This paper reviews the literature examining characteristics associated with treatment outcome in women with substance use disorders. A search of the English language literature from 1975 to 2005 using Medline and PsycInfo databases found 280 relevant articles. Ninety percent of the studies investigating gender differences in substance abuse treatment outcomes were published since 1990, and of those, over 40% were published since the year 2000. Only 11.8% of these studies were randomized clinical trials. A convergence of evidence suggests that women with substance use disorders are less likely, over the lifetime, to enter treatment compared to their male counterparts. Once in treatment, however, gender is not a significant predictor of treatment retention, completion, or outcome. Gender-specific predictors of outcome do exist, however, and individual characteristics and treatment approaches can differentially affect outcomes by gender. While women-only treatment is not necessarily more effective than mixed-gender treatment, some greater effectiveness has been demonstrated by treatments that address problems more common to substance-abusing women or that are designed for specific subgroups of this population. There is a need to develop and test effective treatments for specific subgroups such as older women with substance use disorders, as well as those with co-occurring substance use and psychiatric disorders such as eating disorders. Future research on effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of gender-specific versus standard treatments, as well as identification of the characteristics of women and men who can benefit from mixed-gender versus single-gender treatments, would advance the field.

Recognizing an urgent need for increased access to evidenced-based psychological treatments, public health authorities have recently allocated over $2 billion to better disseminate these interventions. In response, implementation of these programs has begun, some of it on a very large scale, with substantial implications for the science and profession of psychology. But methods to transport treatments to service delivery settings have developed independently without strong evidence for, or even a consensus on, best practices for accomplishing this task or for measuring successful outcomes of training. This article reviews current leading efforts at the national, state, and individual treatment developer levels to integrate evidence-based interventions into service delivery settings. Programs are reviewed in the context of the accumulated wisdom of dissemination and implementation science and of methods for assessment of outcomes for training efforts. Recommendations for future implementation strategies will derive from evaluating outcomes of training procedures and developing a consensus on necessary training elements to be used in these efforts.

Objective Models of evidence-based practice emphasize the consideration of treatment efficacy/effectiveness, clinical expertise, and patient preference in treatment selection and implementation. However, patient preference for psychiatric treatment has been understudied. The aim of this meta-analytic review was to provide an estimate of the proportion of patients preferring psychological treatment relative to medication for psychiatric disorders. Data Sources A literature search was conducted using PubMed, PsycINFO, and the Cochrane Collaboration Library through August, 2011 for studies written in English that assessed patient preferences for the treatment of psychiatric disorders. Study Selection Studies assessing the preferred type of treatment including at least one psychological treatment and one pharmacological treatment were included. Of the 641 articles initially identified, 34 met criteria for inclusion. Data Extraction Authors extracted relevant data including the proportion of participants reporting preference for psychological and pharmacological treatment. Results Across studies, the proportion preferring psychological treatment was 0.75 (95% CI: 0.69 to 0.80), which was significantly higher than equivalent preference (i.e., higher than 0.50, p < .001). Sensitivity analyses suggested that younger patients (p < .05) and women (p < .01) were significantly more like to choose psychological treatment. A preference for psychological treatment was consistently evident in both treatment-seeking and unselected samples (ps < .05), but was somewhat stronger for the unselected samples. Conclusions Aggregation of patient preferences across diverse settings yielded a significant three-fold preference for psychological treatment relative to medication. Given the similar efficacy of these treatments for depression and anxiety, improving access to evidence-based psychological treatment is needed to connect more patients to their preferred treatment.

The gender gap in substance use disorders (SUDs), characterized by greater prevalence in men, is narrowing, highlighting the importance of understanding sex and gender differences in SUD etiology and maintenance. In this critical review, we provide an overview of sex/gender differences in the biology, epidemiology and treatment of SUDs. Biological sex differences are evident across an array of systems, including brain structure and function, endocrine function, and metabolic function. Gender (i.e., environmentally and socioculturally defined roles for men and women) also contributes to the initiation and course of substance use and SUDs. Adverse medical, psychiatric, and functional consequences associated with SUDs are often more severe in women. However, men and women do not substantively differ with respect to SUD treatment outcomes. Although several trends are beginning to emerge in the literature, findings on sex and gender differences in SUDs are complicated by the interacting contributions of biological and environmental factors. Future research is needed to further elucidate sex and gender differences, especially focusing on hormonal factors in SUD course and treatment outcomes; research translating findings between animal and human models; and gender differences in understudied populations, such as those with co-occurring psychiatric disorders and gender-specific populations, such as pregnant women.