Editors' Introduction: Improving Publicly Funded Drug Abuse Treatment Systems: The Target Cities Initiative

Guydish, Joseph; Claus, Ronald E.

doi:10.1080/02791072.2002.10399930

Cited by 8 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Public programs are funded through Center for Substance Abuse Treatment (CSAT) block grants allocated to Single State Agencies (SSAs) responsible for addiction treatment. States, and sometimes individual counties, add to block grant funds (Guydish & Claus, 2002 Williams et al, 2005). The only findings reported from these efforts to date are those from New Jersey where, one year after the policy was implemented, all residential programs provided some tobacco intervention, about half had adopted smoke-free grounds, and 41% of smokers were smoke-free during their residential stay (Williams et al, 2005).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Smoking Prevalence in Addiction Treatment: A Review

Guydish

Passalacqua

Tajima

et al. 2011

Nicotine & Tobacco Research

191

163

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

[CDC], 2009a; Department of Health Education and Welfare, 1964). The benefits of this achievement are not spread evenly, however, as people living in poverty, those with lower education, and persons with mental health diagnoses continue to smoke at high rates. As smoking prevalence decreases in the general population but remains high in subgroups, these subgroups bear a disproportionate burden of smoking-related illness and also frame new targets for both smoking cessation intervention and tobacco control.One population with elevated smoking prevalence includes those with substance use disorders. A developed literature indicates that smokers with other addictions smoke more heavily (Hays et al., 1999;J. Hughes, 2002;J. R. Hughes, 1996;Kozlowski, Jelinek, & Pope, 1986;Marks, Hill, Pomerleau, Mudd, & Blow, 1997;Sobell, 2002), are less successful in their attempts to quit smoking (Bobo, Gilchrist, Schilling, Noach, & Schinke, 1987;Drobes, 2002;Joseph, Nichol, & Anderson, 1993;Kozlowski, Skinner, Kent, & Pope, 1989;Sobell, 2002;Zimmerman, Warheit, Ulbrich, & Auth, 1990), and are more likely to die from smoking-related causes than from other substance-related causes (Hser, McCarthy, & Anglin, 1994;Hurt et al., 1996).The National Comorbidity Study (NCS) was a national sample (n = 8,098) of noninstitutionalized U.S. persons aged 15-54 years, designed to estimate national prevalence of mental illness. NCS data reported smoking prevalence of 56.1% among persons with past-month alcohol disorders and 67.9% among those with substance use disorders (Lasser et al., 2000). The National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions (NESARC) is a general population survey (N = 43,093) including noninstitutionalized U.S adults and weighted to be representative of the larger U.S population. NESARC data show that smoking prevalence is 34.5% among those with alcohol disorders and 52.4% among those with substance use disorders (Grant, Hasin, Chou, Stinson, & Dawson, 2004).Smoking prevalence may be even higher among those who seek treatment for their alcohol or other drug addiction. Current literature cites smoking prevalence among addiction treatment clients as ranging between 49% and 98% (Schroeder, AbstractIntroduction: This review explores whether smoking prevalence in addiction treatment samples exceeds that shown in epidemiological data for persons with alcohol or other drug use disorders and whether smoking may have decreased over time in the addiction treatment population as it has done in the general population.Methods: English language papers published between 1987 and 2009 were searched electronically. Forty papers reporting smoking prevalence for addiction treatment samples in the United States were identified, and key predictor variables were abstracted. Random logistic models were used to assess relationships between each individual predictor (year, treatment modality, primary drug treated, government status, and public/ private funding status) and smoking prevalence. Results:The lowest smoking prevalence aggre...

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Smoking Prevalence in Addiction Treatment: A Review

Guydish

Passalacqua

Tajima

et al. 2011

Nicotine & Tobacco Research

191

163

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…They were selected by virtue of their existing funding sources: the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation sponsored studies (in Chicago and Northern California) of the policy implications of eliminating the SSI DA&A program; CSAT included sites that were part of its Target Cities initiative. This initiative was launched to study the effects of centralizing the assessment and referral of substance abusers seeking admission to publicly funded treatment programs (see Guydish and Claus 2002). By incorporating these existing research infrastructures, CSAT sought to enable a broader study of the effects of terminating the SSI DA&A program.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Termination of Supplemental Security Income Benefits for Drug Addiction and Alcoholism: Results of a Longitudinal Study of the Effects on Former Beneficiaries

Swartz

Baumohl

Lurigio³

2004

Social Service Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…(1) the Target Cities study (Guydish and Claus, 2002) and (2) the Washington State system evaluation (Carney et al, 2000). Because neither study used any eligibility criteria, samples of these studies represent the real world of service delivery to which treatment research aspires to generalize.…”

Section: Treatment Samplesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Subject Eligibility Criteria Can Substantially Influence the Results of Alcohol-Treatment Outcome Research

Humphreys

Harris

Weingardt

2008

J. Stud. Alcohol Drugs

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Most alcohol-treatment studies exclude some patients from participation based on particular criteria (e.g., comorbid illegal drug abuse, homelessness). The current study evaluated whether such eligibility criteria can change the outcome results a study obtains. Method: Five widely used treatment research eligibility criteria-(1) psychiatric problems, (2) medical problems, (3) social-residential instability, (4) low motivation/noncompliance, and (5) drug problems-were applied to two samples of real-world alcohol patients whose outcomes were known. Comparing outcomes of the samples with and without the application of eligibility criteria produced estimates of bias in outcome results, as well as an assessment of change in statistical power. Results: Medical and psychiatric eligibility criteria produced a moderate bias in outcome estimates (e.g., a 10% or less change in outcome results). In contrast, social-residential instability, low motivation/noncompliance, and drug use produced a large (e.g., up to an 18% change) to a very large (e.g., up to a 51% change) bias in outcome estimates. Sensitivity analyses showed that these biases are even larger if eligibility criteria are operationalized in a broad rather than a narrow fashion. Contrary to expectation, eligibility criteria did not produce their theoretically expected benefi t of increased statistical power. Conclusions: Researchers who use eligibility criteria should do so judiciously and interpret outcome results in light of potential bias introduced by the ineligibility of some patients for study enrollment. Efforts to integrate fi ndings across treatment outcome studies should also consider how conclusions might be affected by the eligibility criteria used in different research areas.

show abstract

Editors' Introduction: Improving Publicly Funded Drug Abuse Treatment Systems: The Target Cities Initiative

Cited by 8 publications

References 12 publications

Smoking Prevalence in Addiction Treatment: A Review

Smoking Prevalence in Addiction Treatment: A Review

Termination of Supplemental Security Income Benefits for Drug Addiction and Alcoholism: Results of a Longitudinal Study of the Effects on Former Beneficiaries

Subject Eligibility Criteria Can Substantially Influence the Results of Alcohol-Treatment Outcome Research

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About