View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Research Note--Online SBIRT Training for On-Campus, Satellite Campus, and Online MSW Students: Pre-Post Perceptions and Practice

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Research Note--Online SBIRT Training for On-Campus, Satellite Campus, and Online MSW Students: Pre-Post Perceptions and Practice
Language: English
Authors: Wacker, Elizabeth, Rienks, Shauna, Chassler, Deborah, Devine, Eric G., Amodeo, Maryann, daSilva-Clark, Mena, Lundgren, Lena
Source: Journal of Social Work Education. 2023 59(2):558-565.
Availability: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 530 Walnut Street Suite 850, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Tel: 215-625-8900; Fax: 215-207-0050; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 8
Publication Date: 2023
Sponsoring Agency: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (DHHS/PHS)
Contract Number: 1H79TI02595101
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Education Level: Higher Education
Postsecondary Education
Descriptors: Social Work, Masters Programs, Graduate Students, Screening Tests, Intervention, Referral, Prevention, Substance Abuse, Conventional Instruction, Online Courses, Distance Education, Training, Educational Benefits, Core Curriculum
DOI: 10.1080/10437797.2021.2019646
ISSN: 1043-7797
2163-5811
Abstract: Social workers are in an ideal position to address the need for increased access to screening, brief intervention, and referral to treatment (SBIRT) for substance use disorder. This pre-post study explores the effects of SBIRT education and training among social work students from three campus environments (traditional, online, and satellite). Results demonstrated that participation in online training was related to increased levels of confidence, sense of responsibility, and practice of SBIRT and a decrease in perceived barriers. On-campus students showed the greatest post-training gains in confidence to use SBIRT. Results suggest that SBIRT education and training is beneficial for students from various backgrounds and should be included in social work students' core clinical practice curriculum.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2023
Accession Number: EJ1389866
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwFGxqEskwP-C0uqihvpk8tVAAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDLCTahX0CGgRzfHawwIBEICBm5bAvUnvA4szOaI5ZN6g_Sbs1K9jznVkxjevIUBW7tNpC0UVxr52YyJtNyAmEkQK2uh9NzsrquJR7p4C3z9njLenlv9B8oIR5KR8GuVA3ysAqTepkUiGuzUBGrwRhFZbbevwnd5SnYITV5RCn6e1qAKCsUrMoyCsRGJmAcy3n8wLa2jVm34jwER5b9tI9pYn32NR5LeQbyJNowo8
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0163698484;swe01apr.23;2023May16.06:14;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0163698484-1">Research Note—Online SBIRT Training for On-Campus, Satellite Campus, and Online MSW Students: Pre–Post Perceptions and Practice </title> <p>Social workers are in an ideal position to address the need for increased access to screening, brief intervention, and referral to treatment (SBIRT) for substance use disorder. This pre–post study explores the effects of SBIRT education and training among social work students from three campus environments (traditional, online, and satellite). Results demonstrated that participation in online training was related to increased levels of confidence, sense of responsibility, and practice of SBIRT and a decrease in perceived barriers. On-campus students showed the greatest post-training gains in confidence to use SBIRT. Results suggest that SBIRT education and training is beneficial for students from various backgrounds and should be included in social work students' core clinical practice curriculum.</p> <p>In 2016, 21 million people aged 12 or older needed treatment for substance use disorder; however, only 3.8 million people received any treatment (Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref1">18</reflink>]). Screening, brief intervention, and referral to treatment (SBIRT) is an evidence-based approach for the prevention and early detection of risky substance use (Agerwala & McCance-Katz, [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref2">1</reflink>]; Lundgren & Krull, [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref3">7</reflink>]). This billable, cost-effective service can be delivered in multiple settings (Barbosa et al., [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref4">2</reflink>]). While substance use disorder (SUD) screening is recommended for all adults (U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref5">19</reflink>]), there are disparities in who is screened; in a national study of alcohol screening rates, Sahker and Arndt ([<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref6">14</reflink>]) found that primary care providers were less likely to screen patients who were older, male, racial/ethnic minorities, or uninsured. Physicians have reported that a key barrier was lack of time during visits (Satre et al., [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref7">15</reflink>]).</p> <p>To expand SBIRT's reach into underserved communities, trainings for social work students have been developed. There is growing evidence that these trainings are beneficial (Osborne & Benner, [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref8">11</reflink>]; Putney et al., [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref9">12</reflink>]; Senreich et al., [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref10">16</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref11">17</reflink>]), but less is known about "what works for whom in which circumstances" (Nielsen & Miraglia, [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref12">10</reflink>], p. 40). The purpose of this study is to assess changes in students' views and practice of SBIRT before and after online training, with a focus on comparing outcomes for students who are pursuing their Master of Social Work (MSW) degree in different learning environments.</p> <hd id="AN0163698484-2">Role of social workers in conducting SBIRT</hd> <p>Social workers practice in a variety of organizational settings where SBIRT skills are applicable, including community health centers, inpatient settings, schools, and outpatient mental health centers (Duong et al., [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref13">5</reflink>]; Roy-Byrne et al., [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref14">13</reflink>]; Senreich et al., [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref15">17</reflink>]; Wamsley et al., [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref16">20</reflink>]). Many work as mental health clinicians and clinical staff supervisors in psychosocial SUD treatment settings either supervising or conducting screenings/assessments. Moreover, social workers regularly reach underserved communities, and ensuring that vulnerable groups have access to this evidence-based approach is consistent with the National Association of Social Workers <emph>Code of Ethics</emph> ([<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref17">9</reflink>]).</p> <p>Although social workers are in an ideal position to deliver SBIRT, education and training related to SUD prevention and treatment for MSW students is limited. While 64% of MSW programs in the United States had elective classes related to alcohol and drugs, only 5% had at least one required addiction course, and 14% offered a specialization or cluster of classes (Wilkey et al., [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref18">21</reflink>]). As of 2016, only about 10% of MSW programs in the United States offered a certificate in addictions or SUD (Council on Social Work Education, [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref19">3</reflink>]). Thus, MSW students need greater access to elective and required classes related to alcohol and drugs, as well as short-term training opportunities (e.g., workshops, conferences) (Wilkey et al., [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref20">21</reflink>]).</p> <p>To fill the gap between the need for services and available service providers, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) has awarded student training grants to a range of health professions, some of which have focused on increasing the number of social work students trained in SBIRT (Osborne & Benner, [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref21">11</reflink>]; Putney et al., [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref22">12</reflink>]; Senreich et al., [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref23">16</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref24">17</reflink>]). Training content is typically delivered via one or more of the following: PowerPoint, videos, or skills practice. Studies show statistically significant increases from pre to post in students' confidence (Osborne & Benner, [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref25">11</reflink>]; Putney et al., [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref26">12</reflink>]), knowledge or understanding (Osborne & Benner, [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref27">11</reflink>]; Senreich et al., [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref28">16</reflink>]), overall attitudes, role adequacy, and role support (Senreich et al., [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref29">16</reflink>]).</p> <p>Most previous research has examined SBIRT outcomes for MSW students in the aggregate; however, MSW students come from various backgrounds and pursue their degrees in different learning environments. For example, compared to MSW students who take courses in person, online MSW students tend to be older, with more work experience, and they are more likely to identify as African American (George Washington University Health Workforce Institute, [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref30">6</reflink>]). Therefore, it is important to assess whether training yields similar outcomes for students who may differ in terms of demographic characteristics and life experiences. Furthermore, in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, where social work education increasingly is delivered online (Mclaughlin et al., [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref31">8</reflink>]), it is helpful to know how students who take courses in person experience online training. This study seeks to contribute to the literature by evaluating the outcomes of an online SBIRT training for students in on-campus, satellite campus, and online MSW programs.</p> <hd id="AN0163698484-3">The current study</hd> <p>In fall 2015, a large Northeastern university received a 3-year SAMHSA grant to develop and deliver SBIRT training for MSW students. All students were enrolled in the same MSW program, with the same curriculum offered in different formats across three campuses. These included: (a) a traditional 14-week semester on-campus classroom-based MSW, (b) a weekend satellite-campus MSW intended for working students, and (c) an online MSW with students completing a semester-length course in 7 weeks. The SBIRT training was a self-paced, 4-hour online course including lectures, interactive exercises, and quizzes, as well as videos of clinicians demonstrating how to use SBIRT.</p> <p>The current study examines change in MSW students' confidence, sense of responsibility, beliefs, and practice of SBIRT before and after training. We focus on comparing training outcomes by MSW campus type because on-campus, online, and satellite campuses likely serve students from different backgrounds with varying levels of experience regarding SUD. Results may help tailor the content and delivery of SBIRT training to these student populations and better integrate SBIRT into social work education.</p> <hd id="AN0163698484-4">Method</hd> <p>This study uses a subset of data collected for the evaluation of the SBIRT training. The design is a comparative pre–post examination of participants' SBIRT-related confidence, responsibility, beliefs, and practice. A no-treatment comparison group was not used due to ethical considerations, as we sought to ensure that all MSW students had the same opportunity to receive training. Instead, we compared training outcomes among students enrolled in different MSW campus types.</p> <hd id="AN0163698484-5">Participants</hd> <p>The study included 184 students from the university's MSW program who participated in the SBIRT training and completed evaluation surveys at baseline and posttraining between January 2016 and December 2017. Students were enrolled in one of the following: (a) an on-campus program at a university in a large Northeastern city, in which students typically enroll for a 2-year, full-time MSW program; (b) a 3-year cohort model weekend program at a satellite campus; or (c) a 3-year online MSW, which includes asynchronous activities and live online classroom sessions for all courses. Field placement and other course requirements were consistent across the campuses. Most online and satellite campus students completed the SBIRT training as part of the clinical practice SUD course (85% and 98%, respectively). Typically, on-campus students do not enroll in the SUD class, so they had the opportunity to complete the training on their own.</p> <p>Students' demographic characteristics by MSW campus type are shown in Table 1. While each group had predominately female students, there were significantly fewer female students in the satellite campus program χ<sups>2</sups> (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref32">2</reflink>)=10.66, <emph>p</emph>=.01. On-campus students were younger, on average, than online or satellite campus students, according to a Kruskal Wallis test, χ<sups>2</sups> (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref33">2</reflink>)=61.91, <emph>p</emph><.001. Overall, less than one-half of students had taken a class about alcohol problems before the training. Satellite campus students reported the most training hours related to alcohol problems in the past year compared to the other groups; this difference was statistically significant according to a Kruskal Wallis test, χ<sups>2</sups> (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref34">2</reflink>)=14.57, <emph>p</emph>=.001.</p> <p>Table 1. Sample characteristics and pre–post mean scores of SBIRT confidence, responsibility, and practice by campus.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td /><td>Online</td><td>Satellite</td><td>On Campus</td></tr><tr><td /><td><italic>n</italic></td><td><italic>%</italic></td><td><italic>n</italic></td><td><italic>%</italic></td><td><italic>n</italic></td><td><italic>%</italic></td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Gender</td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Female</td><td>69</td><td>97.2</td><td>46</td><td>80.7</td><td>52</td><td>92.9</td></tr><tr><td>Male</td><td>2</td><td>2.8</td><td>11</td><td>19.3</td><td>4</td><td>7.1</td></tr><tr><td>Race</td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>White</td><td>55</td><td>82.1</td><td>45</td><td>88.2</td><td>48</td><td>87.3</td></tr><tr><td>All other races</td><td>12</td><td>17.9</td><td>6</td><td>11.8</td><td>7</td><td>12.7</td></tr><tr><td>Prior class on alcohol problems</td><td>23</td><td>33.8</td><td>19</td><td>34.5</td><td>11</td><td>19.6</td></tr><tr><td /><td><italic>n</italic></td><td><italic>M (SD)</italic></td><td><italic>n</italic></td><td><italic>M (SD)</italic></td><td><italic>n</italic></td><td><italic>M (SD)</italic></td></tr><tr><td>Age</td><td>70</td><td>36.1 (8.14)</td><td>56</td><td>34.8 (9.28)</td><td>56</td><td>26.7 (5.47)</td></tr><tr><td>Alcohol-related training hours in last year</td><td>68</td><td>6.09 (13.77)</td><td>54</td><td>10.49 (14.31)</td><td>56</td><td>4.05 (10.93)</td></tr><tr><td>Experience working with patients with alcohol problems</td><td>68</td><td>2.50 (1.03)</td><td>57</td><td>2.65 (1.20)</td><td>56</td><td>2.41 (0.91)</td></tr><tr><td>Confidence</td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Pre</td><td>67</td><td>3.50 (0.97)</td><td>54</td><td>3.61 (0.85)</td><td>56</td><td>2.87 (0.86)</td></tr><tr><td>Post</td><td>67</td><td>3.98 (0.66)</td><td>54</td><td>4.15 (0.66)</td><td>56</td><td>3.72 (0.71)</td></tr><tr><td>Responsibility</td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Pre</td><td>65</td><td>4.52 (0.50)</td><td>55</td><td>4.44 (0.57)</td><td>54</td><td>4.28 (0.65)</td></tr><tr><td>Post</td><td>65</td><td>4.72 (0.38)</td><td>55</td><td>4.65 (0.51)</td><td>54</td><td>4.49 (0.48)</td></tr><tr><td>Practice</td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Pre</td><td>67</td><td>3.00 (1.08)</td><td>53</td><td>3.33 (0.86)</td><td>54</td><td>2.60 (0.98)</td></tr><tr><td>Post</td><td>67</td><td>3.14 (0.96)</td><td>53</td><td>3.56 (0.91)</td><td>54</td><td>2.77 (1.07)</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>1 <emph>Note</emph>. SBIRT = Screening, Brief Intervention, and Referral to Treatment.</p> <p>2 Rating scales are: experience: 1 = <emph>none;</emph> 2 = <emph>little;</emph> 3 = <emph>moderate;</emph> 4 = <emph>large;</emph> 5 = <emph>vast;</emph> confidence: 1 = <emph>no confidence;</emph> 2 = <emph>low;</emph> 3 = <emph>medium;</emph> 4 = <emph>moderate;</emph> 5 = <emph>high confidence</emph>; responsibility: 1 = <emph>no responsibility;</emph> 2 = <emph>minor;</emph> 3 = <emph>medium;</emph> 4 = <emph>moderate;</emph> 5 = <emph>major</emph>; practice: 1 = <emph>never;</emph> 2 = <emph>rarely;</emph> 3 = <emph>sometime;</emph> 4 = <emph>usually;</emph> 5 =<emph>always</emph>.</p> <hd id="AN0163698484-6">Materials and procedure</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0163698484-7">Measures</hd> <p>Pre–post surveys included four rating scales pertaining to students' perceptions and practice of SBIRT, adapted from an SBIRT manual for emergency departments (Désy & Perhats, [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref35">4</reflink>]). A seven-item scale assessed confidence in one's ability to use SBIRT (e.g., "I am confident in my ability to ask patients about their alcohol use") on a rating scale of <emph>no confidence</emph> = 1 to <emph>high confidence</emph> = 5; α=.90. Participants were also asked to rate seven items concerning their responsibility as a social worker (e.g., "To ask patients about their alcohol use") on a scale of <emph>no responsibility</emph> = 1 to <emph>major</emph> = 5, α=.84. Practice of SBIRT was captured through seven items (e.g., "How often do you ask patients about alcohol problems?"), rated from <emph>never</emph> = 1 to <emph>always</emph> = 5, α=.88. In addition, 11 items tapped beliefs about potential facilitators and barriers of using SBIRT (e.g., "It takes too much time to deal with patients' drinking behavior"), which used a Likert scale (<emph>strongly disagree</emph> = 1 to <emph>strongly agree</emph> = 5).</p> <hd id="AN0163698484-8">Data collection</hd> <p>All students enrolled in the clinical practice SUD course were invited to participate in the study. Those who completed the SBIRT training on their own were recruited through flyers in the social work building and personalized e-mails. Surveys were administered on paper and online via Qualtrics. Participants generally completed postsurveys within three months of taking the presurvey (95%), while a few students took the postsurvey more than three months after their baseline (5%). Students who completed the pretest received a $15 Amazon e-gift card, and those who completed the posttest received a $20 e-gift card.</p> <hd id="AN0163698484-9">Analysis</hd> <p>Repeated measures analysis of variance was used to examine change in SBIRT confidence, responsibility, and practice outcomes over time and across MSW campuses. SBIRT belief items were dichotomized (0 = <emph>lack of agreement</emph>; 1 = <emph>agree</emph> or <emph>strongly agree</emph>). Chi-square tests were used to assess group differences in students' beliefs, and change over time regarding beliefs was assessed via McNemar tests.</p> <hd id="AN0163698484-10">Results</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0163698484-11">Change in SBIRT confidence, responsibility, and practice</hd> <p>With respect to students' <emph>confidence</emph> in using SBIRT before and after training, there was a statistically significant time × group interaction, <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref36">2</reflink>, 174)=4.67, <emph>p</emph>=.01, pη<sups>2</sups>=.05. Although all students' confidence increased significantly, on-campus students had the lowest baseline ratings, and their confidence increased at a greater rate than did the other groups—allowing them to "catch up" with their peers (see Figure 1).</p> <p>Graph: Figure 1. Mean rating of confidence in using Screening, Brief Intervention, and Referral to Treatment before and after training, by campus type.</p> <p>All groups had a strong <emph>sense of responsibility</emph> to use SBIRT at baseline (with mean scores greater than 4.0 on the 5-point scale), and a significant main effect of time indicated that ratings increased significantly over time across groups, <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref37">1</reflink>, 171)=26.69, <emph>p</emph><.001, pη<sups>2</sups>=.13. There was also a main effect of group, indicating that on-campus students perceived lower responsibility (on average) than did online students, <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref38">2</reflink>, 171)=4.40, <emph>p</emph>=.01, pη<sups>2</sups>=.05 (pairwise posthoc test, <emph>p</emph>=.01).</p> <p>Among the full sample, <emph>SBIRT practice</emph> increased between pre and post, <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref39">1</reflink>, 171)=11.33, <emph>p</emph>=.001, pη<sups>2</sups>=.06. At both time points, on-campus students had significantly lower ratings of SBIRT use than did satellite campus students, <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref40">2</reflink>, 171)=9.09, <emph>p</emph><.001, pn<sups>2</sups>=.10 (pairwise posthoc test, <emph>p</emph>=.01).</p> <hd id="AN0163698484-12">Beliefs about SBIRT before and after training</hd> <p>From pre to post, there was a statistically significant increase in the overall proportion of students who felt that advising a patient about their drinking may lead to early successful intervention, according to a McNemar test (see Table 2). There was also a significant overall increase in students' belief that talking to patients about their drinking made them feel like a responsible social worker, and the greatest change was among satellite campus students. This is notable because satellite campus students, who were older and had more prior training, generally were less likely to endorse items related to the potential benefits of SBIRT at baseline. Similarly, satellite campus students showed the greatest gains related to the belief that their involvement can make a difference regarding a patient's alcohol use.</p> <p>Table 2. Change in percentage who endorsed positively worded SBIRT belief items before and after training by campus type.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td>Item</td><td>Campus</td><td /></tr><tr><td>Online</td><td>Satellite</td><td>On Campus</td><td>Total</td></tr><tr><td>Pre</td><td>Post</td><td>Pre</td><td>Post</td><td>Pre</td><td>Post</td><td>Pre</td><td>Post</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Advising a patient about his/her drinking behavior may lead to early successful intervention.</td><td>85.1%</td><td>95.5%</td><td>75.4%</td><td>87.7%</td><td>69.6%</td><td>83.9%</td><td>77.2%</td><td>89.4%**</td></tr><tr><td>My involvement with a patient can make a difference regarding his/her alcohol use</td><td>97.0%</td><td>94.0%</td><td>76.4%</td><td>92.7%*</td><td>85.7%</td><td>87.5%</td><td>87.1%</td><td>91.6%</td></tr><tr><td>Talking to patients about their drinking makes me feel like a responsible social worker.</td><td>92.5%</td><td>100%</td><td>76.8%</td><td>98.2%**</td><td>91.1%</td><td>98.2%</td><td>87.2%</td><td>98.9%**</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <ulist> <item>3 <emph>Note</emph>. SBIRT = Screening, Brief Intervention, and Referral to Treatment.</item> <item>4 *<emph>p</emph><.05; **<emph>p</emph><.01.</item> </ulist> <p>Overall, the top three most commonly endorsed beliefs about potential barriers to using SBIRT prior to training were: lack of places to refer patients, patients being angry, and lack of role models (see Table 3). When examined by campus type, we found that online and satellite campus students were much more likely to report a lack of places to refer patients than were on-campus students. When examining pre–post change in beliefs about barriers, we found a statistically significant decrease in the overall proportion of students who believed that patients would be angry (18% vs. 8%, respectively). This suggests that SBIRT training helped to ease participants' worries about broaching the topic of alcohol use. Analyses of pre–post change for each campus type showed no statistically significant changes over time.</p> <p>Table 3. Top three most-endorsed beliefs about barriers to using SBIRT before training and pre–post changes in endorsement by campus type.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td /><td>% at Pre</td><td>% at Post</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Online students</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>(1) No/few adequate places to refer</p></list-item></list></td><td>41.8</td><td>44.8</td></tr><tr><td><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>(2) No/few role models</p></list-item></list></td><td>22.4</td><td>20.9</td></tr><tr><td><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>(3) Patients will be angry</p></list-item></list></td><td>14.9</td><td>6.0</td></tr><tr><td>Satellite campus students</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>(4) No/few adequate places to refer</p></list-item></list></td><td>43.9</td><td>35.1</td></tr><tr><td><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>(5) Patients with alcohol problems are behavioral problems</p></list-item></list></td><td>19.3</td><td>12.3</td></tr><tr><td><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>(6) Referrals have not helped in the past</p></list-item></list></td><td>16.4</td><td>9.1</td></tr><tr><td>On-campus students</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>(7) Patients will be angry</p></list-item></list></td><td>23.6</td><td>10.9</td></tr><tr><td><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>(8) No/few adequate places to refer</p></list-item></list></td><td>14.3</td><td>14.3</td></tr><tr><td><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>(9) Patients with alcohol problems are behavioral problems</p></list-item></list></td><td>10.7</td><td>12.5</td></tr><tr><td>All students</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>(10) No/few adequate places to refer</p></list-item></list></td><td>33.9</td><td>32.2</td></tr><tr><td><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>(11) Patients will be angry**</p></list-item></list></td><td>17.9</td><td>8.4</td></tr><tr><td><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>(12) No/few role models</p></list-item></list></td><td>14.5</td><td>15.1</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <ulist> <item>5 <emph>Note</emph>. SBIRT = Screening, Brief Intervention, and Referral to Treatment.</item> <item>6 <emph>**p</emph><.01.</item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0163698484-13">Discussion</hd> <p>This study examined whether there are differential effects of SBIRT training for students enrolled in on-campus, online, and satellite campus MSW programs. Results indicated that, regardless of the type of campus students attended, on average they increased in their comfort using SBIRT, their sense of responsibility to use it, and their practice of SBIRT after receiving training. Thus, it appears that this online SBIRT training was beneficial to students who were accustomed to either in-person or online learning. Furthermore, the training appears to be particularly successful in helping on-campus students—who were younger with less prior training—feel more confident in using SBIRT.</p> <p>Overall, students experienced some positive changes in their beliefs about SBIRT, with significantly more students reporting that talking to patients makes them feel responsible. Among the cohort of older, satellite campus students, there was a significant increase in the belief that they could make a difference in a patient's alcohol use, suggesting that these students experienced increased self-efficacy after receiving training. In terms of barriers to using SBIRT, after receiving training, significantly fewer students across campuses reported that patients would become angry—a finding similar to that of Osborne and Benner ([<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref41">11</reflink>]). Notably, SBIRT training did not seem to affect perceptions of systemic barriers, such as a lack of mentor role models in the field or a lack of places to refer patients.</p> <p>The increase in SBIRT use after training was relatively small, limiting the potential for clinical effect. This could be an artifact of the study population because students may have less opportunity to increase their use of screening practices, either because they are not yet working in the field or there is no supervision and support for using SBIRT in the field. Given that on-campus students had significantly lower levels of use before and after training, it may be beneficial to prioritize opportunities for skills practice when training these students.</p> <hd id="AN0163698484-14">Study strengths and limitations</hd> <p>This study's pre–post design is a strength that allowed us to explore students' perceptions and practices before and after they receive SBIRT training. Limitations include the lack of a no-training comparison group and differential timing and method of receiving the training by campus type. Also, although outcomes were analyzed by campus type, the lack of statistical power prevented us from conducting analyses that account for other participant characteristics that may be related to the training outcomes, such as age and prior training.</p> <hd id="AN0163698484-15">Implications</hd> <p>SBIRT training seems to benefit traditional social work students (those who get their degree on campus and are younger and with less prior training) and nontraditional social work students (who gets their degrees online and off campus and tend to be older, with more previous training). Therefore, a recommendation stemming from this study is that SBIRT education and training should be implemented in the core clinical practice curriculum for all social work students. Depending on the type of MSW program in which SBIRT training is delivered, it should be tailored to best meet the needs of students. For instance, on-campus students may benefit from more opportunities for skills practice, while for online and satellite-campus students, it may be helpful to focus on ways to overcome barriers they perceive to using SBIRT based on past experience. A final recommendation for the field is to address greater systems-level issues related to SBIRT practice: specifically increasing the availability of SUD treatment and supervisory support for implementing SBIRT models.</p> <hd id="AN0163698484-16">Disclosure statement</hd> <p>No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).</p> <ref id="AN0163698484-17"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref2" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Agerwala, S. M., & McCance-Katz, E. F. (2012). Integrating Screening, Brief Intervention, and Referral to Treatment (SBIRT) into clinical practice settings: A brief review. Journal of Psychoactive Drugs, 44 (4), 307 – 317. https://doi.org/10.1080/02791072.2012.720169</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref4" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Barbosa, C., Cowell, A., Bray, J., & Aldridge, A. (2015). The cost-effectiveness of alcohol screening, brief intervention, and referral to treatment (SBIRT) in emergency and outpatient medical settings. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 53 (4), 1 – 8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsat.2015.01.003</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref19" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Council on Social Work Education. (2017). Annual statistics on social work education in the United States. https://<ulink href="http://www.cswe.org/getattachment/992f629c-57cf-4a74-8201-1db7a6fa4667/2015-Statistics-on-Social-Work-Education.aspx">www.cswe.org/getattachment/992f629c-57cf-4a74-8201-1db7a6fa4667/2015-Statistics-on-Social-Work-Education.aspx</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref35" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Désy, P., & Perhats, C. (2008). Reducing patient at-risk drinking: A SBIRT implementation toolkit for the emergency department setting. Emergency Nurses Association.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref13" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Duong, D. K., O'Sullivan, P. S., Satre, D. D., Soskin, P., & Satterfield, J. (2016). Social workers as workplace-based instructors of alcohol and drug Screening, Brief Intervention, and Referral to Treatment (SBIRT) for emergency medicine residents. Teaching and Learning in Medicine, 28 (3), 303 – 313. https://doi.org/10.1080/10401334.2016.1164049</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref30" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> George Washington University Health Workforce Institute. (2019). A comparison of in person and online master's of social work graduates: Demographic and educational background, the jobs they take, and the populations they serve. https://<ulink href="http://www.cswe.org/getattachment/Centers-Initiatives/Initiatives/National-Workforce-Initiative/Online-vs-Inperson-Workforce-Data-Brief-2018-(1).pdf.aspx">www.cswe.org/getattachment/Centers-Initiatives/Initiatives/National-Workforce-Initiative/Online-vs-Inperson-Workforce-Data-Brief-2018-(1).pdf.aspx</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref3" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Lundgren, L., & Krull, I. (2018). Screening, assessment and treatment of substance use disorders: Evidence based practices in the era of integrated care. Oxford University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref31" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Mclaughlin, H., Scholar, H., & Teater, B. (2020). Social work education in a global pandemic: Strategies, reflections, and challenges. Social Work Education, 39 (8), 975 – 982. https://doi.org/10.1080/02615479.2020.1834545</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref17" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> National Association of Social Workers. (2017). Code of ethics. https://<ulink href="http://www.socialworkers.org/About/Ethics/Code-of-Ethics/Code-of-Ethics-English">www.socialworkers.org/About/Ethics/Code-of-Ethics/Code-of-Ethics-English</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nielsen, K., & Miraglia, M. (2017). What works for whom in which circumstances? On the need to move beyond the "what works?" question in organizational intervention research. Human Relations, 70 (1), 40 – 62. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726716670226</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Osborne, V. A., & Benner, K. (2012). Utilizing screening, brief intervention, and referral to treatment: Teaching assessment of substance abuse. American Journal of Public Health, 102 (7), e37 – e38. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2011.300639</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Putney, J. M., O'Brien, K. H., Collin, C., & Levine, A. (2017). Evaluation of alcohol Screening, Brief Intervention, and Referral to Treatment (SBIRT) training for social workers. Journal of Social Work Practice in the Addictions, 17 (1–2), 169 – 187. https://doi.org/10.1080/1533256X.2017.1302884</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Roy-Byrne, P., Bumgardner, K., Krupski, A., Dunn, C., Ries, R., Donovan, D., West, I.I., Maynard, C., Atkins, D.C., Graves, M.C., Joesch, J.M., & Zarkin, G. A. (2014). Brief intervention for problem drug use in safety-net primary care settings: A randomized clinical trial. Journal of the American Medical Association, 312 (5), 492 – 501. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2014.7860</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sahker, E., & Arndt, S. (2017). Alcohol use screening and intervention by American primary care providers. International Journal of Drug Policy, 41, 29 – 33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drugpo.2016.11.013</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Satre, D. D., McCance-Katz, E. F., Moreno-John, G., Julian, K. A., O'Sullivan, P. S., & Satterfield, J. (2012). Using needs assessment to develop curricula for Screening, Brief Intervention, and Referral to Treatment (SBIRT) in academic and community settings. Substance Abuse, 33 (3), 298 – 302. https://doi.org/10.1080/08897077.2015.1127869</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Senreich, E., Ogden, L. P., & Greenberg, J. P. (2017a). Enhancing social work students' knowledge and attitudes regarding substance-using clients through SBIRT training. Journal of Social Work Education, 53 (2), 260 – 275. https://doi.org/10.1080/10437797.2016.1266979</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Senreich, E., Ogden, L. P., & Greenberg, J. P. (2017b). A postgraduation follow-up of social work students trained in "SBIRT": Rates of usage and perceptions of effectiveness. Social Work in Health Care, 56 (5), 412 – 434. https://doi.org/10.1080/00981389.2017.1290010</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. (2017). Key substance use and mental health indicators in the United States: Results from the 2016 National Survey on Drug Use and Health (HHS Publication No. SMA 17-5044, NSDUH Series H-52). https://<ulink href="http://www.samhsa.gov/data/">www.samhsa.gov/data/</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. (2013). Final recommendation statement: Alcohol misuse: Screening and behavioral counseling interventions in primary care. https://<ulink href="http://www.uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org/Page/Document/RecommendationStatementFinal/alcohol-misuse-screening-and-behavioral-counseling-interventions-in-primary-care">www.uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org/Page/Document/RecommendationStatementFinal/alcohol-misuse-screening-and-behavioral-counseling-interventions-in-primary-care</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wamsley, M., Satterfield, J., Curtis, A., Lundgren, L., & Sartre, D. (2018). Alcohol and drug Screening, Brief Intervention, and Referral to Treatment (SBIRT) training and implementation: Perspectives from four health professions. Journal of Addiction Medicine, 12 (4), 262 – 272. https://doi.org/10.1097/ADM.0000000000000410</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wilkey, C., Lungren, L., & Amodeo, M. (2013). Addiction training in social work: A nationwide analysis. Journal of Social Work Practice in the Addictions, 13 (2), 192 – 210. https://doi.org/10.1080/1533256X.2013.785872</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Elizabeth Wacker; Shauna Rienks; Deborah Chassler; Eric G. Devine; Maryann Amodeo; Mena daSilva-Clark and Lena Lundgren</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author; Author; Author; Author; Author</p> <p></p> <p>Elizabeth Ann Deaton Wacker , MA, is senior research associate at the Butler Institute for Families in the Graduate School of Social Work, University of Denver.</p> <p>Shauna Rienks , PhD, is research associate professor in the Graduate School of Social Work and director of research and evaluation methods at the Butler Institute for Families, University of Denver.</p> <p>Deborah Chassler , MSW, is senior academic researcher and lecturer at the Boston University School of Social Work and faculty fellow for Boston University Diversity & Inclusion.</p> <p>Eric Devine , PhD, is assistant professor at the Boston University School of Medicine and director of the clinical studies unit in the Department of Psychiatry at Boston Medical Center.</p> <p>Maryann Amodeo , PhD, LICSW, is professor emerita and lecturer at the Boston University School of Social Work.</p> <p>Mena DaSilva-Clark , is assistant dean for Off-Campus and Online Programs at the Boston University School of Social Work.</p> <p>Lena Lundgren , PhD, is professor in the Graduate School of Social Work and executive director of the Cross-National Behavioral Laboratory, University of Denver.</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref11"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref14"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref16"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref18"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1389866
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Research Note--Online SBIRT Training for On-Campus, Satellite Campus, and Online MSW Students: Pre-Post Perceptions and Practice
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Wacker%2C+Elizabeth%22">Wacker, Elizabeth</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Rienks%2C+Shauna%22">Rienks, Shauna</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Chassler%2C+Deborah%22">Chassler, Deborah</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Devine%2C+Eric+G%2E%22">Devine, Eric G.</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Amodeo%2C+Maryann%22">Amodeo, Maryann</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22daSilva-Clark%2C+Mena%22">daSilva-Clark, Mena</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Lundgren%2C+Lena%22">Lundgren, Lena</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Journal+of+Social+Work+Education%22"><i>Journal of Social Work Education</i></searchLink>. 2023 59(2):558-565.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 530 Walnut Street Suite 850, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Tel: 215-625-8900; Fax: 215-207-0050; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 8
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2023
– Name: SourceSuprt
  Label: Sponsoring Agency
  Group: SrcSuprt
  Data: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (DHHS/PHS)
– Name: NumberContract
  Label: Contract Number
  Group: NumCntrct
  Data: 1H79TI02595101
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Audience
  Label: Education Level
  Group: Audnce
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Higher+Education%22">Higher Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Postsecondary+Education%22">Postsecondary Education</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Social+Work%22">Social Work</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Masters+Programs%22">Masters Programs</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Graduate+Students%22">Graduate Students</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Screening+Tests%22">Screening Tests</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Intervention%22">Intervention</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Referral%22">Referral</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Prevention%22">Prevention</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Substance+Abuse%22">Substance Abuse</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Conventional+Instruction%22">Conventional Instruction</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Online+Courses%22">Online Courses</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Distance+Education%22">Distance Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Training%22">Training</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Educational+Benefits%22">Educational Benefits</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Core+Curriculum%22">Core Curriculum</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1080/10437797.2021.2019646
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 1043-7797<br />2163-5811
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: Social workers are in an ideal position to address the need for increased access to screening, brief intervention, and referral to treatment (SBIRT) for substance use disorder. This pre-post study explores the effects of SBIRT education and training among social work students from three campus environments (traditional, online, and satellite). Results demonstrated that participation in online training was related to increased levels of confidence, sense of responsibility, and practice of SBIRT and a decrease in perceived barriers. On-campus students showed the greatest post-training gains in confidence to use SBIRT. Results suggest that SBIRT education and training is beneficial for students from various backgrounds and should be included in social work students' core clinical practice curriculum.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2023
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1389866
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1389866
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1080/10437797.2021.2019646
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 8
        StartPage: 558
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Social Work
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Masters Programs
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Graduate Students
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Screening Tests
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Intervention
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Referral
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Prevention
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Substance Abuse
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Conventional Instruction
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Online Courses
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Distance Education
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Training
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Educational Benefits
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Core Curriculum
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Research Note--Online SBIRT Training for On-Campus, Satellite Campus, and Online MSW Students: Pre-Post Perceptions and Practice
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Wacker, Elizabeth
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Rienks, Shauna
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Chassler, Deborah
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Devine, Eric G.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Amodeo, Maryann
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: daSilva-Clark, Mena
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Lundgren, Lena
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 01
              Type: published
              Y: 2023
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 1043-7797
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 2163-5811
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 59
            – Type: issue
              Value: 2
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Journal of Social Work Education
              Type: main
ResultId 1