The ASAM Patient Placement Criteria

Gastfriend, David R.; Mee-Lee, David

doi:10.1300/j069v22s01_01

Cited by 22 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…There are now evidence-based decision supports in the form of: screening instruments for alcohol and drug use (e.g., Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test – Consumption (AUDIT-C), Alcohol, Smoking and Substance Involvement Screening Test (ASSIST)) 34,35 ; assistance in implementing brief interventions 36 ; published clinical practice guidelines for treatment of SUDs 37 ; and guidelines for referral to specialty care environments. 38 …”

Section: The Six Core Elements Of the Ccmmentioning

confidence: 99%

Can Substance Use Disorders be Managed Using the Chronic Care Model? Review and Recommendations from a NIDA Consensus Group

et al. 2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Brain imaging and genetic studies over the past two decades suggest that substance use disorders are best considered chronic illnesses. The passing of the Affordable Care Act in the United States has set the occasion for integrating treatment of substance use disorders into mainstream healthcare; and for using the proactive, team-oriented Chronic Care Model (CCM). This paper systematically examines and compares whether and how well the CCM could be applied to the treatment of substance use disorders, using type 2 diabetes as a comparator. The chronic illness management approach is still new in the field of addiction and research is limited. However comparative findings suggest that most proactive, team treatment-oriented clinical management practices now used in diabetes management are applicable to the substance use disorders; capable of being implemented by primary care teams; and should offer comparable potential benefits in the treatment of substance use disorders. Such care should also improve the quality of care for many illnesses now negatively affected by unaddressed substance abuse.

show abstract

Section: The Six Core Elements Of the Ccmmentioning

confidence: 99%

Can Substance Use Disorders be Managed Using the Chronic Care Model? Review and Recommendations from a NIDA Consensus Group

et al. 2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For SUDs and substance misuse, another challenge is the diversity of treatment options available and in use for SUDs including various forms of pharmacotherapy, behavioral therapies, and combinations of pharmacotherapy and behavioral therapy, in outpatient, acute care, and residential settings. A substance use continuum would need to rely on appropriate assessments of evidence-based therapies in assessing proportions of persons with specific SUDs or substance misuse, as being “on therapy.” Guidelines and criteria such as those of the American Society for Addiction Medicine, Association for Medical Education and Research in Substance Abuse, and others may be useful both in categorizing different treatment types, and in assessment of proportions engaged in any treatment, as well as in patient-specific matched treatment (52–54). …”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Considerations for the Development of a Substance-Related Care and Prevention Continuum Model

Perlman

Jordan

2017

Front. Public Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There are significant gaps in the identification and engagement in care and prevention services of people who use illicit substances. Care continuum models have proven to be useful tools in the evaluation of care for HIV and other conditions; numerous issues in substance-related care and prevention resemble those identified in other continua models. Systems of care for substance misuse and substance use disorders (SUDs) can be viewed as consisting of a prevention and care continuum, reflecting incidence and prevalence of substance misuse and SUDs, screening and identification, medical and psychosocial evaluation for treatment, engagement in evidence-based treatment, treatment retention, relapse prevention, timeliness of step completion, and measures of overall and substance use-related specific morbidity and mortality. Care and prevention continuum models could potentially be applied at program, local, regional, state, and national levels. We discuss important lessons that can be drawn from applications of continuum models in other fields. The development and use of a substance-related care and prevention continuum may yield significant patient care, program evaluation and improvement, and population-level benefits.

show abstract

“…In contrast, the ASAM criteria match a patient by determining a level of care (LOC) prescribed by assessing biopsychosocial measures through the application of validated tools like the Addiction Severity Index or ASI (McLellan et al, 2006; Stallvik et al, 2015; Stallvik & Gastfriend, 2014). The ASAM LOC assessment has proved effective in both outcomes and costs since its dissemination in 1991 (Gastfriend & Mee-Lee, 2003; Kampman & Jarvis, 2015). This approach compares favorably to both over-matching and under-matching.…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Outcomes of a Court-Based Substance Use Disorder Diversion Pilot Program: A Cost Analysis

Roddy

Nighswander

Roddy

et al. 2023

Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This research presents the outcomes of a substance use diversion program in a Midwestern county. Specifically, this work assesses the efficacy (operationalized through re-arrest) and cost-efficacy (operationalized through cost per 1% reduction in re-arrest likelihood) of the program across varying levels of American Society of Addiction Medicine levels of care (ASAM LOC). Using a sample of 430 program participants, findings illustrate that the program overall reduced the likelihood of re-arrest over both a 6- and 12-month horizon across program completers. However, more granular analyses revealed differences across ASAM LOC; the most statistically robust form of treatment was the most intensive 3.5 ASAM LOC, which led to an 82% reduction in 6-month re-arrest and an 80% reduction in 12-month re-arrest for those who completed the program relative to those who did not. The 3.5 ASAM LOC was also the most cost-effective among those explored, costing $66.04 per 1% reduction in recidivism. The outcomes of this work emphasize (a) the relevance of the ASAM LOC in determining program efficacy and (b) the need for varying levels of treatment intensity to better accommodate the needs of substance use disorder diversion participants.

show abstract

The ASAM Patient Placement Criteria

Cited by 22 publications

References 21 publications

Can Substance Use Disorders be Managed Using the Chronic Care Model? Review and Recommendations from a NIDA Consensus Group

Can Substance Use Disorders be Managed Using the Chronic Care Model? Review and Recommendations from a NIDA Consensus Group

Considerations for the Development of a Substance-Related Care and Prevention Continuum Model

Outcomes of a Court-Based Substance Use Disorder Diversion Pilot Program: A Cost Analysis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About