Contemporary alcoholics often use multiple substances, but there is little systematic research on this. This study examines the drug use comorbidity of alcoholics (DSM diagnosis, frequency and quantity of drug use); the relationship between drinking and drug use; the relative severity of alcohol- and drug-related problems; and the validity of reports of illicit drug use. Data on substance use were collected from 248 treatment-seeking alcoholics using an expanded Time-line Follow-Back (TLFB) interview. Self-reports of substance use were validated with data from biological specimens (urine and hair). Lifetime diagnosis of joint alcohol and drug dependence/abuse was 64%. Two-thirds (68%) reported using drugs in the past 90 days: 33% powder cocaine; 29% crack cocaine; 15% heroin, and 24% cannabis. The mean proportions of exposed days on which users reported consuming a substance were 57% (alcohol), 26% (powder cocaine), 46% (crack cocaine), 47% (heroin), and 29% (cannabis). Subjects reported consuming an average of 14 standard drinks on a drinking day and $67 worth of drugs on a using day. Drug users reported drinking less than nonusers on a drinking day. Frequency of drinking and drug use were positively correlated; almost all drug users reported simultaneous drinking and drug use; and they rated drugs as the bigger problem. Considerable under-reporting of drug use occurred for the previous 3-4 days, but was more accurate for the previous month.

Predicting outcomes for individual patients entering substance abuse treatment has long been a clinical goal in the addictions field. Intake data from the Addiction Severity Index and other standardized scales were collected on 248 alcohol dependent/abusing patients entering an urban hospital treatment program. The outcome measure was frequency of drinking days in the past 30 days. Baseline data were used to identify predictors of posttreatment drinking frequency at two follow-up interviews (3 and 12 months postbaseline). Stepwise multiple regressions indicated that a set of baseline predictors accounted for similar and substantial proportions of outcome variance at the two follow-ups. When psychosocial predictors were combined with an index of alcohol use severity (which included drinking frequency), the proportions of variance explained were 31% and 28% at 3 and 12 months, respectively. Two psychosocial predictors were significant at both time periods, and thus most likely to be replicated in future research: a treatment motivation index (a combination of measures of commitment to treatment success and internal motivation to seek treatment) and an index of 12-step (selfhelp) participation (a combination of measures of frequency of 12-step meeting attendance and perceived helpfulness of 12-step participation). While the predictability of short-term (3 month) outcomes could help clinicians tailor treatment strategies to maximize patient motivation and reduce drinking behavior, the predictability of longer term (12 month) outcomes could help counselors plan aftercare programs, encourage selfhelp participation, and promote recovery-oriented activities to sustain initial treatment-induced gains.

This study examined the predictive validity of the ASAM Patient Placement Criteria for matching alcoholism patients to recommended levels of care. A cohort of 248 patients newly admitted to inpatient rehabilitation, intensive outpatient, or regular outpatient care was evaluated using both a computerized algorithm and a clinical evaluation protocol to determine whether they were naturalistically matched or mismatched to care. Outcomes were assessed three months after intake. One common type of undertreatment (ie, receiving regular outpatient care when intensive outpatient care was recommended) predicted poorer drinking outcomes as compared with matched treatment, independent of actual level of care received. Overtreatment did not improve outcomes. There also was a trend for better outcomes with residential vs. intensive outpatient treatment, independent of matching. Results were robust for both methods of assessment. Corroboration by more research is needed, but the ASAM Criteria show promise for reducing both detrimental undertreatment and cost-inefficient overtreatment.

This study examined the predictive validity of the ASAM Patient Placement Criteria for matching alcoholism patients to recommended levels of care. A cohort of 248 patients newly admitted to inpatient rehabilitation, intensive outpatient, or regular outpatient care was evaluated using both a computerized algorithm and a clinical evaluation protocol to determine whether they were naturalistically matched or mismatched to care. Outcomes were assessed three months after intake. One common type of undertreatment (ie, receiving regular outpatient care when intensive outpatient care was recommended) predicted poorer drinking outcomes as compared with matched treatment, independent of actual level of care received. Overtreatment did not improve outcomes. There also was a trend for better outcomes with residential vs. intensive outpatient treatment, independent of matching. Results were robust for both methods of assessment. Corroboration by more research is needed, but the ASAM Criteria show promise for reducing both detrimental undertreatment and cost-inefficient overtreatment.

The study examined the feasibility of implementing treatment recommendations derived from the American Society of Addiction Medicine (ASAM) Patient Placement Criteria in an urban addiction treatment program that offered a continuum of levels of care (LOC). A cohort of 281 applicants for alcoholism treatment were evaluated and the reasons for observed differences ("mismatches") between recommended and actual LOC placements were determined. Overall, 88% of the applicants entered treatment, and 72% of these were matched to LOC vs. 28% who were mismatched. Presumptive overtreatment (59%) was more common than undertreatment (41%) among the mismatched patients. The reasons for overtreatment were availability of Medicaid coverage for inpatient rehabilitation (93%), referral sources' treatment philosophy of gradually "stepping down" from inpatient detoxification (59%), social pressures on patients (28%), and mandated treatment (8%). The reasons for presumptive undertreatment were work schedule conflicts (72%), patient reluctance (48%), insurance coverage (15%), and interference with family or personal responsibilities (9%). These results indicate multiple barriers that need to be overcome to enable full implementation of the ASAM Criteria in real world program settings, even when a continuum of care is available.