Case management for persons with substance use disorders

Abstract

Analysis 01.01. Comparison 01 Case Management versus treatment as usual., Outcome 01 Illicit drug use outcomes Analysis 01.02. Comparison 01 Case Management versus treatment as usual., Outcome 02 Alcohol use outcomes. Analysis 01.04. Comparison 01 Case Management versus treatment as usual.

A practical clinical trial of coordinated care management to treat substance use disorders among public assistance beneficiaries.

“…We believe the positive findings of our current study and our prior case management study are likely attributable to substantially higher methodological quality. This explanation is consistent with the findings of the Cochrane review (Hesse et al, 2007) that studies with higher methodological quality yielded greater effect sizes for case management. Of special importance in our studies were the implementation of robust interventions and the ability to ensure the control condition did not receive a set of services similar to those in the experimental condition.…”

A practical clinical trial of coordinated care management to treat substance use disorders among public assistance beneficiaries.

“…We believe the positive findings of our current study and our prior case management study are likely attributable to substantially higher methodological quality. This explanation is consistent with the findings of the Cochrane review (Hesse et al, 2007) that studies with higher methodological quality yielded greater effect sizes for case management. Of special importance in our studies were the implementation of robust interventions and the ability to ensure the control condition did not receive a set of services similar to those in the experimental condition.…”

Implementation of strength-based case management for opioid-dependent patients presenting in medical emergency departments: rationale and study design of a randomized trial

“…While the overall effect relative to TAU was small (d = .12), larger effects on drug use were found in three studies with above-average linkage effects (d = .33) [26]. In the single most relevant trial, a large (n = 711) study with an opioid-dependent sample, case management yielded an intermediate (d = .23) reduction in drug use relative to psychoeducation and drug counseling [26]. Assuming a two-tailed test, df = 1, α = .05, power projections suggested that the proposed cell sizes would allow detection of effects as small as d = .20 to reject the null hypothesis, an effect size that falls midway between small and moderate.…”

Compared with what? An analysis of control‐group types in Cochrane and Campbell reviews of psychosocial treatment efficacy with substance use disorders

“…Hesse et al . 26 , when discussing planned subgroup analyses, noted shortly that case management may not be more effective than other psychosocial interventions, but they were silent on the implications of this point further in the review.…”

A practical clinical trial of coordinated care management to treat substance use disorders among public assistance beneficiaries.

“…We believe the positive findings of our current study and our prior case management study are likely attributable to substantially higher methodological quality. This explanation is consistent with the findings of the Cochrane review (Hesse et al, 2007) that studies with higher methodological quality yielded greater effect sizes for case management. Of special importance in our studies were the implementation of robust interventions and the ability to ensure the control condition did not receive a set of services similar to those in the experimental condition.…”

Implementation of strength-based case management for opioid-dependent patients presenting in medical emergency departments: rationale and study design of a randomized trial

“…While the overall effect relative to TAU was small (d = .12), larger effects on drug use were found in three studies with above-average linkage effects (d = .33) [26]. In the single most relevant trial, a large (n = 711) study with an opioid-dependent sample, case management yielded an intermediate (d = .23) reduction in drug use relative to psychoeducation and drug counseling [26]. Assuming a two-tailed test, df = 1, α = .05, power projections suggested that the proposed cell sizes would allow detection of effects as small as d = .20 to reject the null hypothesis, an effect size that falls midway between small and moderate.…”

Compared with what? An analysis of control‐group types in Cochrane and Campbell reviews of psychosocial treatment efficacy with substance use disorders

“…Hesse et al . 26 , when discussing planned subgroup analyses, noted shortly that case management may not be more effective than other psychosocial interventions, but they were silent on the implications of this point further in the review.…”

A practical clinical trial of coordinated care management to treat substance use disorders among public assistance beneficiaries.

“…We believe the positive findings of our current study and our prior case management study are likely attributable to substantially higher methodological quality. This explanation is consistent with the findings of the Cochrane review (Hesse et al, 2007) that studies with higher methodological quality yielded greater effect sizes for case management. Of special importance in our studies were the implementation of robust interventions and the ability to ensure the control condition did not receive a set of services similar to those in the experimental condition.…”

Implementation of strength-based case management for opioid-dependent patients presenting in medical emergency departments: rationale and study design of a randomized trial

“…While the overall effect relative to TAU was small (d = .12), larger effects on drug use were found in three studies with above-average linkage effects (d = .33) [26]. In the single most relevant trial, a large (n = 711) study with an opioid-dependent sample, case management yielded an intermediate (d = .23) reduction in drug use relative to psychoeducation and drug counseling [26]. Assuming a two-tailed test, df = 1, α = .05, power projections suggested that the proposed cell sizes would allow detection of effects as small as d = .20 to reject the null hypothesis, an effect size that falls midway between small and moderate.…”

Compared with what? An analysis of control‐group types in Cochrane and Campbell reviews of psychosocial treatment efficacy with substance use disorders

“…Hesse et al . 26 , when discussing planned subgroup analyses, noted shortly that case management may not be more effective than other psychosocial interventions, but they were silent on the implications of this point further in the review.…”