The Johnson Intervention is a therapeutic technique in which members of the person's social network confront him or her about the damage the drinking or drug use has caused and the action they will take if treatment is refused. It is highly effective in engaging and retaining clients in inpatient treatment, but, since initial evaluations, two trends have emerged in the field. First, there has been an increase in the use of outpatient treatment and, second, a number of variations of the Johnson Intervention have been developed. The purpose of this study was to compare the effectiveness of the Johnson Intervention with four other methods of referral to outpatient treatment. The other methods included two naturally occurring types of referral (coerced and non-coerced) and two less intense and less costly variations of the Intervention (Unrehearsed and Unsupervised). Effectiveness was determined by both entry into and completion of treatment. A retrospective study was conducted on a sample of 331 cases drawn from an alcohol and other drug treatment agency. Those who had undergone the Johnson Intervention were more likely to enter treatment than those in any of the four other groups. Of those that entered treatment, the Johnson Intervention and the coerced referral groups were equally likely to complete treatment, and both groups were more likely to complete treatment than those in the other three types of referral. Although the Johnson Intervention was the most effective, the variations did show some measure of success and can be viewed as part of an Intervention continuum.

Our goal was to explore, through a Stage I NIH clinical study, the effectiveness of a manual-driven, timely response method for helping the "concerned other" get resistant substance abusers into treatment/self-help with minimum professional time/effort. A manual-driven protocol, "A Relational Sequence for Engagement (ARISE)," was applied with 110 consecutive, initial calls/contacts from concerned others; no cases excluded for research, refusal, or other reasons. The research was conducted at two upstate New York outpatient drug/alcohol clinics. Participants were concerned others who called regarding a cocaine, alcohol, or "other drug" abuser (N = 110); participating family/friends: 11 ARISE clinicians; and 110 substance abusers. ARISE is a graduated continuum starting with the least demanding option/stage, increasing effort as needed to engage substance abusers in treatment/self-help. Stage I: Coaching the concerned other to arrange a meeting of significant others, inviting the substance abuser; Stage II: 1 to 5 additional meetings (median = 2); Stage III: A modified Johnson "Intervention." Primary outcome variables were substance abuser engagement (or not) in treatment/self-help; days between first call and engagement; clinician time/effort. Predictors were concerned other, substance abuser, and clinician demographics; number of participants per case; and Collateral Addiction Severity Index. ARISE resulted in an 83% success rate (55% at Stage I). Median days to engagement was 7 (IQR = 2 to 14). Average total time (telephone, sessions) per case was 1.5 hours. Treatment/self-help chosen was 95% treatment and 5% self-help. Number of family/ friends involved correlated 0.69 with a success/efficiency index. Conclusions. A call from a family member or concerned other for help in getting a loved one into treatment is a rich opportunity for treatment professionals and agencies to engage substance abusers in treatment. These initial calls are similar to referral calls from EAPs or probation officers looking to get an individual started in treatment. ARISE provides an effective, swift, and cost-efficient option for engaging substance abusers in treatment or self-help. The more significant others involved, the greater the success of treatment engagement.

As a subject's true disease status is seldom known with certainty, it is necessary to compare the performance of new diagnostic tests with those of a currently accepted but imperfect 'gold standard'. Errors made by the gold standard mean that the sensitivity and specificity calculated for the new test are biased, and do not correctly estimate the new method's sensitivity and specificity. The traditional approach to this problem was 'discrepant resolution', in which the subjects for whom the two methods disagreed were subjected to a third 'resolver' test. Recent work has pointed out that this does not automatically solve the problem. A sounder approach goes beyond the discordant test results and tests at least some of the subjects with concordant results with the resolver also. This leaves some issues unresolved. One is the basic question of the direction of biases in various estimators. We point out that this question does not have a simple universal answer. Another issue, if one is to test a sample of the subjects with concordant results rather than all cases, is how to compute estimates and standard errors of the measures of test performance, notably sensitivity and specificity of the test method relative to the resolver. Expressions for these standard errors are given and illustrated with a numeric example. It is shown that using just a sample of subjects with concordant results may lead to great savings in assays. The design issue of how many concordant cells to test depends on the numbers of concordants and discordants. The formulae given show how to evaluate impact of different choices for these numbers and hence settle on a design that gives the required precision of estimates.

No abstract

Abstract.Comprehensive detection and quantitation of metabolites from a biological source constitute the major challenges of current metabolomics research. Two chemical derivatization methodologies, butylation and amination, were applied to human serum for ionization enhancement of a broad spectrum of metabolite classes, including steroids and amino acids. LC-ESI-MS analysis of the derivatized serum samples provided a significant signal elevation across the total ion chromatogram to over a 100-fold increase in ionization efficiency. It was also demonstrated that derivatization combined with isotopically labeled reagents facilitated the relative quantitation of derivatized metabolites from individual as well as pooled samples.