Convergent Validity of the ASAM Criteria in Co-Occurring Disorders

Stallvik, Marianne; Nordahl, Hans M.

doi:10.1080/15504263.2014.906812

Cited by 14 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 33 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Though the type of tool used is at the discretion of the facility, there are concerns with making informed decisions given the differing psychometrics, focus, and target population of many assessment tools [26]. There have been recommendations promoting the use of standard assessment tools such as the SASSI and ASAM [27,28], but these tools have not proven to have comparable effectiveness [29][30][31][32][33][34]. Given this evidence, it may be worth examining alternative standard guidelines for using assessment tools which may aid in ensuring patients receive equitable and timely services [35].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessing public behavioral health services data: a mixed method analysis

Vaughn

Maxey

Keen

et al. 2020

Subst Abuse Treat Prev Policy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Measuring behavioral health treatment accessibility requires timely, comprehensive and accurate data collection. Existing public sources of data have inconsistent metrics, delayed times to publication and do not measure all factors related to accessibility. This study seeks to capture this additional information and determine its importance for informing accessibility and care coordination. Methods The 2018 National Survey for Substance Abuse and Treatment Services (N-SSATS) data were used to identify behavioral health facilities in Indiana and gather baseline information. A telephone survey was administered to facilities with questions parallel to the N-SSATS and additional questions regarding capacity and patient intake. Quantitative analysis includes chi-square tests. A standard qualitative analysis was used for theming answers to open-ended questions. Results About 20% of behavioral health facilities responded to the study survey, and non-response bias was identified by geographic region. Among respondents, statistically significant differences were found in several questions asked in both the study survey and N-SSATS. Data gathered from the additional questions revealed many facilities to have wait times to intake longer than 2 weeks, inconsistency in intake assessment tools used, limited capacity for walk-ins and numerous requirements for engaging in treatment. Conclusion Despite the low response rate to this study survey, results demonstrate that multiple factors not currently captured in public data sources can influence coordination of care. The questions included in this study survey could serve as a framework for routinely gathering these data and can facilitate efforts for successful coordination of care and clinical decision-making.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessing public behavioral health services data: a mixed method analysis

Vaughn

Maxey

Keen

et al. 2020

Subst Abuse Treat Prev Policy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Angarita et al (2007) reported that among 204 clients seeking treatment for SUDs, those mismatched to a lower or a higher level of care than that recommended by the ASAM Criteria TM software were more likely to fail to show to their first treatment appointment. Stallvik and Nordahl (2014) demonstrated that of the 261 clients in their study, those assigned to "dual diagnosis enhanced" services had higher psychiatric composite scores on the Addiction Severity Index (McClellan et al, 1992) than those assigned to "dual diagnosis capable" or "addiction only" services. Although these studies demonstrated that the ASAM Criteria TM has potential as a placement tool for individuals with MHDs, there were several limitations.…”

mentioning

confidence: 92%

“…There is also evidence of both concurrent (e.g. clients assigned to more intensive levels of care with the ASAM Criteria TM generally have progressively higher severity scores on different clinical indices; Stallvik and Nordahl, 2014;Turner et al, 1999) and predictive criterion validity (e.g. clients placed in a level of care different than that recommended by the ASAM Criteria TM had poorer outcomes than those placed in the recommended level of care; Magura et al, 2003;Sharon et al, 2003;Stallvik and Gastfriend, 2014;Stallvik et al, 2015).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Expanding the use of the ASAM Criteria^TM to make mental health level of care placements

Drymalski¹

2018

ADD

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose Despite the prevalence of co-occurring mental health and substance use disorders, the assessment and placement processes for each often remain separate. The purpose of this paper is to describe an expanded use of the American Society of Addiction Medicine (ASAM) CriteriaTM to make placements into substance use, co-occurring, and mental health treatment. Design/methodology/approach A rationale for the development of two new domains (Domain 7, substance use and Domain 8, independent living skills) and preliminary data supporting the use of the ASAM CriteriaTM as a placement process for all types of behavioral health issues will be provided. Findings Dimension 3 and Domains 7 and 8 were correlated with selected clinical indices in the expected direction (Dimension 3: depression (F (4, 4650)=202.092, p<0.001), medication usage (F (4, 4,637)=174.254, p<0.001), and psychotic symptoms (F (4, 4,561)=62.954, p<0.001); Domain 7: alcohol use (F (4, 4,458)=213.786, p<0.001) and drug use (F (4, 4,471)=611.491, p<0.001); and Domain 8: functional impairment (F (4, 3,927)=815.646, p<0.001) and number of “high needs” (F (4, 3,927)=737.568, p<0.001). Research limitations/implications The limitations of this research included a lack of inter-rater reliability data and less established intake assessments. Practical implications This single placement approach for clients seeking behavioral health services can create a more efficient, person-centered intake experience. Originality/value This paper suggests that it is possible to deploy a single assessment and placement approach for all types of behavioral health issues.

show abstract

“…Reviews by Loree et al (2015) and Stevens et al (2014) found that impulsivity is a vulnerability factor for poor treatment outcomes and different conclusions. Ignoring patients' real needs and morbidity increases the risk of dropout, lack of attendance and poorer treatment in terms of substance use and symptom severity in other life areas (Angarita et al, 2007;Magura et al, 2003;Schulte et al, 2010;Stallvik & Nordahl, 2014).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Investigating Patients’ Perceptions of Residential Substance Use Treatment. Is Drop Out a Deliberate or Impulsive Act?

Ormbostad¹,

Otterholt²,

Stallvik

2021

Journal of Social Work Practice in the Addictions

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The underlying mechanisms of drop out in residential substance use disorder (SUD) treatment were investigated from the users' perspective to identify what impacts their drop-out. A survey-based design was used in this study of patients who had decided to drop-out from residential SUD treatment with a therapeutic community approach. The survey included items such as patient satisfaction, psychological burden, and treatment-related factors such as staff competence. We found a high psychological burden among the dropout population. Patients who had considered dropout before leaving treatment reported significantly more difficulty from program-related treatment factors. The patients reported confidence in staff competence. A need for increased access to staff was reported, especially among those actively considering drop-out. Our results suggest that dropping out might not be an impulsive act but a result of prior consideration and decision-making. The study has important clinical implications for social and health services to consider to reduce dropout.

show abstract

Convergent Validity of the ASAM Criteria in Co-Occurring Disorders

Abstract: RESULTS show a high prevalence of co-occurring program recommendations with statistically significant and clinically meaningful differences between patient groups. The convergent validity of the revised version of ASAM Criteria Software is supported by these results.

Cited by 14 publications

References 33 publications

Assessing public behavioral health services data: a mixed method analysis

Assessing public behavioral health services data: a mixed method analysis

Expanding the use of the ASAM Criteria^TM to make mental health level of care placements

Investigating Patients’ Perceptions of Residential Substance Use Treatment. Is Drop Out a Deliberate or Impulsive Act?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

Convergent Validity of the ASAM Criteria in Co-Occurring Disorders

Abstract: RESULTS show a high prevalence of co-occurring program recommendations with statistically significant and clinically meaningful differences between patient groups. The convergent validity of the revised version of ASAM Criteria Software is supported by these results.

Cited by 14 publications

References 33 publications

Assessing public behavioral health services data: a mixed method analysis

Assessing public behavioral health services data: a mixed method analysis

Expanding the use of the ASAM CriteriaTM to make mental health level of care placements

Investigating Patients’ Perceptions of Residential Substance Use Treatment. Is Drop Out a Deliberate or Impulsive Act?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

Expanding the use of the ASAM Criteria^TM to make mental health level of care placements