Lauren Matukaitis Broyles

Photo-elicitation interviewing (PEI) seems a valuable tool for engaging marginalized populations in research despite documented challenges. Given limited data on acceptability of PEI among homeless and marginally housed Veterans, this evaluation aimed to characterize their research experience. Veterans took photographs about health, health behaviors, and health care which facilitated semi-structured interviews. Their research study experience was assessed via a modified Reactions to Research Participation Questionnaire-Revised (RRPQ-R), along with additional survey and open-ended questions. Of the 20 participants who consented and participated, 16 (80%) completed the exit surveys. Most participants (>88%) indicated favorable experiences and limited drawbacks. Respondents disagreed that participation was difficult or overly time consuming. Many indicated intense or unexpected emotionality. Open-ended responses indicated appreciation of photography, interview experiences, and connection with study staff. Transportation was the most cited barrier. Overall, experiences were reportedly emotionally challenging, but positive. PEI appears to be acceptable to homeless and marginally housed Veterans for eliciting their perspectives.

Participatory photography research methods have been used to successfully engage and collect in-depth information from individuals whose voices have been traditionally marginalized in clinical or research arenas. However, participatory photography methods can introduce unique challenges and considerations regarding study design, human subject protections, and other regulatory barriers, particularly with vulnerable patient populations and in highly regulated institutions. Practical guidance on navigating these complex, interrelated methodological, logistical, and ethical issues is limited. Using a case exemplar, we describe our experiences with the planning, refinement, and initiation of a research study that used photo-elicitation interviews to assess the healthcare experiences of homeless and marginally housed United States Veterans. We discuss practical issues and recommendations related to study design, logistical “pitfalls” during study execution, and ensuring human subjects protections in the context of a study with a highly vulnerable patient population taking place in a highly risk-averse research environment.

Various hospital accreditation and quality assurance entities in the United States have approved and endorsed performance measures promoting alcohol brief intervention (BI) for hospitalized individuals who screen positive for unhealthy alcohol use, the spectrum of use ranging from hazardous use to alcohol use disorders. These performance measures have been controversial due to the limited and equivocal evidence for the efficacy of BI among hospitalized individuals. The few BI trials conducted with hospital inpatients vary widely in methodological quality. While the majority of these studies indicate limited to no effects of BI in this population, none have been designed to account for the most pervasive methodological issue in BI studies presumed to drive study findings towards the null: assessment reactivity (AR). This is a three-arm, single-site, randomized controlled trial of BI for hospitalized patients at a large academic medical center affiliated with the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs who use alcohol at hazardous levels but do not have an alcohol use disorder. Participants are randomized to one of three study conditions. Study Arm 1 receives a three-part alcohol BI. Study Arm 2 receives attention control. To account for potential AR, Study Arm 3 receives AC with limited assessment. Primary outcomes will include the number of standard drinks/week and binge drinking episodes reported in the 30-day period prior to a final measurement visit obtained 6 months after hospital discharge. Additional outcomes will include readiness to change drinking behavior and number of adverse consequences of alcohol use. To assess differences in primary outcomes across the three arms, we will use mixed-effects regression models that account for a patient’s repeated measures over the timepoints and clustering within medical units. Intervention implementation will be assessed by: a) review of intervention audio recordings to characterize barriers to intervention fidelity; and b) feasibility of participant recruitment, enrollment, and follow-up. The results of this methodologically rigorous trial will provide greater justification for or against the use of BI performance measures in the inpatient setting and inform organizational responses to BI-related hospital accreditation and performance measures. NCT01602172

Appropriate use of language in the field of addiction is important. Inappropriate use of language can negatively impact the way society perceives substance use and the people who are affected by it. Language frames what the public thinks about substance use and recovery, and it can also affect how individuals think about themselves and their own ability to change. But most importantly, language intentionally and unintentionally propagates stigma: the mark of dishonor, disgrace, and difference that depersonalizes people, depriving them of individual or personal qualities and personal identity. Stigma is harmful, distressing, and marginalizing to the individuals, groups, and populations who bear it. For these reasons, the Editorial Team of Substance Abuse seeks to formally operationalize respect for personhood in our mission, our public relations, and our instructions to authors. We ask authors, reviewers, and readers to carefully and intentionally consider the language used to describe alcohol and other drug use and disorders, the individuals affected by these conditions, and their related behaviors, comorbidities, treatment, and recovery in our publication. Specifically, we make an appeal for the use of language that (1) respects the worth and dignity of all persons (“people-first language”); (2) focuses on the medical nature of substance use disorders and treatment; (3) promotes the recovery process; and (4) avoids perpetuating negative stereotypes and biases through the use of slang and idioms. In this paper, we provide a brief overview of each of the above principles, along with examples, as well as some of the nuances and tensions that inherently arise as we give greater attention to the issue of how we talk and write about substance use and addiction.

Unhealthy alcohol use includes the spectrum of alcohol consumption from risky drinking to alcohol use disorders. Routine alcohol screening, brief intervention (BI) and referral to treatment (RT) are commonly endorsed for improving the identification and management of unhealthy alcohol use in outpatient settings. However, factors which might impact screening, BI, and RT implementation in inpatient settings, particularly if delivered by nurses, are unknown, and must be identified to effectively plan randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of nurse-delivered BI. The purpose of this study was to identify the potential barriers and facilitators associated with nurse-delivered alcohol screening, BI and RT for hospitalized patients.

Background Little is known about communication between patients and their family members during critical illness and mechanical ventilation in the intensive care unit, including use of augmentative and alternative communication tools and strategies. Objectives To identify (1) which augmentative and alternative communication tools families use with nonspeaking intensive care patients and how they are used, and (2) what families and nurses say about communication of family members with nonspeaking intensive care patients. Methods A qualitative secondary analysis was conducted of existing data from a clinical trial testing interventions to improve communication between nurses and intensive care patients. Narrative study data (field notes, intervention logs, nurses’ interviews) from 127 critically ill adults were reviewed for evidence of family involvement with augmentative and alternative communication tools. Qualitative content analysis was applied for thematic description of family members’ and nurses’ accounts of patient-family communication. Results Family involvement with augmentative and alternative communication tools was evident in 44% of the 93 patients who completed the parent study protocol. Spouses or significant others communicated with patients most often. Main themes describing patient-family communication included (1) families being unprepared and unaware, (2) families’ perceptions of communication effectiveness, (3) nurses deferring to or guiding patient-family communication, (4) patients’ communication characteristics, and (5) families’ experience with and interest in augmentative and alternative communication tools. Conclusions Assessment by skilled bedside clinicians can reveal patients’ communication potential and facilitate useful augmentative and alternative communication tools and strategies for patients and their families.

Background:  Inpatient healthcare providers in the United States may soon be required to offer alcohol screening, brief intervention, and referral to treatment (SBIRT) for hospital accreditation, but little is known about inpatient acceptability for SBIRT, particularly when performed by nonphysician providers such as nurses. The purpose of this study was to assess patient acceptability for and comfort with nurse‐delivered SBIRT care among hospitalized patients and to identify factors associated with SBIRT acceptability.Methods:  We conducted a cross‐sectional survey of 370 hospitalized medical–surgical patients at a large university‐affiliated medical center, which is part of the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs.Results:  Patient acceptability for 8 of 10 individual nurse‐delivered SBIRT tasks was >84%. Patients were more accepting of SBIRT tasks if they felt able to determine their alcohol risk, able to reduce alcohol‐related health risks, and expressed some degree of concern about their own use of alcohol. Approximately 20% of patients reported some degree of personal discomfort with alcohol‐related discussions. Patients who were less comfortable with these discussions had lower perceived ability to reduce alcohol‐related health risk, were >60 years old, had a positive AUDIT‐C screening, and were of nonblack race.Conclusions:  Among hospitalized patients, patient acceptability for nurse‐delivered SBIRT is high, and alcohol‐related risk perceptions appear to be important factors associated with acceptability for SBIRT tasks. Providers can proceed with greater confidence in SBIRT‐related discussions with most hospitalized patients but may need particular sensitivity and skill addressing alcohol with patient subgroups such as older patients and those with positive alcohol screenings.

Adequate participant recruitment is critical for the successful execution of research studies involving human subjects. Participant recruitment can be particularly challenging when the intended study participants are health care providers as opposed to patients. Discussions of the challenges and successful strategies associated with provider recruitment are limited, particularly regarding providers other than physicians and settings outside of primary care. Using a case study format, we present our experiences recruiting inpatient nurses into a study which involved focus group methodology at a United States Veterans Health Administration facility. We describe the initial logistical and ethical issues involved, various challenges we encountered, and five successful action strategies used during a second recruitment wave addressing logistical issues; on-site recruitment; increased scheduling flexibility and peer-to-peer recruitment; attention to the sensitive nature of the research topic; and increased involvement of stakeholders. In conclusion, we advocate for multimodal recruitment strategies that facilitate ongoing investigator–clinician partnerships.