The impact of contracting and prompting substance abuse treatment entry: A pilot trial

Lash, Steven J.; Gilmore, Jerome D.; Burden, Jennifer L.; Weaver, Kendra; Blosser, Sharon L.; Finney, Montenique L.

doi:10.1016/j.addbeh.2004.05.026

Cited by 5 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This study investigated videoconferencing as a means to reduce premature dropout, but videoconferencing is, of course, only one of many initiatives that may be used. Other useful examples include reduction of waiting time at the beginning of the treatment course [ 9 , 26 ], treatment matching [ 6 , 37 ], explanation of the anticipated treatment [ 9 ], use of clinical guidelines [ 26 , 38 - 41 ], a less focal and talkative therapist at the beginning of the treatment course [ 9 ], engagement of relatives in the treatment process [ 9 ], aggressive pursuit [ 9 ], use of attendance contracting and prompting [ 42 ], and contact with no-shows [ 43 ].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effectiveness of Optional Videoconferencing-Based Treatment of Alcohol Use Disorders: Randomized Controlled Trial

Tarp¹,

Bojesen²,

Mejldal³

et al. 2017

JMIR Ment Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundTreatment of alcohol use disorders (AUDs) is characterized by an adherence rate below 50%. Clinical research has found that patient adherence enhances treatment effect; hence, health authorities, clinicians, and researchers strive to explore initiatives contributing to patients receiving treatment. Concurrently, videoconferencing-based treatment is gaining ground within other addiction and psychiatric areas.ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to test whether optional videoconferencing increases adherence to and effectiveness of AUD treatment in a randomized controlled trial (RCT). We hypothesized that the intervention would decrease premature dropout (the primary outcome), as well as increase successful treatment termination, treatment duration, and treatment outcome (secondary outcomes).MethodsWe conducted this study in the public outpatient alcohol clinic in Odense, Denmark, between September 2012 and April 2013. It was an RCT with 2 groups: treatment as usual (TAU) and treatment as usual with add-on intervention (TAU+I). The TAU+I group had the option, from session to session, to choose to receive treatment as usual via videoconferencing. Data consisted of self-reported responses to the European version of the Addiction Severity Index (EuropASI). We collected data at baseline, at follow-up at 3, 6, and 12 months, and at discharge.ResultsAmong consecutive patients attending the clinic, 128 met the inclusion criteria, and 71 of them were included at baseline. For the primary outcome, after 180 days, 2 of 32 patients (6%) in the TAU+I group and 12 of 39 patients (31%) in the TAU group had dropped out prematurely. The difference is significant (P=.008). After 365 days, 8 patients (25%) in the TAU+I group and 17 patients (44%) in the TAU group had dropped out prematurely. The difference is significant (P=.02). For the secondary outcomes, significantly more patients in the TAU+I group were still attending treatment after 1 year (P=.03). We found no significant differences between the 2 groups with regard to successful treatment termination and treatment outcome.ConclusionsThe results indicate that offering patients optional videoconferencing may prevent premature dropouts from treatment and prolong treatment courses. However, the small sample size precludes conclusions regarding the effect of the intervention, which was not detectable in the patients’ use of alcohol and severity of problems.Trial RegistrationThe Regional Health Research Ethics Committee System in Denmark: S-20110052; https://komite.regionsyddanmark.dk/wm258128 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/6tTL3CO6u)

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effectiveness of Optional Videoconferencing-Based Treatment of Alcohol Use Disorders: Randomized Controlled Trial

Tarp¹,

Bojesen²,

Mejldal³

et al. 2017

JMIR Ment Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Several investigators have addressed the problem of engaging patients in longer term treatments postdetoxification. Familiarizing patients with their aftercare program (Verinis & Taylor, 1994), contracting with them to attend (Lash, 1998), and providing social reinforcement and prompting (Lash, Petersen, O'Connor, & Lehmann, 2001;Lash et al, 2005) improve chances of admission. A recent clinical trial by Lash et al (2007) combining contracting, prompting, and social reinforcement resulted in greater treatment entry, retention, and abstinence after a residential treatment stay.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Intensive Treatment Unit: A brief inpatient detoxification facility demonstrating good postdetoxification treatment entry

Carroll

Triplett

Mondimore

2009

Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Reasons for Proposition 36 treatment no-show are very similar with those provided by other treatment-seeking populations, that is, unstable treatment motivation; legal involvement; and conflicts related to transportation, program eligibility, and scheduling (Hser, Maglione, Polinsky, & Anglin, 1998). Although the evidence is mixed (Donovan, Rosengren, Downey, Cox, & Sloan, 2001;Garner, Godley, & Funk, 2002;Lash et al, 2005), employing interventions to address barriers to treatment entry can prevent early attrition and may facilitate treatment entry (Gariti et al, 1995;Stasiewicz & Stalker, 1999). Ample research has indicated that treatment can work, but the benefits associated with treatment can be realized only if individuals actually enter care.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 80%

Treatment entry barriers among California's Proposition 36 offenders

Evans

Hser

2008

Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

To explore why some Proposition 36 offenders do not enter drug treatment, we analyzed self-reported and administrative data to compare the characteristics, perceptions, and rearrest rates of 124 untreated and 1,335 treated offenders assessed by 30 sites in five California counties. Offenders were comparable in many domains at assessment; however, untreated offenders were younger, not employed, more criminally severe, and less motivated for treatment. To avoid incarceration was the primary reason for choosing Proposition 36, but there were fewer untreated offenders who felt ready for treatment (12.9% vs. 35.7%) and there were more who accepted the Proposition 36 program only upon recommendation by others (37.9% vs. 11.7%). Reasons for not entering treatment included rearrest (31.6%), no desire for treatment (23.9%), and assignment to a program that was too far away (11.1%). Both groups had fewer total arrests after assessment, but recidivism was higher among untreated offenders. Understanding untreated Proposition 36 offenders can aid efforts to improve treatment entry rates and related outcomes.

show abstract

The impact of contracting and prompting substance abuse treatment entry: A pilot trial

Cited by 5 publications

References 18 publications

Effectiveness of Optional Videoconferencing-Based Treatment of Alcohol Use Disorders: Randomized Controlled Trial

Effectiveness of Optional Videoconferencing-Based Treatment of Alcohol Use Disorders: Randomized Controlled Trial

The Intensive Treatment Unit: A brief inpatient detoxification facility demonstrating good postdetoxification treatment entry

Treatment entry barriers among California's Proposition 36 offenders

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About