↓ Skip to main content

Assessing Problematic Substance Use in HIV Care: Which Questions Elicit Accurate Patient Disclosures?

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of General Internal Medicine, May 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
7 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
33 Mendeley
Title
Assessing Problematic Substance Use in HIV Care: Which Questions Elicit Accurate Patient Disclosures?
Published in
Journal of General Internal Medicine, May 2016
DOI 10.1007/s11606-016-3733-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Wynne Callon, Mary Catherine Beach, Somnath Saha, Geetanjali Chander, Ira B. Wilson, Michael Barton Laws, Victoria Sharp, Jonathan Cohn, Richard Moore, P. Todd Korthuis

Abstract

Substance use is associated with higher rates of antiretroviral non-adherence and poor HIV outcomes. This study examined how HIV care providers assess substance use, and which questions elicit accurate patient disclosures. We conducted a conversation analysis of audio-recorded encounters between 56 providers and 162 patients living with HIV (PLWH) reporting active substance use in post-encounter interviews (cocaine or heroin use in the past 30 days, > 4 days intoxicated in past 30 days, or AUDIT score ≥ 8). We assessed the frequency of substance use discussion, characterized the types of questions used by providers, and determined the frequency of accurate patient disclosure by question type. In 55 reports of active substance use, providers already knew about the use (n = 16) or patients disclosed unpromptednn = 39). Among the remaining 155 instances of substance use in which providers had the opportunity to elicit disclosure, 78 reports (50 %) of substance use were not discussed. Of the remaining 77 reports in which the provider asked about substance use, 55 (71 %) patients disclosed and 22 (29 %) did not disclose. Questions were classified as: open-ended (n = 18, "How's the drinking going?"); normalizing (n = 14, "When was the last time you used?"); closed-ended (n = 36, "Have you used any cocaine?"); leading towards non-use (n = 9, "Have you been clean?"). Accurate disclosure followed 100 % of open-ended and normalizing questions, 58 % of closed-ended questions, and 22 % of leading questions. After adjusting for drug type, closed-ended questions were 41 % less likely (p < 0.001), and 'leading' questions 78 % less likely (p = 0.016) than broad and normalizing questions to elicit disclosures. Providers in this sample missed almost half of the opportunities to identify and discuss substance use with PLWH. Providers can increase the probability of patient disclosure by using open-ended or normalizing questions that ask about the "last time" that the patient used drugs or alcohol.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 33 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 33 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 9%
Student > Bachelor 3 9%
Other 3 9%
Professor > Associate Professor 3 9%
Other 5 15%
Unknown 12 36%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 7 21%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 15%
Psychology 4 12%
Social Sciences 3 9%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 1 3%
Other 1 3%
Unknown 12 36%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 23 May 2016.
All research outputs
#19,440,618
of 23,911,072 outputs
Outputs from Journal of General Internal Medicine
#6,622
of 7,806 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#256,958
of 338,719 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of General Internal Medicine
#68
of 98 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,911,072 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,806 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.8. This one is in the 7th percentile – i.e., 7% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 338,719 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 98 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 9th percentile – i.e., 9% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.