Literature DB >> 19339133

What could the program have done differently? A qualitative examination of reasons for leaving outpatient treatment.

Alexandre B Laudet1, Virginia Stanick, Brian Sands.   

Abstract

Attrition from treatment for substance abuse disorders is a persistent challenge that severely limits the effectiveness of services. Although a large body of research has sought to identify predictors of retention, the perspective of clients of services is rarely examined. This exploratory qualitative study presents clients' stated reasons for leaving outpatient treatment (n = 135, 54% of the sample of 250) and their views of what could have been done differently to keep them engaged in services. Obstacles to retention fell into program- and individual-level factors. Program-level barriers include dissatisfaction with the program, especially counselors; unmet social services needs; and lack of flexibility in scheduling. Individual-level barriers to retention were low problem recognition and substance use. Study limitations are noted, and the implications of findings for research and practice are discussed, emphasizing the need to understand and address clients' needs and expectations starting at intake to maximize treatment retention and the likelihood of positive outcomes.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19339133      PMCID: PMC2716417          DOI: 10.1016/j.jsat.2009.01.001

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Subst Abuse Treat        ISSN: 0740-5472


  47 in total

1.  The relationship between the quality of drug user treatment and program completion: understanding the perceptions of women in a prison-based program.

Authors:  S M Strauss; G P Falkin
Journal:  Subst Use Misuse       Date:  2000 Oct-Dec       Impact factor: 2.164

2.  Does retention matter? Treatment duration and improvement in drug use.

Authors:  Zhiwei Zhang; Peter D Friedmann; Dean R Gerstein
Journal:  Addiction       Date:  2003-05       Impact factor: 6.526

Review 3.  Reconsidering the evaluation of addiction treatment: from retrospective follow-up to concurrent recovery monitoring.

Authors:  A Thomas McLellan; James R McKay; Robert Forman; John Cacciola; Jack Kemp
Journal:  Addiction       Date:  2005-04       Impact factor: 6.526

4.  An exploration of the effect of on-site 12-step meetings on post-treatment outcomes among polysubstance-dependent outpatient clients.

Authors:  Alexandre Laudet; Virginia Stanick; Brian Sands
Journal:  Eval Rev       Date:  2007-12

5.  Predictors of outcome in LAAM, buprenorphine, and methadone treatment for opioid dependence.

Authors:  Lisa A Marsch; Mary Ann Chutuape Stephens; Timothy Mudric; Eric C Strain; George E Bigelow; Rolley E Johnson
Journal:  Exp Clin Psychopharmacol       Date:  2005-11       Impact factor: 3.157

6.  A national evaluation of treatment outcomes for cocaine dependence.

Authors:  D D Simpson; G W Joe; B W Fletcher; R L Hubbard; M D Anglin
Journal:  Arch Gen Psychiatry       Date:  1999-06

7.  Patient satisfaction, use of services, and one-year outcomes in publicly funded substance abuse treatment.

Authors:  M J Carlson; R M Gabriel
Journal:  Psychiatr Serv       Date:  2001-09       Impact factor: 3.084

8.  Patients' view of the alliance of psychotherapy: exploratory factor analysis of three alliance measures.

Authors:  R L Hatcher; A W Barends
Journal:  J Consult Clin Psychol       Date:  1996-12

Review 9.  Enhancing retention in clinical trials of psychosocial treatments: practical strategies.

Authors:  K M Carroll
Journal:  NIDA Res Monogr       Date:  1997

10.  Matching alcoholism treatments to client heterogeneity: Project MATCH three-year drinking outcomes.

Authors: 
Journal:  Alcohol Clin Exp Res       Date:  1998-09       Impact factor: 3.455

View more
  31 in total

1.  Predictors of motivation for abstinence at the end of outpatient substance abuse treatment.

Authors:  Alexandre B Laudet; Virginia Stanick
Journal:  J Subst Abuse Treat       Date:  2010-02-25

2.  Drug use and HIV risk outcomes in opioid-injecting men in the Republic of Georgia: behavioral treatment + naltrexone compared to usual care.

Authors:  David Otiashvili; Irma Kirtadze; Kevin E O'Grady; Hendrée E Jones
Journal:  Drug Alcohol Depend       Date:  2011-07-13       Impact factor: 4.492

3.  Women-Centered Drug Treatment Services and Need in the United States, 2002-2009.

Authors:  Mishka Terplan; Nyaradzo Longinaker; Lindsay Appel
Journal:  Am J Public Health       Date:  2015-09-17       Impact factor: 9.308

4.  Development and initial evaluation of the Brief Addiction Monitor (BAM).

Authors:  John S Cacciola; Arthur I Alterman; Dominick Dephilippis; Michelle L Drapkin; Charles Valadez; Natalie C Fala; David Oslin; James R McKay
Journal:  J Subst Abuse Treat       Date:  2012-08-14

5.  Recovery Housing: Evolving Models to Address Resident Needs.

Authors:  Amy A Mericle; Douglas L Polcin; Jordana Hemberg; Jennifer Miles
Journal:  J Psychoactive Drugs       Date:  2017-06-28

Review 6.  Opioid Use in Pregnancy.

Authors:  Amalia Londono Tobon; Erin Habecker; Ariadna Forray
Journal:  Curr Psychiatry Rep       Date:  2019-11-16       Impact factor: 5.285

7.  Access to Recovery and Recidivism Among Former Prison Inmates.

Authors:  Bradley Ray; Eric Grommon; Victoria Buchanan; Brittany Brown; Dennis P Watson
Journal:  Int J Offender Ther Comp Criminol       Date:  2015-09-17

8.  In college and in recovery: Reasons for joining a Collegiate Recovery Program.

Authors:  Alexandre B Laudet; Kitty Harris; Thomas Kimball; Ken C Winters; D Paul Moberg
Journal:  J Am Coll Health       Date:  2016

9.  What are your priorities right now? Identifying service needs across recovery stages to inform service development.

Authors:  Alexandre B Laudet; William White
Journal:  J Subst Abuse Treat       Date:  2009-07-23

10.  Promoting recovery in an evolving policy context: what do we know and what do we need to know about recovery support services?

Authors:  Alexandre B Laudet; Keith Humphreys
Journal:  J Subst Abuse Treat       Date:  2013-03-16
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.