Relationships Between Treatment Components, Client-Level Factors, and Positive Treatment Outcomes

  • Robert G. Orwin
  • Bruce Ellis
  • Valerie Williams
  • Michael Maranda
Article

Abstract

How different amounts and components of treatment affect substance abuse treatment outcomes is fundamentally important to evaluating current treatment practices and recommending improvements. Through a secondary analysis of data from the National Treatment Improvement Evaluation Study (NTIES), the present study examined the relationships between treatment components, client-level factors, and positive treatment outcomes. Several components were shown tohave significant effects on the odds of a positive outcome, over and above the effects of client background characteristics. Depending on treatment modality, these included length of stay; whether or not clients reported seeing their treatment plan hours per month in group and individual counseling; utilization ofeducational, vocational, and other ancillary services; use of antianxiety and drug and alcohol medications; and client matching. Several interactions between client-level factors and treatment components were also observed. Studylimitations are discussed, followed by implications for policy and practiceand suggestions for further research.

substance abuse substance abuse treatment treatment component treatment outcomes 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

REFERENCES

  1. Brochu, S., Landry, M., Bergeron, J., & Chiocchio, F. (1997). The impact of a treatment process for substance users as a function of their degree of exposure to treatment. Substance Use Misuse, 32(14), 1993–2011.Google Scholar
  2. Center for Substance Abuse Treatment. (1993). State methadone treatment guidelines (Treatment Improvement Protocol [TIP] Series No. 1). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.Google Scholar
  3. Center for Substance Abuse Treatment. (1994). Assessment and treatment of cocaine-abusing methadone maintained patients (Treatment Improvement Protocol [TIP] Series No. 10). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.Google Scholar
  4. Center for Substance Abuse Treatment. (1995). Matching treatment to patient needs in opioid substitution therapy (Treatment Improvement Protocol [TIP] Series No. 20). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.Google Scholar
  5. Daley, D.C., Sallourn, I. M., Zuckoff, A., Kinisci, L., & Thase, M.E. (1998). Increasing treatment adherence among outpatients with depression and cocaine dependence: Results of a pilot study. American Journal of Psychiatry, 155(11), 1611–1613.Google Scholar
  6. De Leon, G. (1991). Retention in drug-free therapeutic communities. In R. W. Pickens, C. G. Leukefeld, & C. R. Schuster (Eds.), Improving drug abuse treatment (NIDA Research Monograph 106, NIH Publication No. 91–1754, pp. 218–244). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
  7. Etheridge, R. M., Craddock, S. G., Dunteman, G. H., & Hubbard, R. L. (1995). Treatment services in two national studies of community-based drug abuse treatment programs. Journal of Substance Abuse, 7, 9–26.Google Scholar
  8. Hosmer, D.W., & Lemeshow, S. (1989). Applied Logistic Regression. New York: John Wiley.Google Scholar
  9. Hser, Y. I., Anglin, M. D, & Liu, Y. (1991). A survival analysis of gender and ethnic differences in responsiveness to methadone maintenance treatment. International Journal of the Addictions, 25(11A), 1295–1315.Google Scholar
  10. McCusker, J., Stoddard, A., Frost, R., & Zorn, M. (1996). Planned versus actual duration of drug abuse treatment: Reconciling observational and experimental evidence. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disorders, 184(8), 482–489.Google Scholar
  11. McLellan, A. T., Alterman, A. I., Metzger, D. S., Grissom, G. R., Woody, G. E., Luborsky, L., & O'Brien, P. (1994). Similarity of outcome predictors across opiate, cocaine, and alcohol treatments: Role of treatment services. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 62(6), 1141–1158.Google Scholar
  12. National Opinion Research Center. (1997, March). The national treatment improvement evaluation study final report. Prepared for the Center for Substance Abuse Treatment, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.Google Scholar
  13. Orwin, R. G., Garrison-Mogren, R., Jacobs, M. L., & Sonnefeld, L. J. (1999). Retention of homeless clients in substance abuse treatment: Findings from the NIAAA cooperative agreement program. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 7(1), 45–66.Google Scholar
  14. Ouimette, P. C., Ahrens, C., Moos, R. H., & Finney, J. W. (1998). During treatment changes in substance abuse patients with post traumatic stress disorder. The influence of specific interventions and program environments. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 15(6), 555–564.Google Scholar
  15. Tims, F. M., Horton, A. M., Jr., Fletcher, B.W., & Price, R.H. (1992). Assessing outpatient drug abuse treatment programs. Evaluation Practice, 13(l), 27–31.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • Robert G. Orwin
    • 1
  • Bruce Ellis
    • 1
  • Valerie Williams
    • 1
  • Michael Maranda
    • 1
  1. 1.Battelle Centers for Public Health Research and EvaluationUSA

Personalised recommendations