Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
Search in posts
Search in pages
Filter by Categories
Author’ response
Author’s reply
Authors' response
Authors#x2019; response
Book Received
Book Review
Book Reviews
Centenary Review Article
Clinical Image
Clinical Images
Commentary
Communicable Diseases - Original Articles
Correspondence
Correspondence, Letter to Editor
Correspondences
Correspondences & Authors’ Responses
Corrigendum
Critique
Current Issue
Editorial
Errata
Erratum
Health Technology Innovation
IAA CONSENSUS DOCUMENT
Innovations
Letter to Editor
Malnutrition & Other Health Issues - Original Articles
Media & News
Notice of Retraction
Obituary
Original Article
Original Articles
Perspective
Policy
Policy Document
Policy Guidelines
Policy, Review Article
Policy: Correspondence
Policy: Editorial
Policy: Mapping Review
Policy: Original Article
Policy: Perspective
Policy: Process Paper
Policy: Scoping Review
Policy: Special Report
Policy: Systematic Review
Policy: Viewpoint
Practice
Practice: Authors’ response
Practice: Book Review
Practice: Clinical Image
Practice: Commentary
Practice: Correspondence
Practice: Letter to Editor
Practice: Obituary
Practice: Original Article
Practice: Pages From History of Medicine
Practice: Perspective
Practice: Review Article
Practice: Short Note
Practice: Short Paper
Practice: Special Report
Practice: Student IJMR
Practice: Systematic Review
Pratice, Original Article
Pratice, Review Article
Pratice, Short Paper
Programme
Programme, Correspondence, Letter to Editor
Programme: Commentary
Programme: Correspondence
Programme: Editorial
Programme: Original Article
Programme: Originial Article
Programme: Perspective
Programme: Rapid Review
Programme: Review Article
Programme: Short Paper
Programme: Special Report
Programme: Status Paper
Programme: Systematic Review
Programme: Viewpoint
Protocol
Research Correspondence
Retraction
Review Article
Short Paper
Special Opinion Paper
Special Report
Special Section Nutrition & Food Security
Status Paper
Status Report
Strategy
Student IJMR
Systematic Article
Systematic Review
Systematic Review & Meta-Analysis
Viewpoint
White Paper
Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
Search in posts
Search in pages
Filter by Categories
Author’ response
Author’s reply
Authors' response
Authors#x2019; response
Book Received
Book Review
Book Reviews
Centenary Review Article
Clinical Image
Clinical Images
Commentary
Communicable Diseases - Original Articles
Correspondence
Correspondence, Letter to Editor
Correspondences
Correspondences & Authors’ Responses
Corrigendum
Critique
Current Issue
Editorial
Errata
Erratum
Health Technology Innovation
IAA CONSENSUS DOCUMENT
Innovations
Letter to Editor
Malnutrition & Other Health Issues - Original Articles
Media & News
Notice of Retraction
Obituary
Original Article
Original Articles
Perspective
Policy
Policy Document
Policy Guidelines
Policy, Review Article
Policy: Correspondence
Policy: Editorial
Policy: Mapping Review
Policy: Original Article
Policy: Perspective
Policy: Process Paper
Policy: Scoping Review
Policy: Special Report
Policy: Systematic Review
Policy: Viewpoint
Practice
Practice: Authors’ response
Practice: Book Review
Practice: Clinical Image
Practice: Commentary
Practice: Correspondence
Practice: Letter to Editor
Practice: Obituary
Practice: Original Article
Practice: Pages From History of Medicine
Practice: Perspective
Practice: Review Article
Practice: Short Note
Practice: Short Paper
Practice: Special Report
Practice: Student IJMR
Practice: Systematic Review
Pratice, Original Article
Pratice, Review Article
Pratice, Short Paper
Programme
Programme, Correspondence, Letter to Editor
Programme: Commentary
Programme: Correspondence
Programme: Editorial
Programme: Original Article
Programme: Originial Article
Programme: Perspective
Programme: Rapid Review
Programme: Review Article
Programme: Short Paper
Programme: Special Report
Programme: Status Paper
Programme: Systematic Review
Programme: Viewpoint
Protocol
Research Correspondence
Retraction
Review Article
Short Paper
Special Opinion Paper
Special Report
Special Section Nutrition & Food Security
Status Paper
Status Report
Strategy
Student IJMR
Systematic Article
Systematic Review
Systematic Review & Meta-Analysis
Viewpoint
White Paper
View/Download PDF

Translate this page into:

Commentary
143 (
6
); 682-684
doi:
10.4103/0971-5916.191920

Family substance use screening: less to hide, more to gain

Department of Psychiatry & Behavioral Sciences, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina (NC), USA
Department of Medicine, Division of General Internal Medicine, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC, USA
Duke Clinical Research Institute, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC, USA
Center for Child & Family Policy, Sanford School of Public Policy, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA

* For correspondence: paolo.mannelli@duke.edu litzy.wu@duke.edu

Read COMMENTARY-ARTICLE associated with this -

Licence

This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 License, which allows others to remix, tweak, and build upon the work non-commercially, as long as the author is credited and the new creations are licensed under the identical terms.

Disclaimer:
This article was originally published by Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd and was migrated to Scientific Scholar after the change of Publisher.

A relentless rise in undertreated or untreated substance use disorders highlights the magnitude of the challenge the society is facing and a critical need to identify evidence-based, practical approaches in order to effectively screen people at high risk for unhealthy alcohol use, tobacco and drug use, increase early detection of substance use disorders, and offer the proper care they need. The Family CAGE (an acronym of four questions on alcohol use) is a brief questionnaire adapted from the original CAGE questionnaire devised by Frank et al1 and studied by Basu et al2, in this issue under a format encompassing drug use (AID=Adapted to Include Drugs). The study examines the validity and associated characteristics of the questionnaire for the diagnosis of alcohol and other substance use disorders as well as the inter-rater reliability between one family member and the substance user. The results were drawn from a cross-sectional analysis of two samples: treatment seeking substance-using patients, and individuals receiving outpatient psychiatric treatment while not pursuing treatment for substance use disorders. In both groups, the scores of the Family CAGE-AID and the traditional CAGE-AID questionnaires were significantly correlated. In the psychiatric sample, a correlation between the scores of the questionnaire and ICD-10 symptom score was observed, along with a moderate but significant agreement between the scores of substance users and family members. Family CAGE-AID was found to be sensitive and specific for the diagnosis of substance dependence formulated using ICD-10 criteria2. There are a few points to consider. Because of the design of the study, family members’acceptance of the questions about other members’ alcohol and drug use problems is unknown, which needs further study. The authors acknowledged that a limited range of substance use diagnoses and disease severity in the study sample limited the generalizability of study findings, and that psychiatric evaluation was not performed to control for the quality of responses among participating relatives. However, the findings demonstrate the practicality and potential utility of a family screen instrument for alcohol and drug use problems. Among future applications, the involvement of multiple family members in the interview, and confirmation studies in large samples at the primary care level and within different age ranges should be considered. Following evaluation, data gathered on interventions outcome and follow up assessment will be of interest.

The interpretation of the role of the family in the life of a person with addiction is culturally charged. Family involvement is an important and recognized focus in the Indian and other societies. Both the patient's immediate family and extended family are considered to be essential for whatever form of intervention is delivered. Because problem substance use can disrupt basic family and social ties, restorative efforts to preserve an individual's familial and social network are important contributes to control and limit the adverse effects of alcohol or drug use problems3. In western countries, protection of sensitive medical information is privileged. Indeed, many family members may not wish the clinician to reveal knowledge of a family drug use problem to the drug user1, though the family denial of the severity of the condition may be more common and could have a negative impact. Individuals who had a family member treated for the problem of alcohol or drug use carry high burden of personal medical care costs4, and present more often with mental disorders, digestive system problems, injuries, or other medical conditions5. A reasonable expectation from family screening is that the family will benefit from sharing the problem irrespective of the drug user's outcome, yet more research needs to be conducted on this point.

A family-centered screen and intervention appears to hold the promise to address important core issues of addiction, though the clinical response may largely depend on family dynamics that are ultimately difficult to predict, and relies on the timely ability of the physician or other providers to conduct family intervention if needed. Once the problem is identified, the professional should flag and address consequences of addiction for the family member, and provide psychoeducation about substance use problems, in addition to offer proper referrals for treatment of more severe cases. Clinicians, especially those who care for multiple family members, should pay careful attention to maintain therapeutic neutrality and not ‘ally’ with the non-drug using family member, nor blame him or her for delaying a solution to the problem. For example, in response to the strain of caring for a loved one, a codependent relationship is frequently observed, where the person without addiction may help maintain the condition of addiction through his or her enabling behaviours6. This is a pathological response to stress, and the provider should properly refer the family member to needed treatment, separate from treatment involving the loved one. Thus, it is essential that health care providers become familiar with local resources and supports for families.

The study of short screens for alcohol and drug use disorders has contributed to identifying clinical targets and areas in need of further investigation7. For example, screening and brief intervention seems to be less effective in the treatment of drug use problems compared with alcohol problems8. This may depend on multiple factors, including patient severity, treatment readiness, and the presence of adequate social support and follow up measures. Thus, screening components should be routinely strengthened, and easily accessible treatment services may be needed when brief interventions are insufficient, together with primary care referral options to address risky substance use and associated physical and mental co-morbidities. In the case of complex health care systems, amid the maze of doctors’ offices, hospitals, outpatient services, insurance systems, patient-support organizations, and other components, chronic disease management has benefited from the help of care navigators to steer patients through multiple tasks and successfully complete referral9. The patient navigator role, which originated from the medical treatment domain, has demonstrated effectiveness in improving patient outcomes. In the expectations of many, navigators who are culturally sensitive health care workers and usually come from health profession occupations should be able to assist and accompany eligible substance-using patients from the larger community to appropriate and specific health care services. In particular, they will help with addressing some of the significant barriers to health service utilization and accessto treatment of addictions, much like a caring family member would do, if he or she was more knowledgeable. In sum, the patient navigator model is a promising strategy to link family, patient, physician, and community resources for promoting and maintaining global lifestyle modification in people living with a chronic substance use disorder.

Currently, there is a great need for clinically feasible drug misuse screening tools to improve early detection of problem substance use, and the study by Basu et al2 is an important advance. The system theory indicates that changes in one individual may bring about changes in the system with a rippling and persistent effect, and this method applied to the family can predict radical changes10. Following a bio-psychosocial approach, a patient centered intervention remains the priority. Thus identifying a significant nuclear sample of patients with their families and involving primary care physicians is a reasonable attempt to begin to address and then resolve the multilayered problems posed by individuals with a substance use disorder.

Acknowledgment

Both authors (PM and L-T Wu) received research support from the U.S. National Institutes of Health (UG1DA040317, R01MD007658, and R01DA019623). The sponsoring agency had no further role in the writing of the report or the decision to submit the paper for publication. The opinions expressed in this paper are solely those of the authors.

References

  1. , , , , . Use of the Family CAGE in screening for alcohol problems in primary care. Arch Fam Med. 1992;1:209-16.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. , , , , . Use of Family CAGE-AID questionnaire to screen the family members for diagnosis of substance dependence. Indian J Med Res. 2016;143:722-30.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. , . Cultures and substance abuse. Psychiatr Clin North Am. 2001;24:479-96.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. , , , . The excess medical costs and health problems of family members of persons diagnosed with alcohol or drug problems. Med Care. 2007;45:116-22.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. , , , , . Individuals receiving addiction treatment: Are medical costs of their family members reduced? Addiction. 2010;105:1226-34.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. , . To have and to hold: codependency as a mediator or moderator of the relationship between substance abuse in the family of origin and adult-offspring medical problems. J Psychoactive Drugs. 2003;35:261-70.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. , , , , , , . Alcohol and drug dependence symptom items as brief screeners for substance use disorders: results from the Clinical Trials Network. J Psychiatr Res. 2012;46:360-9.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. , , . Screening and brief intervention and referral to treatment for drug use in primary care: back to the drawing board. JAMA. 2014;312:488-9.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. , , , , , , . Patient navigators connecting patients to community resources to improve diabetes Outcomes. J Am Board Fam Med. 2016;29:78-89.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. , , , . Systems and complexity thinking in the general practice literature: an integrative, historical narrative review. Ann Fam Med. 2014;12:66-74.
    [Google Scholar]

    Fulltext Views
    14

    PDF downloads
    6
    View/Download PDF
    Download Citations
    BibTeX
    RIS
    Show Sections
    Scroll to Top