2010
DOI: 10.5042/bjfp.2010.0036
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Overcoming the challenges of evaluating dual diagnosis interventions in medium secure units

Abstract: units using conventional outcome measures, and proposes alternative measures. Evaluating the effectiveness of interventions is important because of the ramifications of dual diagnosis for service user prognosis. Dual diagnosis is associated with poor treatment compliance, non-compliance with rules and regulations, failed conditional discharge and increased risk of relapse (Bellack & Gearon, 1998;Main & Gudjonsson, 2006). Dual diagnosis is also associated with re-admission (Carey & Correia,

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2

Citation Types

0
2
0

Year Published

2010
2010
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
3

Relationship

1
2

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 3 publications
(2 citation statements)
references
References 24 publications
0
2
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Given data supporting efficacy for both group and individual cognitive behaviour therapy approaches to substance abuse (Rotgers & Nguyen, 2006), the former was favoured on pragmatic grounds. This evaluation acknowledges the necessity of using outcome measures that are an indirect or proxy assessment of progress in treatment or which have been shown to relate to outcome in other settings (Long & Hollin, 2009;Swain, Boulter & Piek, 2010).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Given data supporting efficacy for both group and individual cognitive behaviour therapy approaches to substance abuse (Rotgers & Nguyen, 2006), the former was favoured on pragmatic grounds. This evaluation acknowledges the necessity of using outcome measures that are an indirect or proxy assessment of progress in treatment or which have been shown to relate to outcome in other settings (Long & Hollin, 2009;Swain, Boulter & Piek, 2010).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…service users' readiness for change and motivations for treatment when Motivational Interviewing techniques are employed (Piek, 2009;Carey and Correia, 1998;Swain et al, 2010). However, as yet, there is little empirical evidence to support the adoption of this approach in a secure inpatient setting, where there may be complicating issues such as limited insight and low levels of compliance (Swain et al, 2010).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 98%