In the wait area, youth receive a tablet-delivered brief digital AOD education tutorial that includes advice to abstain from or reduce AOD use. The tutorial focuses on adolescent AOD prevalence rates and related behavioral symptoms; AOD use neurobiology and its relation to adolescent health; and common AOD impacts on developmental milestones (see Meredith et al., 2021). Psychoeducation for AOD has shown positive effects as both a universal and selective prevention strategy (Bröning et al., 2021; Das et al., 2016).

In primary care (PC) office, youth and providers together complete a tablet-supported brief negotiated interview (BNI; see Beaton et al., 2016). The BNI is informed by AOD use data gathered during youth screening (O'Grady et al., 2015). The BNI focuses on (a) education about AOD disorders, including youth and family factors that impact AOD use; (b) user-tailored feedback comparing the given youth's AOD use and related problems to national norms, along with information on neurobiological effects and developmental impacts of frequent use (Harris et al., 2012); (c) motivational tools (e.g., reduction readiness rulers) and decisional balance exercises (weighing positive versus negative personal impacts of AOD use) tailored to the youth's use levels (Slavet et al., 2006; King et al., 2009); and (d) AOD reduction goal-setting interventions tailored to the youth's readiness to change AOD use (Walton et al., 2013).

In primary care (PC) offices providers and youth discuss the value of attending counseling services to address AOD-related problems (Cucciare et al., 2015); counseling referral links that the PC site curates with local services; and the value of youth talking directly with caregivers about their AOD involvement as a first step toward support-seeking and behavior change (Gayes & Steele, 2014). Providers directly recommend AOD counseling and facilitate a first appointment for youth who agree.

Screening procedures incorporate procedures for youth described for Standard Screening. They also incorporate two sources of caregiver-report data. First is an estimate of youth AOD use based on the Screening 2 Brief Intervention tool (Levy et al., 2016). Second is a 9-item checklist of youth mental health (MH) problems (Achenbach & Rescorla, 2001). If both youth and caregiver report no AOD use or clinical-level MH problem, the family is categorized Low Risk. Otherwise, screen data are combined to sort families into three risk categories: Hidden SU Risk (youth reports AOD use in past year; caregiver reports no youth AOD use in past year), Named MH Risk (caregiver reports no youth AOD use in past year; caregiver reports clinical-level score for at least one youth MH domain), Named SU Risk (caregiver reports youth AOD use in past year).

Youth proceed as indicated in the SBIRT-A-Standard condition based on youth screen data. In the wait area, caregivers receive a tablet-delivered parenting tutorial that covers two AOD risk domains: education about adolescent AOD including prevalence rates, related behavior problems, neurobiological and health effects, and impacts on developmental milestones; and education and video modeling about parenting strategies that reduce or moderate AOD risk, including positive communication, fair and consistent discipline, and non-judgmental conversations about AOD use (Bo et al., 2018). Positive parenting education has been shown effective as a universal and selective prevention strategy in parent-focused AOD prevention trials (Kuntsche & Kuntshce, 2016; Ladis et al., 2019; Van Ryzin et al., 2017). Tutorials are tailored for each risk category.

Youth proceed as indicated in the SBIRT-A-Standard condition based on youth screen data. In primary care (PC) offices, caregivers and providers together complete a tablet-supported parenting BNI informed by data from the caregiver screen only that parallels the youth BNI (e.g., AOD education, developmental risks) and also includes motivation, modeling, and goal-setting on positive parenting (e.g., non-judgmental conversations; see above) and effective parent-youth communication about AOD use (Carver et al., 2017).

In PC offices, providers meet separately with youth and caregivers to discuss the value of talking directly with the other family member about AOD risk while practicing positive communication strategies. Whenever both youth and caregiver agree to talk together, providers convene a brief facilitated conversation about AOD risk. In this conversation providers (a) emphasize that a positive youth-caregiver relationship is the strongest protective factor for youth development and (b) follow guidelines for brief triadic risk-reduction interventions focused on positive family communication about AOD risk (Guilamo-Ramos et al., 2020). When indicated, providers directly recommend AOD counseling and facilitate a first appointment for families who agree.

Caregiver report measure assessing youth's past and current use of inpatient, outpatient, and school-based behavioral health services. Items are dichotomous (yes/no) and the scale ranges from 0 (no services) to 3 (3 types of services) for past and current use such that higher numbers indicate more services.

6-item youth and caregiver report measure assessing frequency of communication about key alcohol and other drug use issues. Items are rated on a 5-point scale from 0 = never to 4 = very often. Total score ranges from 0 to 20 with higher scores indicating greater communication frequency.

6-item youth and caregiver report measure assessing quality of communication about key alcohol and other drug use issues. Items are rated on a 5-point scale from 0 = never to 4 = very often. Total score ranges from 0 to 20 with higher scores indicating greater communication quality.

10-item youth report of nicotine dependence completed by patients who report any days of using a vaping device containing nicotine, or any tobacco products, during the past 30 days. Items are dichotomous (yes/no) and total score ranges from 0 to 10 with higher scores indicating greater dependence.

Caregiver Estimate of Youth AOD Use was created for this study based on the Screening 2 Brief Intervention tool (Levy et al., 2016; Levy et al., 2021); it asks caregivers to estimate how often over the past 3 months their teen used alcohol, cannabis, nicotine, prescription drug misuse, inhalants, herbs/synthetic drugs, and other drugs on the same scale. Total score ranges using a 4 point scale from 0 = never to 3 = weekly. Total score ranges from 0 to 21 with higher scores indicating more frequent substance use.