaining an injury may have a protective effect, either in isolation or in concert with one another. Among the 4 studies that did demonstrate a significant intervention effect, no 1 intervention was decisively effective for reducing both alcohol consumption andalcohol-relatedconsequencesamong intervention groups compared with controls. Monti et al. 31 showed a significant intervention effect on alcohol-related consequences, including drinking and driving, moving violations, alcoholrelated injury, and alcohol-related problems, but not on consumption. In contrast, the later study by Monti, et al 30 showed a significant intervention effect on consumption variables, including drinking days, heavy-drinking days, and mean number of drinks per week, but no intervention effect on consequences. Walton et al 33 found an intervention effect on alcohol consequences at 6 months, but this effect was not seen at 3 months and did not hold true when the variable was analyzed as a frequency (rather than dichotomized as $2con- sequences vs,2 consequences). They found no intervention effect on consumption variables. Bernstein and colleagues 34 found a significant intervention effect on cutting back and/or quitting drinking at 3 months and 12 months. However, these researchers only found asignificant intervention effect on being careful about situations when drinking at 3 months, and no intervention effect was found for alcohol-related consequences. The 2 studies showing the most positive findings 30,31 only included patients aged PEDIATRICS Volume 130, Number 1, July 2012 5

18 and older. In pediatric trauma centers, patients are generally,15 years of age, 21 although the age limits do vary. The studies that included patients of younger ages demonstrated essentially no intervention effect on alcohol-related outcomes. SBIRTinpediatricacutecaresettingsisnot without promise. Two of the studies found significant intervention effects in subgroup analyses. 28,32 In both, the patient subgroups exhibited higher engagement in risky alcohol-related behaviors at baseline (drinking while driving 28 and higher severity of alcohol involvement 32 ). Future Research Directions There are a number of areas where future research will be especially useful in developing interventions for riskydrinking adolescents. First, there is an overall need for future studies to have more consistent methodology (eg, outcome measures, inclusion criteria) so the results can support decisive conclusions and policy changes. Second, additional studies are needed to strengthen the evidence base supporting widespread implementation of SBIRT for adolescents in acute care, and these studies should incorporate a variety of approaches to the brief intervention. Although MI has been the most studied, and therefore shows the most promise in studies conducted to date, even assessment and feedback appear to have a positive effect. Further development and testing of interventions based on other behavior change models could be useful, because the MI-based interventions tested to date have yet to demonstrate consistent success with younger adolescents. Third, future studies need to help to assess some of the practical considerations for SBIRT programs. The most important of thesemaybetodetermineatwhatage SBIRT becomes effective. Therefore, comparisons should be made between this systematic review and reviews of SBIRT used with adult patients in EDs. 39,40 Fourth, the location of SBIRT delivery may be a factor in its effectiveness that requires the need for comparisons of this review with those examining the screening and brief interventions used in settings other than EDs. 41 48 Finally, it appears that there may be a need to further assess whether SBIRT is effective as a universal screening and primary prevention intervention, or if it is more indicated for certain groups of adolescents (eg, adolescents of a certain age, those who are consistently engaging in risky use of alcohol and/or risky alcohol-related behaviors). This is especially important based on the findings of 2 studies where significant difference between the intervention and control groups were found only in subgroup analyses 28,32 and on the fact that 3 studies included participants with positive blood alcohol concentraton, which only measures 1 point in time instead of consistent alcohol use. 30 32 Additionally, perhaps other outcome measures need to be incorporated (eg, intention or desire to drink in the future), as alcohol consumption and consequences may not be sufficient to measure an interventions effect among adolescents who are not yet drinking. Future studies of brief intervention for adolescent use of alcohol also need to attend to developmental and demographic differences among study populations. Cooper et al 49 found that there may be important differences between black and white youth s motivation to consume alcohol. According to their results, coping motives played a larger role among black youth, and enhancement motives were stronger among white youth. A study by Horton 50 found that although black youth had lower levels of alcohol use in adolescence and young adulthood, early onset of use appeared to have a stronger effect on drinking and alcohol problems than for their white counterparts. Research is severely lacking among Hispanic and non English-speaking populations. There may be a need for future research to further examine the utility of brief interventions foradolescent drug use. In 1 study, among adolescent trauma patients who received screening, more patients screened positive for drugs (marijuana and opiates) than for alcohol. 51 Brief MI interventions have also shown promise for marijuana use in adolescents. 52 If brief interventions are eventually proven to definitively impact adolescents use of alcohol, and, perhaps even if not, there is a need to evaluate the approach with drug use. In summary, the results of the 7 RCTs evaluating SBIRTforriskydrinking among adolescents in acute care are inconclusive. The findings of the 4 studies demonstrating significant intervention effects were inconsistent. Two studies found significant differences among intervention and control groups within a subgroup of the study sample, suggesting promise with adolescents who are engaged with risky alcohol-related behaviors. Additional RCTs are warranted, especially among younger adolescents. There is also a need for implementation research and guidelines specific topedi- atric acute care settings. REFERENCES 1. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 2009 Youth Risk Behavior Survey. Updated February 22, 2011. Available at: www.cdc. gov/yrbss. Accessed April 22, 2011 2. Johnston LD, O Malley PM, Bachman JG, Schulenberg JE. Monitoring the Future: 6 YUMA-GUERRERO et al

REVIEW ARTICLE National Survey Results on Drug Use, 1975-2007. Vol I: Secondary School Students. Bethesda, MD: National Institute on Drug Abuse; 2008 3. Donovan JE. Really underage drinkers: the epidemiology of children s alcohol use in the United States. Prev Sci. 2007;8(3):192 205 4. Odgers CL, Caspi A, Nagin DS, et al. Is it important to prevent early exposure to drugs and alcohol among adolescents? Psychol Sci. 2008;19(10):1037 1044 5. Zeigler DW, Wang CC, Yoast RA, et al. The neurocognitive effects of alcohol on adolescents and college students. Prev Med. 2005;40(1):10 15 PubMed 6. Grant BF, Dawson DA. Age at onset of alcohol use and its association with DSM-IV alcohol abuse and dependence: results from the National Longitudinal Alcohol Epidemiologic Survey. J Subst Abuse. 1997;9: 103 110 7. Hingson RW, Heeren T, Winter MR. Age at drinking onset and alcohol dependence: age at onset, duration, and severity. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2006;160(7):739 746 8. Sindelar HA, Barnett NP, Spirito A. Adolescent alcohol use and injury. A summary and critical review of the literature. Minerva Pediatr. 2004;56(3):291 309 9. Spirito A, Barnett NP, Lewander W, et al. Risks associated with alcohol-positive status among adolescents in the emergency department: a matched case-control study. J Pediatr. 2001;139(5):694 699 10. Hingson RW, Heeren T, Jamanka A, Howland J. Age of drinking onset and unintentional injury involvement after drinking. JAMA. 2000;284(12):1527 1533 11. Hingson RW, Zha W. Age of drinking onset, alcohol use disorders, frequent heavy drinking, and unintentionally injuring oneself and others after drinking. Pediatrics. 2009;123(6):1477 1484 12. Knight JR, Sherritt L, Shrier LA, Harris SK, Chang G. Validity of the CRAFFT substance abuse screening test among adolescent clinic patients. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2002;156(6):607 614 13. Knight JR, Sherritt L, Harris SK, Gates EC, Chang G. Validity of brief alcohol screening tests among adolescents: a comparison of the AUDIT, POSIT, CAGE, and CRAFFT. Alcohol Clin Exp Res. 2003;27(1):67 73 14. Cook RL, Chung T, Kelly TM, Clark DB. Alcohol screening in young persons attending a sexually transmitted disease clinic. Comparison of AUDIT, CRAFFT, and CAGE instruments. J Gen Intern Med. 2005;20(1):1 6 15. Chung T, Colby SM, Barnett NP, Rohsenow DJ, Spirito A, Monti PM. Screening adolescents for problem drinking: performance of brief screens against DSM-IV alcohol diagnoses. J Stud Alcohol. 2000;61(4):579 587 16. Levy S, Sherritt L, Harris SK, et al. Testretest reliability of adolescents self-report of substance use. Alcohol Clin Exp Res. 2004;28(8):1236 1241 17. Chung T, Colby SM, Barnett NP, Monti PM. Alcohol use disorders identification test: factor structure in an adolescent emergency department sample. Alcohol Clin Exp Res. 2002;26(2):223 231 18. Sindelar-Manning HP, Lewander WMD, Chun TMD, Barnett NP, Spirito AP. Emergency department detection of adolescents with a history of alcohol abuse and alcohol problems. Pediatr Emerg Care. 2008;24(7): 457 461 19. Wilson CR, Sherritt L, Gates E, Knight JR. Are clinical impressions of adolescent substance use accurate? Pediatrics. 2004; 114(5). Available at: www.pediatrics.org/ cgi/content/full/114/5/e536 20. Colby SM, Barnett NP, Eaton CA, et al. Potential biases in case detection of alcohol involvement among adolescents in an emergency department. Pediatr Emerg Care. 2002;18 (5):350 354 21. American College of Surgeons Committee on Trauma. Resources for Optimal Care of the Injured Patient. Chicago, IL: American College of Surgeons; 2006 22. American College of Surgeons Committee on Trauma. Verified Trauma Centers. March 24, 2011. Available at: www.facs.org/ trauma/verified.html. Accessed April 21, 2011 23. American College of Surgeons Committee on Trauma. Alcohol screening and brief intervention (SBI) for trauma patients: Committee on Trauma quick guide. Available at: www.facs.org/trauma/publications/ sbirtguide.pdf. Accessed April 22, 2011 24. American Public Health Association and Education Development Center Inc. Alcohol Screening and Brief Intervention: A Guide for Public Health Practitioners. Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic SafetyAdministration, US Department of Transportation; 2008 25. Higgins-Biddle J, Hungerford D, Cates-Wessel K. Screening and Brief Interventions (SBI) for Unhealthy Alcohol Use: A Step-by-Step Implementation Guide for Trauma Centers. Atlanta, GA: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control; 2009 26. Schweer LH. Pediatric SBIRT: understanding the magnitude of the problem. J Trauma Nurs. 2009;16(3):142 147 27. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Injury Prevention & Control: Funded Programs, Activities & Research, Injury Control Research Centers (ICRCs), Awarded 2009. October 15, 2009. Available at: www. cdc.gov/injury/erpo/funding/icrc2009.html. Accessed November 26, 2010 28. Maio RF, Shope JT, Blow FC, et al. A randomized controlled trial of an emergency department-based interactive computer program to prevent alcohol misuse among injured adolescents. Ann Emerg Med. 2005; 45(4):420 429 29. Johnston BD, Rivara FP, Droesch RM, Dunn C, Copass MK. Behavior change counseling in the emergency department to reduce injury risk: a randomized, controlled trial. Pediatrics. 2002;110(2 pt 1):267 274 30. Monti PM, Barnett NP, Colby SM, et al. Motivational interviewing versus feedback only in emergency care for young adult problem drinking. Addiction. 2007;102(8): 1234 1243 31. Monti PM, Colby SM, Barnett NP, et al. Brief intervention for harm reduction with alcoholpositive older adolescents in a hospital emergency department. J Consult Clin Psychol. 1999;67(6):989 994 32. Spirito A, Monti PM, Barnett NP, et al. A randomized clinical trial of a brief motivational intervention for alcohol-positive adolescents treated in an emergency department. J Pediatr. 2004;145(3):396 402 33. Walton MA, Chermack ST, Shope JT, et al. Effects of a brief intervention for reducing violence and alcohol misuse among adolescents: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA. 2010;304(5):527 535 34. Bernstein J, Heeren T, Edward E, et al. A brief motivational interview in a pediatric emergency department, plus 10-day telephone follow-up, increases attempts to quit drinking among youth and young adults who screen positive for problematic drinking. Acad Emerg Med. 2010;17(8):890 902 35. American Academy of Pediatrics. Children s Health Topics. Adolescents. Available at: www2. aap.org/section/adolescenthealth/default. cfm. Accessed April 22, 2011 36. Miller WR, Rollnick SP. Motivational Interviewing: Preparing People for Change. 2nd ed. New York, NY: The Guilford Press; 2002 37. Tevyaw TOL, Monti PM. Motivational enhancement and other brief interventions for adolescent substance abuse: foundations, applications and evaluations. Addiction. 2004; 99(suppl 2):63 75 38. Shope JT, Copeland LA, Maharg R, Dielman TE. Effectiveness of a high school alcohol misuse prevention program. Alcohol Clin Exp Res. 1996;20(5):791 798 39. Havard A, Shakeshaft A, Sanson-Fisher R. Systematic review and meta-analyses of PEDIATRICS Volume 130, Number 1, July 2012 7

strategies targeting alcohol problems in emergency departments: interventions reduce alcohol-related injuries. Addiction. 2008;103(3):368 376, discussion 377 378 40. Nilsen P, Baird J, Mello MJ, et al. A systematic review of emergency care brief alcohol interventions for injury patients. J Subst Abuse Treat. 2008;35(2):184 201 41. Carey KB, Scott-Sheldon LAJ, Carey MP, DeMartini KS. Individual-level interventions to reduce college student drinking: a metaanalytic review. Addict Behav. 2007;32(11): 2469 2494 42. Fleming MF, Balousek SL, Grossberg PM, et al. Brief physician advice for heavy drinking college students: a randomized controlled trial in college health clinics. J Stud Alcohol Drugs. 2010;71(1):23 31 43. Kaner EFS, Beyer F, Dickinson HO, et al. Effectiveness of brief alcohol interventions in primary care populations. [Review] Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2007;(2):CD004148 44. Larimer ME, Cronce JM. Identification, prevention and treatment: a review of individualfocused strategies to reduce problematic alcohol consumption by college students. J Stud Alcohol Suppl. 2002;(14):148 163 45. Larimer ME, Cronce JM. Identification, prevention, and treatment revisited: individual-focused college drinking prevention strategies 1999-2006. Addict Behav. 2007;32(11):2439 2468 46. Schaus JF, Sole ML, McCoy TP, Mullett N, O Brien MC. Alcohol screening and brief intervention in a college student health center: a randomized controlled trial. J Stud Alcohol Drugs Suppl. 2009;(16): 131 141 47. Solberg LI, Maciosek MV, Edwards NM. Primary care intervention to reduce alcohol misuse ranking its health impact and cost effectiveness. Am J Prev Med. 2008;34 (2):143 152 48. Tripodi SJ, Bender K, Litschge C, Vaughn MG. Interventions for reducing adolescent alcohol abuse: a meta-analytic review. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2010;164(1):85 91 49. Cooper ML, Krull JL, Agocha VB et al. Motivational pathways to alcohol use and abuse among black and white adolescents. Journal of Abnormal Psychology. 2008;117(3):485 501 50. Horton EG. Racial differences in the effects of age of onset on alcohol consumption and development of alcohol-related problems among males from mid-adolescence to young adulthood. Journal of Ethnicity in Substance Abuse. 2007;6(1):1 13 51. Ehrlich PF, Brown JK, Drongowski R. Characterization of the drug-positive adolescent trauma population: should we, do we, and does it make a difference if we test? J Pediatr Surg. 2006;41(5):927 930 52. Bernstein E, Edwards E, Dorfman D, Heeren T, Bliss C, Bernstein J. Screening and brief intervention to reduce marijuana use among youth and young adults in a pediatric emergency department. Acad Emerg Med. 2009;16(11):1174 1185 8 YUMA-GUERRERO et al

Screening, Brief Intervention, and Referral for Alcohol Use in Adolescents: A Systematic Review Paula J. Yuma-Guerrero, Karla A. Lawson, Mary M. Velasquez, Kirk von Sternberg, Todd Maxson and Nilda Garcia Pediatrics; originally published online June 4, 2012; DOI: 10.1542/peds.2011-1589 Updated Information & Services Supplementary Material Citations Permissions & Licensing Reprints including high resolution figures, can be found at: /content/early/2012/05/29/peds.2011-1589 Supplementary material can be found at: /content/suppl/2012/05/29/peds.2011-1589.dcsupplemental. html This article has been cited by 9 HighWire-hosted articles: /content/early/2012/05/29/peds.2011-1589#related-urls Information about reproducing this article in parts (figures, tables) or in its entirety can be found online at: /site/misc/permissions.xhtml Information about ordering reprints can be found online: /site/misc/reprints.xhtml PEDIATRICS is the official journal of the American Academy of Pediatrics. A monthly publication, it has been published continuously since 1948. PEDIATRICS is owned, published, and trademarked by the American Academy of Pediatrics, 141 Northwest Point Boulevard, Elk Grove Village, Illinois, 60007. Copyright 2012 by the American Academy of Pediatrics. All rights reserved. Print ISSN: 0031-4005. Online ISSN: 1098-4275.

Screening, Brief Intervention, and Referral for Alcohol Use in Adolescents: A Systematic Review Paula J. Yuma-Guerrero, Karla A. Lawson, Mary M. Velasquez, Kirk von Sternberg, Todd Maxson and Nilda Garcia Pediatrics; originally published online June 4, 2012; DOI: 10.1542/peds.2011-1589 The online version of this article, along with updated information and services, is located on the World Wide Web at: /content/early/2012/05/29/peds.2011-1589 PEDIATRICS is the official journal of the American Academy of Pediatrics. A monthly publication, it has been published continuously since 1948. PEDIATRICS is owned, published, and trademarked by the American Academy of Pediatrics, 141 Northwest Point Boulevard, Elk Grove Village, Illinois, 60007. Copyright 2012 by the American Academy of Pediatrics. All rights reserved. Print ISSN: 0031-4005. Online ISSN: 1098-4275.