Patient Placement Criteria

Gastfriend, David R.; Mee-Lee, David

doi:10.1176/appi.books.9781615370030.mg08

Cited by 27 publications

(37 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Also, drug courts perform better when clients were given a continuum substance abuse treatment in addition to outpatient treatment (Carey et al, 2012; Koob, Brocato, & Kleinpeter, 2011; McKee, 2010). Furthermore, individuals were less likely to reoffend when the intensity of the substance abuse treatment was matched to offenders’ needs (Andrews & Bonta, 2010; Babor & Del Boca, 2002; De Leon, Melnick, & Cleland, 2010; Gastfriend, Lu, & Sharon, 2000; Gregoire, 2000; Karno & Longabaugh, 2007; Magura et al, 2003; Mee-Lee & Gastfriend, 2008; Vieira, Skilling, & Peterson-Badali, 2009). In addition, providing participants with more access to evidence-based complementary treatments will significantly improve the outcome of drug courts (Marlowe et al, 2016).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Validating Drug Court Collaboration Instrument: Differences in Model Adherence Between Adult and Juvenile Drug Courts

Mei

Wormer

et al. 2019

Int J Offender Ther Comp Criminol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Drug courts aim to significantly address drug abuse and drug-related criminality. However, the effectiveness of drug courts varies from court to court. The variation of success demands insights regarding what is going on inside the “black box” of drug court practices. Therefore, it is necessary to evaluate to what extent drug courts are operated in adherence with guiding principles and strategies. Using a national sample and validated measures, the current article examines the “black boxes” of adult and juvenile drug courts across the country. We found that, in general, adult drug courts face less model adherence challenges in comparison with juvenile courts, which may, in part, explain why adult drug courts perform better than juvenile drug courts overall.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Validating Drug Court Collaboration Instrument: Differences in Model Adherence Between Adult and Juvenile Drug Courts

Mei

Wormer

et al. 2019

Int J Offender Ther Comp Criminol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Overall, the GAIN contains over 1000 items and 100-symptom count, change score, and service utilization indices that could be used for defining AIs and for dealing with confounding adjustment over time [ 73 ]. Moreover, since the GAIN was developed to assist clinicians with patient placement decisions, over 80 items were designed to operationalize the ASAM Criteria [ 74 , 75 ]. Given the structure of the GAIN, there are hundreds of candidate tailoring variables at baseline that can be used to make the stage 1 services decision.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Developing adaptive interventions for adolescent substance use treatment settings: protocol of an observational, mixed-methods project

Grant

Agniel

Almirall

et al. 2017

Addict Sci Clin Pract

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundOver 1.6 million adolescents in the United States meet criteria for substance use disorders (SUDs). While there are promising treatments for SUDs, adolescents respond to these treatments differentially in part based on the setting in which treatments are delivered. One way to address such individualized response to treatment is through the development of adaptive interventions (AIs): sequences of decision rules for altering treatment based on an individual’s needs. This protocol describes a project with the overarching goal of beginning the development of AIs that provide recommendations for altering the setting of an adolescent’s substance use treatment. This project has three discrete aims: (1) explore the views of various stakeholders (parents, providers, policymakers, and researchers) on deciding the setting of substance use treatment for an adolescent based on individualized need, (2) generate hypotheses concerning candidate AIs, and (3) compare the relative effectiveness among candidate AIs and non-adaptive interventions commonly used in everyday practice.MethodsThis project uses a mixed-methods approach. First, we will conduct an iterative stakeholder engagement process, using RAND’s ExpertLens online system, to assess the importance of considering specific individual needs and clinical outcomes when deciding the setting for an adolescent’s substance use treatment. Second, we will use results from the stakeholder engagement process to analyze an observational longitudinal data set of 15,656 adolescents in substance use treatment, supported by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, using the Global Appraisal of Individual Needs questionnaire. We will utilize methods based on Q-learning regression to generate hypotheses about candidate AIs. Third, we will use robust statistical methods that aim to appropriately handle casemix adjustment on a large number of covariates (marginal structural modeling and inverse probability of treatment weights) to compare the relative effectiveness among candidate AIs and non-adaptive decision rules that are commonly used in everyday practice.DiscussionThis project begins filling a major gap in clinical and research efforts for adolescents in substance use treatment. Findings could be used to inform the further development and revision of influential multi-dimensional assessment and treatment planning tools, or lay the foundation for subsequent experiments to further develop or test AIs for treatment planning.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s13722-017-0099-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

show abstract

“…Decisions about treatment include assignment to specific service settings (placement matching; e.g., residential, outpatient) and to specific modalities (modality matching; specific clinical interventions) (Mee-Lee & Gastfriend, 2008). In addition to people’s strengths and needs, their preferences are also key to this process, with prospective clients given opportunities to make informed decisions about their care in partnership with service professionals (National Collaborating Centre for Mental Health [Great Britain], 2011).…”

Section: The Seven Core Principlesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Seven Core Principles of Substance Use Treatment System Design to Aid in Identifying Strengths, Gaps, and Required Enhancements

Rush

Urbanoski

2019

J. Stud. Alcohol Drugs Suppl.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: System planners and funders encounter many challenges in taking action toward evidence-informed enhancement of substance use treatment systems. Researchers are increasingly asked to contribute expertise to these processes through comprehensive system reviews. In this role, all parties can benefit from guiding frameworks to help organize key questions and data collection activities, and thereby set the stage for both high-level and on-the-ground strategic directions and recommendations. This article summarizes seven core principles of substance use treatment system design that are supported by a large international evidence base and that together have proven applicable as a framework for several systems review projects conducted predominantly in Canada. Method: The methodology was based on a narrative review approach. Results: The principles address a wide range of issues. Specifically, a broad systems approach is needed to address the full spectrum of issues; accessibility and effectiveness are improved through collaboration across stakeholders; a range of system supports are needed; need for services should be grounded in self-determination, holistic cultural practices, choice, and partnership; attention to diversity and social-structural disadvantages are crucial to equitable system design; systematic screening and assessment is needed to match people to appropriate treatment services in a stepped service framework; and, last, individualized treatment planning must include the right mix of evidence-informed interventions. Conclusions: By bringing researchers and stakeholders back to the high-level goals of substance use treatment systems, these principles provide a comprehensive, evidence-based, organizing framework that has the potential to improve the quality of system design and review internationally. Objectifs : Les fonctionnaires et les bailleurs de fonds font face à plusieurs défis lorsqu’ils tentent d’améliorer le système de traitement en toxicomanie à partir des données probantes. Les chercheurs sont de plus en plus sollicités pour mettre à contribution leur expertise afin de revoir en profondeur les systèmes de soin. À ce titre, tous peuvent bénéficier d’un cadre-directeur qui les aide à organiser les questions-clés et les activités de collectes de données afin de créer les conditions requises pour faire émerger des recommandations et des orientations stratégiques visant à la fois la haute direction et le terrain. Cet article résume sept principes fondamentaux liés à la conception de systèmes de traitement en toxicomanie, appuyés par de nombreuses données probantes internationales et qui, ensemble, se sont révélés être un cadre applicable pour plusieurs projets, menés principalement au Canada. Méthode : La méthodologie était basée sur l’approche dites de revue narrative. Résultats : Les principes abordent...

show abstract

Patient Placement Criteria

Cited by 27 publications

References 0 publications

Validating Drug Court Collaboration Instrument: Differences in Model Adherence Between Adult and Juvenile Drug Courts

Validating Drug Court Collaboration Instrument: Differences in Model Adherence Between Adult and Juvenile Drug Courts

Developing adaptive interventions for adolescent substance use treatment settings: protocol of an observational, mixed-methods project

Seven Core Principles of Substance Use Treatment System Design to Aid in Identifying Strengths, Gaps, and Required Enhancements

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About