INTRODUCTION AND AIMS: The measurement of clinical outcomes is an important, but lacking, component of drug and alcohol treatment in Australia. This study aimed to psychometrically validate the Treatment Outcomes Profile under Australian conditions, examining implementation and feasibility issues in three public opioid treatment program clinics in NSW. DESIGN AND METHODS: The Treatment Outcomes Profile was modified to reflect Australian conditions and re-named the Australian Treatment Outcomes Profile (ATOP). The ATOP was introduced into the participating clinics and administered by clinic staff at 3-month intervals as part of routine clinical practice. Participants completed a research interview, consisting of the ATOP and a suite of 'gold standard' instruments assessing substance use and related health and welfare domains, in the 72 h following completion of a routine clinical ATOP. The researcher- and clinician-administered ATOPs were compared to assess interrater reliability, and the researcher-administered ATOP and 'gold standard' instruments were compared to assess concurrent validity. Implementation and feasibility issues were assessed using questionnaires and focus groups with clinician and clients. RESULTS: The ATOP demonstrated acceptable concurrent validity and interrater reliability. It was well received by clients and clinicians, particularly for its ease of use, applicability and brevity. CONCLUSIONS: The ATOP is a psychometrically valid instrument for the measurement of treatment outcomes in Australian opioid treatment populations and can feasibly be implemented as part of routine clinical practice in specialist opioid treatment program clinics. The role of the ATOP to measure outcomes in other drug and alcohol treatment modalities requires exploration.
INTRODUCTION AND AIMS: The measurement of clinical outcomes is an important, but lacking, component of drug and alcohol treatment in Australia. This study aimed to psychometrically validate the Treatment Outcomes Profile under Australian conditions, examining implementation and feasibility issues in three public opioid treatment program clinics in NSW. DESIGN AND METHODS: The Treatment Outcomes Profile was modified to reflect Australian conditions and re-named the Australian Treatment Outcomes Profile (ATOP). The ATOP was introduced into the participating clinics and administered by clinic staff at 3-month intervals as part of routine clinical practice. Participants completed a research interview, consisting of the ATOP and a suite of 'gold standard' instruments assessing substance use and related health and welfare domains, in the 72 h following completion of a routine clinical ATOP. The researcher- and clinician-administered ATOPs were compared to assess interrater reliability, and the researcher-administered ATOP and 'gold standard' instruments were compared to assess concurrent validity. Implementation and feasibility issues were assessed using questionnaires and focus groups with clinician and clients. RESULTS: The ATOP demonstrated acceptable concurrent validity and interrater reliability. It was well received by clients and clinicians, particularly for its ease of use, applicability and brevity. CONCLUSIONS: The ATOP is a psychometrically valid instrument for the measurement of treatment outcomes in Australian opioid treatment populations and can feasibly be implemented as part of routine clinical practice in specialist opioid treatment program clinics. The role of the ATOP to measure outcomes in other drug and alcohol treatment modalities requires exploration.
Authors: Nicholas Lintzeris; Lauren A Monds; Consuelo Rivas; Stefanie Leung; Adrian Dunlop; David Newcombe; Carina Walters; Susanna Galea; Nancy White; Mark Montebello; Apo Demirkol; Nicola Swanson; Robert Ali Journal: J Addict Med Date: 2018 May/Jun Impact factor: 3.702
Authors: Nicholas Lintzeris; Rachel M Deacon; Marian Shanahan; James Clarke; Stephanie MacFarlane; Stefanie Leung; Michelle Schulz; Anthony Jackson; Daniel Khamoudes; David E A Gordon; Apo Demirkol Journal: Int J Integr Care Date: 2020-04-23 Impact factor: 5.120
Authors: Erin J Campbell; Yvonne Bonomo; Adam Pastor; Lisa Collins; Amanda Norman; Peter Galettis; Janice Johnstone; Andrew J Lawrence Journal: Pharmacol Res Perspect Date: 2021-05
Authors: Nick Scott; Elise R Carrotte; Peter Higgs; Mark A Stoové; Campbell K Aitken; Paul M Dietze Journal: PLoS One Date: 2017-05-31 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Anjali K Bhardwaj; David J Allsop; Jan Copeland; Iain S McGregor; Adrian Dunlop; Marian Shanahan; Raimondo Bruno; Nghi Phung; Mark Montebello; Craig Sadler; Jessica Gugusheff; Melissa Jackson; Jennifer Luksza; Nicholas Lintzeris Journal: BMC Psychiatry Date: 2018-05-18 Impact factor: 3.630
Authors: Victoria Manning; Joshua B B Garfield; Tina Lam; Steve Allsop; Lynda Berends; David Best; Penny Buykx; Robin Room; Dan I Lubman Journal: J Clin Med Date: 2019-09-06 Impact factor: 4.241