Using Administrative Data for Longitudinal Substance Abuse Research

Abstract

The utilization of administrative data in substance abuse research has become more widespread than ever. This selective review synthesizes recent extant research from 31 articles to consider what has been learned from using administrative data to conduct longitudinal substance abuse research in four overlapping areas: (1) service access and utilization, (2) underrepresented populations, (3) treatment outcomes, and (4) cost analysis. Despite several notable limitations, administrative data contribute valuable information, particularly in the investigation of service system interactions and outcomes among substance abusers as they unfold and influence each other over the long term. This critical assessment of the advantages and disadvantages of using existing administrative data within a longitudinal framework should stimulate innovative thinking regarding future applications of administrative data for longitudinal substance abuse research purposes.

Explaining Racial/Ethnic Differences in Adolescent Substance Abuse Treatment Completion in the United States: A Decomposition Analysis

“…Although it does not represent a clinically validated endpoint, completion is a predictor of future abstinence and recovery. [37] Other variables in the TEDS, such as substance use history, are self-reported and could be subject to recall and social desirability bias. However, these self-report measures have been shown to be accurate in other studies.…”

Acute care utilization for inherited metabolic diseases among children identified through newborn screening in New York state

“…[18][19][20][21] Using the NYSDOH SPARCS hospital discharge files, we were able to collect information on health-care utilization of IMD children during their first 3 years after birth.…”

Comparative Effectiveness of California’s Proposition 36 and Drug Court Programs Before and After Propensity Score Matching

“…In particular, offenders with extremely long lengths of treatment (e.g., some heroin users receiving methadone maintenance treatment) might have been excluded. However, administrative data represent a valuable resource for the evaluation of substance abuse treatment outcomes (Evans, Grella, Murphy, & Hser, 2010; McCarty et al, 1998) and use of this data allowed analyses on a large and unprecedented proportion of offenders admitted to treatment statewide under Prop 36 and drug courts. Third, success at treatment discharge may have differed with examination of other indicators, but the composite indicator was congruent with prior published work (Hser, Evans, Teruya, Huang, & Anglin, 2007) and, more important, it permitted constructive examination of how well offenders met all of the intended goals of these programs.…”