Journal of General Internal Medicine

, Volume 18, Issue 1, pp 1–8 | Cite as

Effect of primary medical care on addiction and medical severity in substance abuse treatment programs

  • Peter D. Friedmann
  • Zhiwei Zhang
  • James Hendrickson
  • Michael D. Stein
  • Dean R. Gerstein
Original Articles

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To examine whether the availability of primary medical care on-site at addiction treatment programs or off-site by referral improves patients’ addiction severity and medical outcomes, compared to programs that offer no primary care.

DESIGN: Secondary analysis of a prospective cohort study of patients admitted to a purposive national sample of substance abuse treatment programs.

SETTING: Substance abuse treatment programs in major U.S. metropolitan areas eligible for demonstration grant funding from the federal Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration.

RESPONDENTS: Administrators at 52 substance abuse treatment programs, and 2,878 of their patients who completed treatment intake, discharge, and follow-up interviews.

MEASUREMENTS: Program administrators reported whether the program had primary medical care available on-site, only off-site, or not at all. Patients responded to multiple questions regarding their addiction and medical status in intake and 12-month follow-up interviews. These items were combined into multi-item composite scores of addiction and medical severity. The addiction severity score includes items measuring alcohol and drug use, employment, illegal activities, legal supervision, family and other social support, housing, physical conditions, and psychiatric status. The medical severity score includes measures of perceived health, functional limitations, and comorbid physical conditions.

MAIN RESULTS: After controlling for treatment modality, geographic region, and multiple patient-level characteristics, patients who attended programs with on-site primary medical care experienced significantly less addiction severity at 12-month follow-up (regression coefficient, −25.9; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], −43.2 to −8.5), compared with patients who attended programs with no primary medical care. However, on-site care did not significantly influence medical severity at follow-up (coefficient, −0.28; 95% CI, −0.69 to 0.14). Referral to off-site primary care exerted no detectable effects on either addiction severity (coefficient, −9.0; 95% CI, −26.5 to 8.5) or medical severity (coefficient, −0.03; 95% CI, −0.37 to 0.44).

CONCLUSIONS: On-site primary medical care improves substance abuse treatment patients’ addiction-related outcomes, but not necessarily their health-related outcomes. Further study is needed to discern the mechanism through which on-site primary care might improve the addiction-related outcomes of substance abuse treatment.

Key words

delivery of health care, integrated outcome and process assessment (health care) primary health care substance abuse treatment centers substance-related disorders 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Gerstein DR, Datta AR, Ingels JS, et al. National Treatment Improvement Evaluation Study. Final Report. Rockville, Md: Center for Substance Abuse Treatment, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration; 1997.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Friedmann PD, Lemon S, Anderson BJ, Stein MD. Predictors of follow-up health status in the Drug Abuse Treatment Outcome Study (DATOS). Drug Alcohol Depend. In press.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Stein MD. Medical consequences of substance abuse. Psychiatr Clin N America. 1999;22:351–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Simpson DD, Sells SB. Effectiveness of treatment of drug abuse: an overview of the DARP research program. Adv Alcohol Subst Abuse. 1982;2:7–29.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hubbard RL, Marsden ME, Rachal JV, Harwood HJ, Cavanaugh ER, Ginzburg HM. Drug Abuse Treatment: A National Study of Effectiveness. Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press; 1989.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Laine C, Hauck WW, Gourevitch MN, Rothman J, Cohen A, Turner BJ. Regular outpatient medical and drug abuse care and subsequent hospitalization of persons who use illicit drugs. JAMA. 2001;285:2355–62.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Levin SM, Trumble JG, Edmunds M, Statman JM, Peterson RC. Perspectives on linkage of primary health care and substance abuse treatment. J Addict Dis. 1993;12:1–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    D’Aunno TA. Linking substance abuse treatment and primary health care. In: Egertson JA, Fox DM, Leshner AI, eds. Treating Drug Abusers Effectively. Malden, Mass: Blackwell Publishers; 1997:311–51.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Samet JH, Friedmann P, Saitz R. Benefits of linking primary medical care and substance abuse services: patient, provider, and societal perspectives. Arch Intern Med. 2001;161:85–91.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Umbricht-Schneiter A, Ginn DH, Pabst KM, Bigelow GE. Providing medical care to methadone clinic patients: referral vs on-site care. Am J Public Health. 1994;84:207–10.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Friedmann PD, Alexander JA, Jin L, D’Aunno TA. On-site primary care and mental health services in outpatient drug abuse treatment units. J Behav Health Serv Res. 1999;26:80–94.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gerstein DR, Harwood HJ. eds. Treatment of Drug Problems: A Study of the Evolution, Effectiveness and Financing of Public and Private Drug Treatment Systems. Report of the Committee for the Substance Abuse Coverage Study, Division of Health Care Services, Institute of Medicine. Washington D.C.: National Academy Press; 1990.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    McLellan AT, Kushner H, Metzger D, et al. The fifth edition of the Addiction Severity Index. J Subst Abuse Treat. 1992;9:199–213.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Nunally JC. Psychometric theory. 2nd ed. New York: McGraw Hill; 1978.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Susmilch CE, Johnson WT. Factor scores for constructing linear composites. Do different techniques make a difference? Sociol Meth Res. 1975;4:166–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Bryk A, Raudenbush S. Hierarchical Linear Models. Newbury Park: Sage; 1992.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Littell RC, Milliken GA, Stroup W, Wolfinger RD. SAS System For Mixed Models. Cary, NC: SAS Institute, Inc.; 1996.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Weisner C, Mertens J, Parthasarathy S, Moore C, Lu Y. Integrating primary medical care with addiction treatment: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA. 2001;286:1715–23.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Walsh DC, Hingson RW, Merrigan DM, Levenson SM, Coffman GA, Heeren T. The impact of a physician’s warning on recovery after alcoholism treatment. JAMA. 1992;267:663–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    McLellan AT, Arndt IO, Metzger DS, Woody GE, O’Brien CP. The effects of psychosocial services in substance abuse treatment. JAMA. 1993;269:1953–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Broome KM, Simpson DD, Joe GW. Patient and program attributes related to treatment process indicators in DATOS. Drug Alcohol Depend. 1999;57:127–35.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Society of General Internal Medicine 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Peter D. Friedmann
    • 1
  • Zhiwei Zhang
    • 2
  • James Hendrickson
    • 2
  • Michael D. Stein
    • 1
  • Dean R. Gerstein
    • 2
  1. 1.the Division of General Internal Medicine, Departments of Medicine and Community HealthBrown University School of Medicine and Rhode Island HospitalProvidence
  2. 2.Washington OfficeThe National Opinion Research Center of the University of ChicagoWashington, D.C.

Personalised recommendations