Intensity of Case Management Services

Jansson, Lauren M.; Svikis, Dace S.; Breon, D.; Cieślak, Roman

doi:10.1300/j200v03n04_04

Cited by 7 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 27 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Of the 15 clinical trials with personal functioning outcomes, all but four had positive effect sizes that ranged from 0.003 (53) to 0.608 (62) (see Figure 5). Three studies had a very small negative effect size for functioning outcomes (12, 36, 49), but one study reported a negative effect size of −0.34 (64).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Expanded case management services have been frequently applied among substance users with additional mental health (82, 83) and HIV/AIDS problems (49, 84). It is a standard part of comprehensive case management models like intensive case management (53, 55) and Assertive Community Treatment (ACT) (54, 64). Importantly, various studies were excluded from this review, as they offered comprehensive interventions combining case management with other viable approaches (e.g., cognitive behavioral therapy, Housing First programs), in which case management effects could not be disentangled from these additional interventions.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A Meta-Analysis of the Efficacy of Case Management for Substance Use Disorders: A Recovery Perspective

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Case management is a client-centered approach to improve the coordination and continuity of service delivery, especially for persons with substance use disorders (SUD) and multiple and complex support needs. This intervention supports individuals by helping them identify needed services, facilitate linkage with services, and promote participation and retention in services. However, it is questionable whether case management is equally effective in promoting recovery and aspects of personal functioning. The objective was to conduct an updated meta-analysis and to assess whether case management was more effective than treatment as usual (TAU) among persons with SUD for improving treatment-related (e.g., successful linkage with and retention in treatment) as well as personal functioning outcomes (e.g., substance use). Methods: This meta-analysis focuses on randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that included persons with alcohol or drug use disorders and compared case management with TAU. To be eligible, interventions had to meet core case management functions as defined in the literature. We conducted searches of the following databases to May 2017: the Cochrane Drugs and Alcohol Specialized Register, CENTRAL, PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, and Web of Science. Also, reference lists of retrieved publications were scanned for relevant (un)published studies. Results: The overall effect size for case management compared to TAU across all outcome categories and moments was small and positive (SMD = 0.18, 95% CI 0.07–0.28), but statistically significant. Effects were considerably larger for treatment tasks (SMD = 0.33, 95% CI 0.18–0.48) than for personal functioning outcomes (SMD = 0.06, 95% CI −0.02 to 0.15). The largest effect sizes were found for retention in substance abuse treatment and linkage with substance abuse services. Moderator effects of case management models and conditions were assessed, but no significant differences were observed. Conclusions: The primary results from earlier meta-analyses were supported: case management is more effective than TAU conditions for improving outcomes, but this effect is significantly larger for treatment-related tasks than for personal functioning outcomes. Case management can be an important supplement to available services for improving linkage and retention, although further research is needed to assess its potential for supporting recovery from a longitudinal perspective.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Meta-Analysis of the Efficacy of Case Management for Substance Use Disorders: A Recovery Perspective

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In two of the trials, models of case management were compared with one another (Essock et al, 2006;Jansson, Svikis, Breon, & Cieslak, 2005;Manuel, Covell, Jackson, & Essock, 2011).…”

Section: Data Extraction and Preparationmentioning

confidence: 99%

The efficacy of case management with persons who have substance abuse problems: A three-level meta-analysis of outcomes.

Rapp

Noortgate

Broekaert

et al. 2014

Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: Case management has been widely used as an intervention in the treatment of substance abuse problems. Its effectiveness has been associated with over 450 outcomes, some consistent with case management's traditional functions of linking (treatment tasks) and others typical of treatment outcomes such as substance use (personal functioning). Method: Meta-analyses were conducted on 21 randomized clinical trials in which we compared the efficacy of case management with standard-of-care conditions and active interventions. Characteristics of case managementincluding targeted outcomes, case management model, location on the treatment continuum, and intervention quality-were treated as moderators, as were 2 study features, length of follow-up, and methodological quality. Results: Results showed that case management was efficacious across all targeted outcomes when compared with standard of care (␦ ϭ 0.15, SE ϭ 0.037), although the overall effect was weak. There was a significant difference, F(1, 429) ϭ 25.26, p Ͻ .0001, between case management's effect on treatment task outcomes such as linking with and staying in treatment (␦ 2 ϭ .29, p ϭ .001) and improving individuals' functioning of persons with substance abuse problems in areas such as substance use and HIV risk behaviors (␦ 1 ϭ 0.06, p ϭ .05). Moderator analyses demonstrated that (a) 4 case management models were more effective than standard of care in improving treatment task outcomes and (b) case management was effective either in or out of treatment. Conclusions: Our results demonstrate that case management is effective across a wide range of treatment task outcomes, but more limited in its effectiveness with personal functioning outcomes.

show abstract

“…In comparing dosage of strengths case management across three conditions (delivered within drug treatment programs, delivered by an outside service agency, and delivered by telephone), Huber et al (2003) reported that, within the first 90 days of the intervention, the mean number of hours of contact ranged from 3.0 to 3.2 and the mean number of sessions attended ranged from 3.5 to 5.7. Jansson et al (2005) compared routine case management for drug-dependent women and their newborns with intensive case management that involved additional and more frequent contact with the mother and infant. Over the 4-month intervention, women in routine case management attended a mean of 1.6 sessions (range = 0 to 4), whereas those in intensified case management attended a mean of 5.8 visits (range = 0 to 9).…”

Section: Session Adherence In Behavioral Treatment Interventionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Adherence to Scheduled Sessions in a Randomized Field Trial of Case Management: The Criminal Justice–Drug Abuse Treatment Studies Transitional Case Management Study

et al. 2009

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Transitional Case Management (TCM) study, one of the projects of the Criminal Justice Drug Abuse Treatment Studies (CJ-DATS) cooperative, was a multi-site randomized test of whether a strengths-based case management intervention provided during an inmate’s transition from incarceration to the community increases participation in community substance abuse treatment, enhances access to needed social services, and improves drug use and crime outcomes. As in many intervention studies, TCM experienced a relatively large percentage of treatment-group participants who attended few or no scheduled sessions. The paper discusses issues with regard to participation in community case management sessions, examines patterns of session attendance among TCM participants, and analyzes client and case manager characteristics that are associated with number of sessions attended and with patterns of attendance. The average number of sessions (out of 12) attended was 5.7. Few client or case manager characteristics were found to be significantly related to session attendance. Clinical and research implications of the findings and of adherence in case management generally are discussed.

show abstract

Intensity of Case Management Services

Cited by 7 publications

References 27 publications

A Meta-Analysis of the Efficacy of Case Management for Substance Use Disorders: A Recovery Perspective

A Meta-Analysis of the Efficacy of Case Management for Substance Use Disorders: A Recovery Perspective

The efficacy of case management with persons who have substance abuse problems: A three-level meta-analysis of outcomes.

Adherence to Scheduled Sessions in a Randomized Field Trial of Case Management: The Criminal Justice–Drug Abuse Treatment Studies Transitional Case Management Study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About