Hannah K Knudsen1, Paul M Roman2. 1. a Department of Behavioral Science and Center on Drug and Alcohol Research , University of Kentucky , Lexington , Kentucky , USA. 2. b Owens Institute for Behavioral Research and Department of Sociology , University of Georgia , Athens , Georgia , USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Although there is a growing literature examining organizational characteristics and medication adoption, little is known about service delivery differences between specialty treatment organizations that have and have not adopted pharmacotherapy for alcohol use disorder (AUD). This study compares adopters and nonadopters across a range of treatment services, including levels of care, availability of tailored services for specific populations, treatment philosophy and counseling orientations, and adoption of comprehensive wraparound services. METHODS: In-person interviews were conducted with program leaders from a national sample of 372 organizations that deliver AUD treatment services in the United States. RESULTS: About 23.6% of organizations had adopted at least 1 AUD medication. Organizations offering pharmacotherapy were similar to nonadopters across many measures of levels of care, tailored services, treatment philosophy, and social services. The primary area of difference between the 2 groups was for services related to health problems other than AUD. Pharmacotherapy adopters were more likely to offer primary medical care, medications for smoking cessation, and services to address co-occurring psychiatric conditions. CONCLUSIONS: Service delivery differences were modest between adopters and nonadopters of AUD pharmacotherapy, with the exception of health-related services. However, the greater adoption of health-related services by organizations offering AUD pharmacotherapy represents greater medicalization of treatment, which may mean these programs are more strongly positioned to respond to opportunities for integration under health reform.
BACKGROUND: Although there is a growing literature examining organizational characteristics and medication adoption, little is known about service delivery differences between specialty treatment organizations that have and have not adopted pharmacotherapy for alcohol use disorder (AUD). This study compares adopters and nonadopters across a range of treatment services, including levels of care, availability of tailored services for specific populations, treatment philosophy and counseling orientations, and adoption of comprehensive wraparound services. METHODS: In-person interviews were conducted with program leaders from a national sample of 372 organizations that deliver AUD treatment services in the United States. RESULTS: About 23.6% of organizations had adopted at least 1 AUD medication. Organizations offering pharmacotherapy were similar to nonadopters across many measures of levels of care, tailored services, treatment philosophy, and social services. The primary area of difference between the 2 groups was for services related to health problems other than AUD. Pharmacotherapy adopters were more likely to offer primary medical care, medications for smoking cessation, and services to address co-occurring psychiatric conditions. CONCLUSIONS: Service delivery differences were modest between adopters and nonadopters of AUD pharmacotherapy, with the exception of health-related services. However, the greater adoption of health-related services by organizations offering AUD pharmacotherapy represents greater medicalization of treatment, which may mean these programs are more strongly positioned to respond to opportunities for integration under health reform.
Entities:
Keywords:
Alcohol pharmacotherapy; organization of treatment services; specialty treatment for alcohol use disorder
Authors: Deborah M Scharf; Nicole K Eberhart; Nicole Schmidt; Christine A Vaughan; Trina Dutta; Harold Alan Pincus; M Audrey Burnam Journal: Psychiatr Serv Date: 2013-07-01 Impact factor: 3.084
Authors: David W Oslin; Kevin G Lynch; Stephen A Maisto; Larry J Lantinga; James R McKay; Kyle Possemato; Erin Ingram; Michael Wierzbicki Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2013-09-20 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Erick G Guerrero; Jeanne C Marsh; Lei Duan; Christine Oh; Brian Perron; Benedict Lee Journal: Health Serv Res Date: 2013-01-27 Impact factor: 3.402
Authors: Tami L Mark; Henry R Kranzler; Xue Song; Peace Bransberger; Virginia H Poole; Scott Crosse Journal: Addiction Date: 2003-05 Impact factor: 6.526
Authors: Haiden A Huskamp; Sharon Reif; Shelly F Greenfield; Sharon-Lise T Normand; Alisa B Busch Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2020-08-04 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Alex H S Harris; Thomas Bowe; Hildi Hagedorn; Andrea Nevedal; Andrea K Finlay; Risha Gidwani; Craig Rosen; Chad Kay; Melissa Christopher Journal: Addict Sci Clin Pract Date: 2016-09-15