Consideration of special populations in the drug treatment system of a large metropolitan area

  • Margaret L. Polinsky
  • Yih-Ing Hser
  • Christine E. Grella
Articles

Abstract

This article provides a descriptive overview of the characteristics of a large metropolitan drug treatment system in relation to special populations of substance abusers enrolled in the system and the services provided. The findings are based on self-report responses to a comprehensive survey of 294 drug treatment programs in Los Angeles County. The special populations are grouped by health status, ethnic background, language needs, and gender-related needs. The groups are not mutually exclusive. Survey results indicated a generally high proportion of programs capable of meeting the unique needs of a variety of special population clients and most programs having some mix of special population clients in their current caseload. The types of services offered varied by modality and by special populations being served. Implications for program planning and service delivery include consideration of whether or not to offer specialized programs for unique client types.

Keywords

Health Promotion Treatment Program Metropolitan Area Service Delivery Substance Abuser 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Closser MH, Blow FC: Special populations: Women, ethnic minorities, and the elderly.Recent Advances in Addictive Disorders 1993; 16(1):199–209.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Hanson M, Kramer TH, Gross W: Outpatient treatment of adults with coexisting substance use and mental disorders.Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment 1990; 7:109–116.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hindman MH, Widem P: The multidisabled: Emerging responses.Alcohol Health Research World 1980; 5(2):4–10.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Sylvester, RA: Treatment of the deaf alcoholic: A review.Alcoholism Treatment Quarterly 1986; 3(4):1–23.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Tyas S, Rush B: The treatment of disabled persons with alcohol and drug problems: Results of a survey of addiction services.Journal of Studies on Alcohol 1993; 54(3):275–282.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Finn P: Addressing the needs of cultural minorities in drug treatment.Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment 1994; 11:325–337.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Trimble JE, Bolek CS, Niemcryk SJ (Eds.):Ethnic and Multicultural Drug Abuse: Perspectives on Current Research. New York: Harrington Park, 1992.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lawson GW, Lawson AW (Eds.):Substance Abuse in Special Populations. Rockville, MD: Aspen, 1989.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Los Angeles County Alcohol and Drug Master Plan. Los Angeles: County of Los Angeles Department of Health Services, Alcohol and Drug Program Administration, 1992.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ziedonis, DM, Rayford, BS, Bryant, KJ, et al.: Psychiatric comorbidity in white and African-American cocaine addicts seeking substance abuse treatment.Hospital and Community Psychiatry 1994; 45(1):43–49.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Allen K: Development of an instrument to identify barriers to treatment for addicted women, from their perspective.International Journal of the Addictions 1994; 29(4):429–444.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Norusis MJ:SPSS-PC+ Advanced Statistics V2.0. Chicago: SPSS, 1988.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Polinsky ML, Hser Y-I, Anglin MD, et al.:Drug Treatment Programs in Los Angeles County: Executive Summary. Report on Survey Findings, Resource Guide to Drug Treatment Programs in Los Angeles County. Los Angeles: UCLA Drug Abuse Research Center, 1995.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    1991 Data Tape of the National Drug and Alcohol Treatment Unit Survey (NDATUS). Rockville, MD: Office of Applied Studies, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 1992.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ogborne AC, Smart RG: People with physical disabilities admitted to a residential addiction treatment program.American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse 1995; 21(1):137–145.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Wallen, J: A comparison of male and female clients in substance abuse treatment.Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment 1992; 9:243–248.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Rounsaville BJ, Kosten TR, Weissman MM, et al.: Prognostic significance of psychopathology in treated opiate addicts: A 2.5-year follow-up study.Archives of General Psychiatry 1986; 43(8):739–745.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Ziedonis DM, Kosten TR: Depression as a prognostic factor for pharmacological treatment of cocaine dependence.Psychopharmacology Bulletin 1992; 27:337–343.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Pulice RT, Lyman SR, McCormick LL: A study of provider perceptions of individuals with dual disorders.Journal of Mental Health Administration 1994; 21:92–99.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Howland RH: Barriers to community treatment of patients with dual diagnoses.Hospital & Community Psychiatry 1990; 41:1134–1135.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Schmidt L: Specialization in alcoholism and mental health residential treatment: The “dual diagnosis” problem.Journal of Drug Issues 1991; 21:859–874.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Wallen MC, Weiner HD: Impediments to effective treatment of the dually diagnosed patient.Journal of Psychoactive Drugs 1989; 21:161–168.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Zweben JE, Smith DE: Considerations in using psychotropic medication with dual diagnosis patients in recovery.Journal of Psychoactive Drugs 1989; 21:221–228.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Hughes PH, Coletti SD, Neri RL, et al.: Retaining cocaine-abusing women in a therapeutic community: The effect of a child live-in program.American Journal of Public Health 1995; 85:1149–1152.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Saunders EJ: A new model of residential care for substance-abusing women and their children.Adult Residential Care Journal 1993; 7:104–117.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Chang G, Carroll KM, Behr HM, et al.: Improving treatment outcome in pregnant opiate-dependent women.Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment 1992; 9:327–330.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Clayson Z, Berkowitz G, Brindis C: Themes and variations among seven comprehensive perinatal drug and alcohol abuse treatment models.Health & Social Work 1995; 20:234–238Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Strantz IH, Welch SP: Postpartum women in outpatient drug abuse treatment: Correlates of retention/completion.Journal of Psychoactive Drugs 1995; 27:357–373.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Grella CE, Perry SM, Anglin MD:Treatment Programs for Women: Client Characteristics, Program Characteristics, and Treatment Outcomes. A special study report submitted to the National Evaluation and Data Technical Assistance Center (NEDTAC), Center for Substance Abuse Treatment, Office of Scientific Analysis and Evaluation, Scientific Branch. Los Angeles: UCLA Drug Abuse Research Center, 1996.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Ball JC: Why has it proved so difficult to match drug abuse patients to appropriate treatment?Addiction 1994; 89:263–265.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Healthy People 2000: National Health Promotion and Disease Prevention Objectives. DHHS Publication No. (PHS) 91-50212. Washington, DC: Department of Health and Human Services, 1991.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Association of Behavioral Healthcare Management 1998

Authors and Affiliations

  • Margaret L. Polinsky
    • 1
  • Yih-Ing Hser
    • 2
  • Christine E. Grella
    • 2
  1. 1.School of Public Policy and Social ResearchUniversity of California, Los AngelesLos Angeles
  2. 2.UCLA Drug Abuse Research Centerthe University of California, Los Angeles, Neuropsychiatric Institute & HospitalUSA

Personalised recommendations