Improving screening, treatment, and intervention for unhealthy alcohol use in primary care through clinic, practice-based research network, and health plan partnerships: Protocol of the ANTECEDENT study

Abstract

Background

Unhealthy alcohol use (UAU) is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality in the United States, contributing to 95,000 deaths annually. When offered in primary care, screening, brief intervention, referral to treatment (SBIRT), and medication-assisted treatment for alcohol use disorder (MAUD) can effectively address UAU. However, these interventions are not yet routine in primary care clinics. Therefore, our study evaluates tailored implementation support to increase SBIRT and MAUD in primary care.

Methods

ANTECEDENT is a pragmatic implementation study designed to support 150 primary care clinics in Oregon adopting and optimizing SBIRT and MAUD workflows to address UAU. The study is a partnership between the Oregon Health Authority Transformation Center—state leaders in Medicaid health system transformation—SBIRT Oregon and the Oregon Rural Practice-based Research Network. We recruited clinics providing primary care in Oregon and prioritized reaching clinics that were small to medium in size (<10 providers). All participating clinics receive foundational support (i.e., a baseline assessment, exit assessment, and access to the online SBIRT Oregon materials) and may opt to receive tailored implementation support delivered by a practice facilitator over 12 months. Tailored implementation support is designed to address identified needs and may include health information technology support, peer-to-peer learning, workflow mapping, or expert consultation via academic detailing. The study aims are to 1) engage, recruit, and conduct needs assessments with 150 primary care clinics and their regional Medicaid health plans called Coordinated Care Organizations within the state of Oregon, 2) implement and evaluate the impact of foundational and supplemental implementation support on clinic change in SBIRT and MAUD, and 3) describe how practice facilitators tailor implementation support based on context and personal expertise. Our convergent parallel mixed-methods analysis uses RE-AIM (reach, effectiveness, adoption, implementation, maintenance). It is informed by a hybrid of the i-PARIHS (integrated Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services) and the Dynamic Sustainability Framework.

Discussion

This study will explore how primary care clinics implement SBIRT and MAUD in routine practice and how practice facilitators vary implementation support across diverse clinic settings. Findings will inform how to effectively align implementation support to context, advance our understanding of practice facilitator skill development over time, and ultimately improve detection and treatment of UAU across diverse primary care clinics.

Introduction

The societal and economic costs of unhealthy alcohol use (UAU) are well known [1] and continue to worsen. Between 1999 and 2017, annual alcohol-related deaths among people over the age of 15 doubled in the U.S. [2]. Unhealthy alcohol use and its sequelae worsened even further during the COVID-19 pandemic, with a recent study finding that alcohol-related deaths increased 25% in 2020 compared to 2019 [3, 4].

Much of this morbidity and mortality is preventable. Screening for UAU and intervening with behavioral counseling [5] or medication [6] in the primary care setting are effective measures to reduce alcohol-related problems at individual and population levels. Screening, brief intervention, and referral to treatment (SBIRT) is a clinical process that systematizes the use of validated screening tools and provides brief advice or motivational interviewing to help patients see gaps between their health goals and current behavior [7]. If the screening and further evaluation reveal a more severe use disorder, clinicians can refer patients to specialty treatment or provide medication-assisted treatment within the primary care setting.

Despite clear evidence demonstrating the effectiveness of SBIRT over the past 50 years, SBIRT continues to be inadequately performed in primary care settings [8]. Evaluation of 2017 U.S Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System data showed that only 37.8% of adults remembered being asked about binge drinking during their last check-up; of those who reported binge drinking behaviors, only 41.7% were advised about the harms of this behavior, and only 20.1% were advised to reduce or quit [9]. Similarly, medication-assisted treatment for alcohol use disorder (MAUD) is prescribed to fewer than 9% of patients likely to benefit from it [6]. Adaptation of SBIRT to meet clinic and patient needs has the potential to effectively reduce UAU in a clinic population while minimizing its impact on other clinical workflows [10]. However, questions remain regarding best practices when implementing evidence-based interventions for screening, brief intervention, and MAUD in primary care [11].

Therefore, ANTECEDENT (pArtNerships To Enhance alCohol scrEening, treatment, anD intErveNTion) is designed to help primary care clinics implement and refine workflows to support SBIRT and MAUD during routine care. Study activities leverage the infrastructure of an established practice-based research network, the state public health authority, and the previously constructed “SBIRT Oregon” online toolkit [12]. Implementation support is delivered using practice facilitation as a central and unifying strategy to enhance the adoption, implementation, and sustainability of SBIRT and MAUD while aligning implementation strategies to context [13, 14]. Practice facilitation is an implementation strategy in which trained facilitators support capacity development by working with clinic leaders and staff to implement evidence-based practices [15–17]. Practice facilitators use a variety of strategies to assist with goal setting and attainment, connect teams to system-level resources for change, and improve efficiency and team dynamics around improvement processes [16]. The overarching goal of ANTECEDENT is to increase the standard delivery of screening and intervention for UAU in primary care while gaining insight into how and why practice facilitators tailor implementation support.

Materials and methods

This pragmatic implementation study bridges improvement science and implementation science, allowing for local change and the production of generalizable knowledge [18]. Our convergent parallel mixed-methods design [19, 20] utilizes quantitative, qualitative, and systems science approaches to address the research aims. ANTECEDENT is one of six awards funded in September 2019 by the Agency for Health Care Research and Quality (AHRQ) as part of the EvidenceNOW Managing Unhealthy Alcohol Use Initiative [21]. Study activities were designed to improve SBIRT and MAUD in 150 primary care clinics via 12 months of implementation support coordinated by a trained practice facilitator. The RE-AIM (reach, effectiveness, adoption, implementation, maintenance) model provides a structure for the mixed-methods evaluation. Study activities are approved by the Oregon Health & Sciences University Institutional Review Board (IRB) through an expedited review (STUDY00020592). The protocol is described as of February 2020, before initiating study activities with participating clinics or the onset of COVID-19 research and practice restrictions.

Study leadership and setting

ANTECEDENT is a partnership between the Oregon Rural Practice-based Research Network (ORPRN), SBIRT Oregon, and the Oregon Health Authority (OHA) Transformation Center. ORPRN is a practice-based research network (PBRN) established in 2002 with a mission to “improve health outcomes, and equity for all Oregonians through community partnered dialogue, research, coaching and education” [18, 22, 23]. PBRNs play an important role in the United States and internationally in bridging research discoveries and routine practice [24, 25]. ORPRN leverages statewide relationships with clinic and community partners, regionally distributed practice facilitators, and a mixed-methods evaluation team to support study activities. SBIRT Oregon (www.sbirtoregon.org) is an established online toolkit designed to support training and implementation of the SBIRT process in clinical practice. The website includes multiple tools and resources (e.g., demonstration videos, clinical workflow guides) to increase SBIRT and MAUD and empower clinicians in primary care to act on positive screening for unhealthy substance use [12]. The OHA Transformation Center oversees many aspects of the implementation and evaluation of Oregon’s regional Medicaid Coordinated Care Organizations (CCOs) and provides technical assistance to support transformation efforts [26]. OHA introduced SBIRT for unhealthy alcohol and drug use as an annual quality metric for Oregon CCOs in 2013; the SBIRT metric has been reported in multiple years since (S1 Appendix) [27]. ANTECEDENT study activities were designed to align with the CCO SBIRT quality incentive metric in collaboration with OHA and the 15 CCOs operating in Oregon at grant submission [28].

Specific aims and study timeline

The aims of ANTECEDENT are to:

1. Engage, recruit, and conduct needs assessments with 150 primary care clinics and their regional CCOs within the state of Oregon.

2. Implement and evaluate the impact of foundational and supplemental implementation support on SBIRT, MAUD, and quality improvement (QI) capacity in participating primary care clinics.

3. Describe how practice facilitators tailor implementation support based on context, intervention, and personal expertise using mixed-methods and systems science.

Table 1 summarizes the specific aims, research questions, and data sources for ANTECEDENT. Study activities were designed to support engagement and analysis to address the research aims within three years (S1 Table). During grant preparation, we strategically chose not to randomize clinics to different implementation waves or treatment arms and instead allowed clinics to select their preferred quarter to initiate study activities. We anticipate that this approach would optimize a clinic’s ability to engage in support and study evaluation activities. As described by Curran and colleagues, implementation study designs are appropriate after an adequate body of evidence has accumulated that established the efficacy and effectiveness of the intervention [29], as is the case for SBIRT and MAUD [5, 30, 31]. While randomized control trials are often considered the gold standard, they inadequately address “wicked” problems [32] that require attention to individual-, clinic-, and system-level factors and their emergent properties, such as adopting evidence-based practices.

[Figure omitted. See PDF.]

Conceptual framework

ANTECEDENT applies a conceptual framework that is a hybrid of the integrated Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services (i-PARIHS) [33] and the Dynamic Sustainability Framework (DSF) (Fig 1) [34]. The i-PARIHS framework focuses on practice facilitation to align implementation support to the innovation, recipients, and broader contexts (e.g., local, regional) [33]. The DSF highlights the longitudinal nature of change, such that interventions are adapted and improved as they integrate into real-world settings over time [34]. Our hybrid framework allows us to understand practice facilitation as a meta-strategy for implementation support and explore how practice facilitators work with clinics over time to support SBIRT and MAUD delivery in routine primary care.

[Figure omitted. See PDF.]

Successful implementation and capacity development are a function of facilitation interacting with the intervention, recipients, practice setting, and the ecological system over time (represented by T0, T1,…,Tn), each of which has constituent components that may vary. HIT = Health information technology; org = Organization; QI = Quality improvement.

Clinic eligibility and recruitment

Any clinic in Oregon providing primary care to adult patients is eligible for the study. Prior work by our team identified approximately 750 primary care clinics in Oregon that meet eligibility criteria; we aim to engage approximately 20% of potentially eligible sites [35]. ANTECEDENT uses a rolling recruitment process to capitalize on changing capacity and interest in clinics, health systems, and CCOs over time. Clinic recruitment begins with engagement and outreach to regional CCOs and clinics with established ORPRN relationships. Prior research in Oregon suggests that larger and system-affiliated clinics are prioritized for support by the CCOs [36]. Thus, recruitment activities focus on reaching small- to medium-sized clinics (defined as clinics with fewer than 10 primary care providers) and independent clinics.

Evidence-based intervention

Evidence-based interventions are the programs, policies, or procedures integrated into routine practice [37]. These are the necessary steps to improve care in a specific setting [38]. As summarized in Table 2, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) and Cochrane Collaboration recommend that clinicians screen adults for UAU and provide brief interventions to individuals engaged in risky drinking [5, 30, 31, 39]. While referral to treatment is not currently the national recommendation [40, 41], it is identified as a qualifying intervention within Oregon’s CCO quality metric for SBIRT [27]. To align with this state-level context, we tailored our intervention approach to support SBIRT for UAU and recreational and illicit drug use.

[Figure omitted. See PDF.]

Implementation support

Implementation strategies are the methods or means by which target interventions are put into routine practice [38, 42]. Implementation strategies can be delivered as discrete strategies or bundles (e.g., a package of discrete concepts designed to address specific barriers and support implementation success) [38]. Facilitation is a multi-component implementation strategy [43]. As summarized in Table 3, ANTECEDENT implementation support is coordinated by a practice facilitator and uses a two-phase approach aligned with Proctor’s recommendations for reporting implementation strategies [42]. S1 Table and S2 Appendix provide additional detail about the timing and content of the implementation strategies, respectively.

[Figure omitted. See PDF.]

Foundational support.

All participating clinics receive foundational support, which allows collecting a minimum data set needed for the evaluation. Foundational support includes a baseline assessment (first three project months), SBIRT Oregon online toolkit access, and an exit assessment (final three project months). The SBIRT Oregon online toolkit provides multiple resources, including demonstration videos, role-play exercises, clinic workflows guides, pocket-sized readiness rulers, and patient testimonial videos [12]. Our team anticipates that with access to SBIRT Oregon resources, certain highly motivated clinics will be able to improve their SBIRT workflows and reporting.

Supplemental support.

Prior work highlights dedicated staff’s value in supporting and implementing guidelines and toolkit resources into clinical workflows and practices [15, 44, 45]. Thus, we also seek to provide supplemental implementation support, coordinated by a trained practice facilitator, to interested clinics. Supplemental support may include practice facilitation, HIT support, peer-to-peer learning collaboratives, and expert consultation via academic detailing. Academic detailing is an interactive educational outreach to providers and staff to disseminate evidence-based information about prescribing practices and therapeutic decision-making to improve patient care [46]. HIT support includes generating data to inform changes to workflows and reporting for Oregon’s CCO SBIRT metric [27]. If the Oregon CCO metric cannot be generated or is not desired by the clinic, the practice facilitator will explore alternative measures, including the National Quality Forum 2152/ Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services 431 or help develop a custom EHR query [47]. See Table 3 and S2 Appendix for additional detail on the supplemental support strategies.

Data sources and collection

As detailed in Table 4, we will use qualitative data from key informant interviews, periodic reflections, clinic surveys, clinic contact logs, and quantitative measures from clinic assessments to address our research aims. In addition to addressing the aims proposed by our ANTECEDENT team, we will also gather the data required to contribute to the cross-site evaluation for all AHRQ EvidenceNOW UAU grantees. Study data is collected and managed using REDCap (Research Electronic Data Capture) tools, a secure, web-based software platform designed to support data capture for research studies [48, 49].

[Figure omitted. See PDF.]

Key informant interviews.

We will conduct semi-structured qualitative interviews with three types of key informants: CCO staff, practice facilitators, and clinic primary points of contact. Interviews with CCO staff (N = 15), conducted in the first 12 months of the study, will address how CCOs work with clinics to improve their workflows and documentation for delivery of SBIRT and MAUD, informing a baseline understanding of regional context and supporting clinic recruitment. Every six months, individual semi-structured interviews will be conducted with practice facilitators to gather information about how they tailor implementation support to clinics and develop their expertise. Exit interviews with the clinic primary point of contact will be conducted following implementation. They will provide data about the clinic’s experience with implementation support and the status of their SBIRT performance at the conclusion of the study. All interviews will last 45–60 minutes and will be conducted by qualitative analysts in person or via videoconference. Transcripts will be professionally transcribed and validated for accuracy.

Clinic contact logs.

Following all clinic interactions, practice facilitators will record field notes in REDCap using structured forms containing open- and closed-ended prompts. Practice facilitators will use two types of structured note-reporting guides to record their interactions and clinic support. Brief communication logs will track short interactions with clinics (e.g., email outreach, scheduling), and in-depth intervention tracker forms will describe engagement, content, and the quality of scheduled facilitation meetings. The logs will produce evaluation data specified in the request for applications, such as the number and type of interactions and implementation strategies employed. The intervention tracker documents practice facilitator tailoring concerning clinic context and perceptions of clinic capacity for change. A qualitative analyst will regularly review the clinic contact logs for completeness.

Clinic baseline assessment.

The baseline assessment includes five data points: The clinic intake form, needs assessment, workflow observations, HIT capacity assessment, and SBIRT and MAUD performance data collection (Table 4). The clinic intake form is a survey administered to collect details on clinic size, ownership, and electronic health record use. The clinic intake form includes an SBIRT and MAUD implementation checklist. This checklist will help determine a clinic’s capacity to capture and report data on intervention outcomes and inform tailored EHR support. The needs assessment addresses clinic practice culture, external context, and QI capacity. The observation of practice workflows will involve shadowing primary care clinicians and clinic staff to understand clinic culture and workflows related to SBIRT and MAUD. The HIT capacity assessment is used to gauge a clinic’s screening and tracking processes and ability to report the CCO SBIRT metric. In tandem, we will collect SBIRT and MAUD performance data using aggregate quantitative data from clinic EHRs or via manual chart audits. These final two data sources will inform the level of HIT support clinics receive to produce study outcomes data and CCO SBIRT quality metric reporting.

Supplemental implementation support plan.

Practice facilitators use information from the baseline assessment to develop and refine a tailored supplemental support plan for each clinic in partnership with the clinic’s primary point of contact [50]. This plan draws on findings from the needs assessment. It specifies the anticipated supplemental implementation strategies that the clinic receives (e.g., practice facilitation, HIT support, and expert consultation for SBIRT or MAUD workflows) and whether the activities will occur remotely or in person. The supplemental support plan is delivered over a 9-month implementation period. Supplemental implementation support plans may continue to evolve based on the clinics’ needs and capacity during the active facilitation period; the initial plan and adaptations will be documented in the REDCap database by the practice facilitator.

Periodic reflections with practice facilitators.

Monthly, a qualitative analyst will facilitate 60-minute periodic reflections with the practice facilitator group via videoconference [51]. The qualitative analyst will solicit discussion topics from study leadership and practice facilitators before each session and develop a short interview guide. The group format will help identify patterns across clinics and facilitators related to clinic context and tailoring of implementation support. Sessions will be recorded, professionally transcribed, and validated for accuracy.

Exit assessment.

All clinics will participate in an exit consultation, coordinated by the practice facilitator, in the final quarter of the intervention (months 13–15). The closing activities allow solidifying program maintenance and updating the clinic intake form (including the SBIRT and MAUD implementation checklist). During the exit assessment, we will also collect the second set of SBIRT and MAUD performance data to compare SBIRT and MAUD delivery rates to eligible patients at baseline and post-intervention per the specifications of the request for applications and external evaluation. We anticipate that some clinics will develop the capacity for baseline reporting via participation in the intervention. After completing these activities, the practice facilitator will connect the clinic point of contact to the qualitative team to complete the study exit interview. Additional information on the clinic intake form (baseline assessment) and exit interview (key informant interviews) are provided above and in Table 4.

Data analysis

Quantitative analytic plan.

Quantitative data will be analyzed using Stata. We propose two primary performance outcomes. The first is the difference between baseline and exit assessment in the percentage of eligible patients who receive screening for UAU (and drug risk when using Oregon’s SBIRT protocol), brief intervention, and MAUD. Because baseline levels may be strongly correlated with change, we also plan to conduct a sensitivity analysis to scale the change as a proportion of the initial gap between baseline and target. The second outcome is whether the clinic can report the Oregon CCO SBIRT metric to its regional CCO by the end of the study. These outcomes will serve as the dependent variable of a linear (percentage difference) or logistic (ability to report CCO measure) regression model.

To evaluate the impact of tailored implementation support on SBIRT, MAUD, and QI capacity (Aim 2), we will combine data on clinics’ previous collaborations with ORPRN, how clinics were referred to ANTECEDENT and the number and types of contacts in the recruitment and implementation phases. We will use logistic regression to determine which factors increase the probability of successful recruitment and project completion. In addition to the predictors above, we will account for the possibility that the level of implementation success depends on the specific practice facilitator or CCO. We anticipate that higher-intensity contact will be negatively associated with clinic enrollment but positively associated with study completion (defined as participation in exit assessment). We further hypothesize that implementation support will be most effective when clinics have a QI lead and clinic champion.

Qualitative analytic plan.

All qualitative data will be maintained in ATLAS.ti and analyzed to identify patterns or themes according to Miller and Crabtree’s editing method [52, 53]. Our theoretical framework, a hybrid of i-PARIHS [33] and DSF [34] (Fig 1), will inform coding and analysis. Transcripts from the interviews with CCO staff will be coded and analyzed concurrently with data collection to identify how CCOs support clinics in achieving the SBIRT quality incentive metric (Aim 1). The remaining qualitative data (interviews with clinic contacts and PERCs, clinic contact logs, clinic surveys, baseline assessment, and periodic reflection transcripts) will be coded and analyzed on a rolling basis as clinics conclude participation in the intervention. Multiple coders will analyze, discuss data, and synthesize findings of clinic context, QI capacity, engagement with the intervention, level of implementation support provided, clinic disruptions, and ability to capture and report quantitative performance data on SBIRT and MAUD. In addition to clinic-level analysis, qualitative data about practice facilitator expertise and perspectives of practice transformation will be analyzed concerning study Aim 3. Preliminary themes at both levels will be identified and refined in consultation with the study team and ANTECEDENT Advisory Board as a form of member checking [52, 53].

Systems science analytic plan.

To examine how practice facilitators tailor implementation support based on clinic context, the SBIRT innovation, and expertise over time, we will systematically generate causal-loop diagrams from qualitative data to describe changes in practice facilitators’ perspectives of practice transformation (Aim 3). Causal-loop diagramming is a method from systems science that identifies feedback loops driving nonlinear behavior in complex systems [54, 55]. Diagrams corresponding to each facilitator’s perspective will allow for comparison between individuals over time. Once data collection is complete, we will use a group modeling approach [56] to synthesize the team’s mental model of effective practice transformation to support SBIRT and MAUD in primary care.

Mixed-methods convergence.

Finally, we will merge our quantitative, qualitative, and systems science data using joint displays to reconcile differences and enable the identification of patterns and themes across clinics [57]. To further examine implementation support provided to clinics (Aim 2), we will review descriptive statistics from the clinic contact logs, clinic intake form, and HIT capacity assessment in tandem with our qualitative data. Our goal is to classify clinics along three primary dimensions: (1) baseline capacity, (2) level of implementation support, and (3) observed improvement, and to examine details of the relationships among them. To define baseline capacity, we will categorize clinics as “high”, “medium”, or “low” based on QI infrastructure and workflows for SBIRT and MAUD during the baseline assessment. Qualitative and quantitative analysts will conduct a card sorting activity to classify the participating clinics based on the level of implementation needed to implement SBIRT and MAUD successfully. Analysts will use these resulting categories to create causal predictive matrices to describe clinic features and understand the factors associated with improvement [58]. We will use correspondence analysis to investigate relationships between categorical variables (for example, whether the distribution of implementation support activities varies with clinic baseline capacity) and latent class analysis to identify groups of clinics with similar characteristics. These methods represent high-dimensional data in a low-dimensional space so that it is easier to identify patterns and critical features [59]. We hypothesize that depending on the clinic context, varying levels of implementation support may be needed to support “successful implementation”. We will strive to identify case examples to inform studies using predictive models for tailored implementation support.

Sample size considerations.

Recruiting 150 clinics will ensure we retain a minimum of 120 clinics in the final analysis after an anticipated attrition rate of 20% based on prior studies. While we lack preliminary performance estimates for SBIRT for UAU to inform power calculations, for a similar measure—depression screening and follow-up—the OHA reported that CCO performance in the first year of tracking (2014) ranged from 3.3% to 68.1% [60]. Thus, we anticipate similar, significant variability in clinic-level performance outcomes. Our sample of 120–150 clinics ensures that even targeted sub-group analyses performed at the clinic level will have desirable “large” sample properties [59].

Discussion

ANTECEDENT is a pragmatic implementation study designed to support primary care clinics in implementing and refining workflows to support SBIRT and MAUD as part of routine care. Our study bridges improvement science, implementation science, and participatory methods, allowing for local change and the production of generalizable knowledge [18, 61]. The mixed-methods analysis will advance our understanding supporting program implementation across diverse primary care contexts and how practice facilitators tailor implementation support to context over time [14, 43, 62]. ANTECEDENT intervention activities commenced in February 2020, just before multiple changes in clinical practice and research protocols in response to the COVID-19 pandemic [63–65]. Adaptations in response to the pandemic and the impact on study activities will be addressed in subsequent publications, allowing us to expand our understanding of how to adapt primary care research and implementation support to clinics during crises.

Many prior studies focus on implementing SBIRT in integrated settings with high-functioning EHRs [4, 66–69]. ANTECEDENT fills a gap in research and regional improvement by focusing recruitment and implementation on small- to medium-sized clinics [27, 36]; we anticipate reaching clinics with multiple EHR systems with varied functional capacity. Therefore, ANTECEDENT has the potential to both reach patients most in need of UAU interventions and to advance our understanding of the levels needed to support clinic change effectively.

Supporting information

S1 Appendix. Screening, brief intervention, and referral to treatment as a quality incentive metric for Coordinated Care Organizations in Oregon.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0269635.s001

S2 Appendix. Detailed implementation strategies.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0269635.s002

S1 Table. ANTECEDENT study timeline.

ANTECEDENT (pArtNerships To Enhance alCohol scrEening, treatment, anD intErveNTion); IRB = Institution Review Board; CCOs = Coordinated Care Organizations; SBIRT = Screening, brief intervention, and referral to treatment; MAUD = Medication-assisted treatment for alcohol use disorder.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0269635.s003

Acknowledgments

We acknowledge access to REDCap tools via the assistance of the Oregon Clinical & Translational Research Institute. We appreciate the work of Katrina Ramsey (MPH) at Oregon Health & Sciences University for her help conceptualizing the study design and analytic approach. We also offer a sincere thank you to the clinics that make this work possible.

Citation: Singh AN, Sanchez V, Kenzie ES, Sullivan E, McCormack JL, Hiebert Larson J, et al. (2022) Improving screening, treatment, and intervention for unhealthy alcohol use in primary care through clinic, practice-based research network, and health plan partnerships: Protocol of the ANTECEDENT study. PLoS ONE 17(6): e0269635. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0269635

About the Authors:

Amrita N. Singh

Roles: Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

Affiliation: Oregon Rural Practice-Based Research Network, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, Oregon, United States of America

Victoria Sanchez

Roles: Project administration, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

Affiliation: Oregon Rural Practice-Based Research Network, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, Oregon, United States of America

Erin S. Kenzie

Roles: Conceptualization, Methodology, Writing – review & editing

Affiliation: Oregon Rural Practice-Based Research Network, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, Oregon, United States of America

Eliana Sullivan

Roles: Methodology, Writing – review & editing

Affiliation: Oregon Rural Practice-Based Research Network, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, Oregon, United States of America

https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9408-7335

James L. McCormack

Roles: Data curation, Writing – review & editing

Affiliation: Oregon Rural Practice-Based Research Network, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, Oregon, United States of America

Jean Hiebert Larson

Roles: Methodology, Writing – review & editing

Affiliation: Oregon Rural Practice-Based Research Network, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, Oregon, United States of America

https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7855-4511

Alissa Robbins

Roles: Supervision, Writing – review & editing

Affiliation: Oregon Health Authority Transformation Center, Portland, Oregon, United States of America

Tiffany Weekley

Roles: Project administration, Writing – review & editing

Affiliation: Oregon Rural Practice-Based Research Network, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, Oregon, United States of America

Brigit A. Hatch

Roles: Supervision, Writing – review & editing

Affiliations Oregon Rural Practice-Based Research Network, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, Oregon, United States of America, Department of Family Medicine, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, Oregon, United States of America

Caitlin Dickinson

Roles: Conceptualization, Project administration, Writing – review & editing

Affiliation: Oregon Rural Practice-Based Research Network, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, Oregon, United States of America

Nancy C. Elder

Roles: Conceptualization, Supervision, Writing – review & editing

Affiliations Oregon Rural Practice-Based Research Network, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, Oregon, United States of America, Department of Family Medicine, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, Oregon, United States of America

John P. Muench

Roles: Conceptualization, Supervision, Writing – review & editing

Affiliations Oregon Rural Practice-Based Research Network, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, Oregon, United States of America, Department of Family Medicine, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, Oregon, United States of America

Melinda M. Davis

Roles: Conceptualization, Funding acquisition, Supervision, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

E-mail: [email protected]

Affiliations Oregon Rural Practice-Based Research Network, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, Oregon, United States of America, Department of Family Medicine, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, Oregon, United States of America, Community Health, OHSU-PSU School of Public Health, Portland, Oregon, United States of America

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3293-5113

References

1. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Excessive drinking is draining the U.S. economy [cited 2022 March 21]. Available from: https://www.cdc.gov/alcohol/features/excessive-drinking.html.

2. White AM, Castle IP, Hingson RW, Powell PA. Using death certificates to explore changes in alcohol-related mortality in the United States, 1999 to 2017. Alcohol Clin Exp Res. 2020;44(1):10. pmid:31912524

3. Grossman ER, Benjamin-Neelon SE, Sonnenschein S. Alcohol consumption during the COVID-19 pandemic: A cross-sectional survey of US adults. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2020;17(24):10. pmid:33316978

4. White AM, Castle IP, Powell PA, Hingson RW, Koob GF. Alcohol-related deaths during the COVID-19 pandemic. JAMA. 2022:3.

5. U. S. Preventive Services Task Force. Screening and behavioral counseling interventions to reduce unhealthy alcohol use in adolescents and adults: US preventive services task force recommendation statement. JAMA. 2018;320(18):10. pmid:30422199

6. Kranzler HR, Soyka M. Diagnosis and pharmacotherapy of alcohol use disorder: A review. JAMA. 2018;320(8):10. pmid:30167705

7. Muench J, Jarvis K, Gray M, Hayes M, Vandersloot D, Hardman J, et al. Implementing a team-based SBIRT model in primary care clinics. Journal of Substance Use. 2013;20(2):7.

8. 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):10. pmid:18201645

9. McKnight-Eily LR, Okoro CA, Turay K, Acero C, Hungerford D. Screening for alcohol use and brief counseling of adults—13 states and the district of columbia, 2017. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; 2020.

10. Muench J, Jarvis K, Vandersloot D, Hayes M, Nash W, Hardman J, et al. Perceptions of clinical team members toward implementation of SBIRT processes. Alcoholism Treatment Quarterly. 2015;33(2):8.

11. Saitz R. Screening and brief intervention enter their 5th decade. Subst Abus. 2007;28(3):4. pmid:18077299

12. Oregon Health & Sciences University Department of Family Medicine. SBIRT Oregon [cited 2022 March 8]. Available from: https://www.sbirtoregon.org/.

13. Powell BJ, Waltz TJ, Chinman MJ, Damschroder LJ, Smith JL, Matthieu MM, et al. A refined compilation of implementation strategies: results from the expert recommendations for implementing change (ERIC) project. Implement Sci. 2015;10:21. pmid:25889199

14. Nguyen AM, Cuthel A, Padgett DK, Niles P, Rogers E, Pham-Singer H, et al. How practice facilitation strategies differ by practice context. J Gen Intern Med. 2020;35(3):8. pmid:31637651

15. Baskerville NB, Liddy C, Hogg W. Systematic review and meta-analysis of practice facilitation within primary care settings. Ann Fam Med. 2012;10(1):12. pmid:22230833

16. Nagykaldi Z, Mold JW, Robinson A, Niebauer L, Ford A. Practice facilitators and practice-based research networks. Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine. 2006;19(5):5. pmid:16951300

17. Nagykaldi Z, Mold JW, Aspy CB. Practice facilitators: a review of the literature Journal of Family Medicine. 2005;37(8):8.

18. Davis MM, Gunn R, Kenzie E, Dickinson C, Conway C, Chau A, et al. Integration of improvement and implementation science in practice-based research networks: A longitudinal, comparative case study. J Gen Intern Med. 2021;36(6):10. pmid:33852140

19. NIH Office of Behavioral and Social Sciences. Best practices for mixed methods research in the health sciences. Bethesda: National Institutes of Health; 2018.

20. Creswell JW, Plano Clark VL. Designing and conducting mixed methods research. 3rd ed: Sage Publishing; 2018.

21. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. EvidenceNOW an AHRQ initiative [cited 2022 March 25]. Available from: https://www.ahrq.gov/evidencenow/index.html.

22. Oregon Rural Practice-based Research Network. Oregon Rural Practice-based Research Network: A connected Oregon for optimal health 2022 [cited 2022 March 28]. Available from: https://www.ohsu.edu/oregon-rural-practice-based-research-network.

23. Fagnan LJ, Morris C, Shipman SA, Holub J, King A, Angier H. Characterizing a practice-based research network: Oregon Rural Practice-Based Research Network (ORPRN) survey tools. J Am Board Fam Med. 2007;20(2):15.

24. Dania A, Nagykaldi Z, Haaranen A, Muris JWM, Evans PH, Mantyselka P, et al. A review of 50-years of international literature on the internal environment of building practice-based research networks (PBRNs). J Am Board Fam Med. 2021;34(4):35. pmid:34312269

25. Davis MM, Keller S, DeVoe JE, Cohen DJ. Characteristics and lessons learned from practice-based research networks (PBRNs) in the United States. J Healthc Leadersh. 2012;4:9.

26. McConnell KJ. Oregon’s medicaid coordinated care organizations. JAMA. 2016;315(9):2. pmid:26847402

27. Oregon Health Authority. CCO metrics 2022 [cited 2022 March 24]. Available from: https://www.oregon.gov/oha/HPA/ANALYTICS/Pages/CCO-Metrics.aspx.

28. Oregon Health Authority. Monthly medicaid population report, CCO by gender and race/ethnicity for physical plan type 2018 [cited 2022 March 9]. Available from: https://www.oregon.gov/oha/HSD/OHP/DataReportsDocs/September%202018%20Physical%20Health%20Service%20Delivery%20by%20Gender%20and%20Race-Ethnicty.pdf

29. Curran GM, Bauer M, Mittman B, Pyne JM, Stetler C. Effectiveness-implementation hybrid designs: combining elements of clinical effectiveness and implementation research to enhance public health impact. Medical care. 2012;50(3):9. pmid:22310560

30. Rösner S, Hackl-Herrwerth A, Leucht S, Lehert P, Vecchi S, Soyka M. Acamprosate for alcohol dependence. The Cochrane database of systematic reviews. 2010(9):CD004332. pmid:20824837

31. Rösner S, Hackl-Herrwerth A, Leucht S, Vecchi S, Srisurapanont M, Soyka M. Opioid antagonists for alcohol dependence. The Cochrane database of systematic reviews. 2010(12):CD001867. pmid:21154349

32. Rittel HWJ, Webber MM. Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences. 1973;4(2):15.

33. Harvey G, Kitson A. PARIHS revisited: from heuristic to integrated framework for the successful implementation of knowledge into practice. Implement Sci. 2016;11:33. pmid:27013464

34. Chambers DA, Glasgow RE, Stange KC. The dynamic sustainability framework: addressing the paradox of sustainment amid ongoing change. Implement Sci. 2013;8(117):11. pmid:24088228

35. Sullivan E, Zahnd WE, Zhu JM, Kenzie E, Patzel M, Davis M. Mapping rural and urban veterans’ spatial access to primary care following the MISSION act. J Gen Intern Med. 2022:7. pmid:34981345

36. Davis MM, Gunn R, Pham R, Wiser A, Lich KH, Wheeler SB, et al. Key collaborative factors when medicaid accountable care organizations work with primary care clinics to improve colorectal cancer screening: Relationships, data, and quality improvement infrastructure. Prev Chronic Dis. 2019;16:10.

37. Brown CH, Curran G, Palinkas LA, Aarons GA, Wells KB, Jones L, et al. An overview of research and evaluation designs for dissemination and implementation. Annu Rev Public Health. 2017;38:22. pmid:28384085

38. Curran GM. Implementation science made too simple: A teaching tool. Implement Sci Commun. 2020;1:27. pmid:32885186

39. Kaner EF, Beyer F, Dickinson HO, Pienaar E, Campbell F, Schlesinger C, et al. Effectiveness of brief alcohol interventions in primary care populations. The Cochrane database of systematic reviews. 2007(2):CD004148. pmid:17443541

40. Saitz R. Alcohol screening and brief intervention in primary care: Absence of evidence for efficacy in people with dependence or very heavy drinking. Drug Alcohol Rev. 2010;29(6):13. pmid:20973848

41. Glass JE, Hamilton AM, Powell BJ, Perron BE, Brown RT, Ilgen MA. Specialty substance use disorder services following brief alcohol intervention: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Addiction. 2015;110(9):21. pmid:25913697

42. Proctor EK, Powell BJ, McMillen CJ. Implementation strategies: Recommendations for specifying and reporting. Implementation Science. 2013;139(8):11. pmid:24289295

43. Walunas TL, Ye J, Bannon J, Wang A, Kho AN, Smith JD, et al. Does coaching matter? Examining the impact of specific practice facilitation strategies on implementation of quality improvement interventions in the Healthy Hearts in the Heartland study. Implement Sci. 2021;16(1):33. pmid:33789696

44. Davis MM, Howk S, Spurlock M, McGinnis PB, Cohen DJ, Fagnan LJ. A qualitative study of clinic and community member perspectives on intervention toolkits: "Unless the toolkit is used it won’t help solve the problem". BMC Health Serv Res. 2017;17(1):9.

45. Ballengee LA, Rushton S, Lewinski AA, Hwang S, Zullig LL, Ricks KAB, et al. Effectiveness of quality improvement coaching on process outcomes in health care settings: A systematic review. J Gen Intern Med. 2022;37(4):15. pmid:34981354

46. National Resource Center for Academic Detailing. Introductory guide to academic detailing 2017 [cited 2022 April 26]. Available from: https://www.narcad.org/uploads/5/7/9/5/57955981/introductory_guide_to_ad.pdf.

47. American Medical Association. Quality ID #431 (NQF 2152): Preventive care and screening: Unhealthy alcohol use: Screening & brief counseling 2019 [cited 2022 April 26]. Available from: https://qpp.cms.gov/docs/QPP_quality_measure_specifications/CQM-Measures/2019_Measure_431_MIPSCQM.pdf.

48. Harris PA, Taylor R, Minor BL, Elliott V, Fernandez M, O’Neal L, et al. The REDCap consortium: Building an international community of software platform partners. J Biomed Inform. 2019;95:10. pmid:31078660

49. Harris PA, Taylor R, Thielke R, Payne J, Gonzalez N, Conde JG. Research electronic data capture (REDCap)—a metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support. J Biomed Inform. 2009;42(2):5. pmid:18929686

50. Shaw EK, Howard J, West DR, Crabtree BF, Nease DE Jr., Tutt B, et al. The role of the champion in primary care change efforts: from the State Networks of Colorado Ambulatory Practices and Partners (SNOCAP). J Am Board Fam Med. 2012;25(5):10. pmid:22956703

51. Finley EP, Huynh AK, Farmer MM, Bean-Mayberry B, Moin T, Oishi SM, et al. Periodic reflections: a method of guided discussions for documenting implementation phenomena. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2018;18(1):153. pmid:30482159

52. Borkan J. Immersion/crystallization. 2 ed. Crabtree BF, Miller WL, editors. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications; 1999.

53. Miller WL, Crabtree BF. The dance of interpretation. 2 ed. Miller WL, Crabtree BF, editors. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications; 1999.

54. Kenzie E. Get your model out there: Advancing methods for developing and using causal-loop diagrams. PDXScholar: Portland State University; 2021.

55. Kim H, Andersen DF. Building confidence in causal maps generated from purposive text data: mapping transcripts of the federal reserve. System Dynamics Review. 2012;28(4):18.

56. Hovmand PS. Group model building and community-based system dynamics process. Community Based System Dynamics. New York, NY: Springer New York; 2014. p. 17–30.

57. Guetterman TC, Fetters MD, Creswell JW. Integrating quantitative and qualitative results in health science mixed methods research through joint displays. The Annals of Family Medicine. 2015;13(6):8. pmid:26553895

58. Miles MB, Huberman AM. Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.; 1994.

59. Bartholomew DJ, Steele F, Moustaki I, Galbraith JI. Analysis of multivariate social science data. 2nd ed. Boca Raton, FL: Chapman & Hall/CRC; 2008.

60. Oregon Health Authority. Oregon’s Health System Transformation: 2014 Final Report [cited 2018 December 18]. Available from: https://www.oregon.gov/oha/HPA/ANALYTICS-MTX/Documents/CCO-Metrics-2014-Final-Report.pdf.

61. Ramanadhan S, Davis MM, Armstrong R, Baquero B, Ko LK, Leng JC, et al. Participatory implementation science to increase the impact of evidence-based cancer prevention and control. Cancer Causes Control. 2018;29(3):7. pmid:29417296

62. Parchman M, Hsu C, Fagnan LJ, van Borkulo N, Tuzzio L. Building a learning health care organization: External facilitation tailors support to the learning capacity of primary care settings. J Patient Cent Res Rev 2017;4(3).

63. Hatch BA, Ferrara L, Dickinson C, Stock I, Carney PA, Fagnan LJ. The Importance of practice facilitation in primary care when pandemic takes hold: Relationships of resilience. J Prim Care Community Health. 2021;12:4. pmid:33928813

64. Steeves-Reece AL, Elder NC, Graham TA, Wolf ML, Stock I, Davis MM, et al. Rapid deployment of a statewide COVID-19 ECHO program for frontline clinicians: Early results and lessons learned. J Rural Health. 2021;37(1):4. pmid:32396224

65. Weiner DL, Balasubramaniam V, Shah SI, Javier JR. COVID-19 impact on research, lessons learned from COVID-19 research, implications for pediatric research. Pediatr Res. 2020;88(2):3. pmid:32544922

66. Press A, DeStio C, McCullagh L, Kapoor S, Morley J, Team SN-I, et al. Usability testing of a national substance use screening tool embedded in electronic health records. JMIR Hum Factors. 2016;3(2):1. pmid:27393643

67. Hays AM, Gilrain KL, Grunberg VA, Bullock A, Fizur P, Ross SE. Implementing and evaluating SBIRT for ulcohol Use at a level 1 trauma center: A behavioral medicine approach. J Clin Psychol Med Settings. 2020;27(2):9.

68. Soberay A, DeSorrento L, Pietruszewski P, Sitz M, Levy S. Implementing adolescent SBIRT: Findings from the FaCES project. Subst Abus. 2021;42(4):9. pmid:34491880

69. Harris BR, Yu J, Wolff M, Rogers M, Blank S. Optimizing the impact of alcohol and drug screening and early intervention in a high-risk population receiving services in New York City sexual health clinics: A process and outcome evaluation of project renew. Preventive Medicine. 2018;112:8.