Pia M Mauro1, C Debra Furr-Holden2, Eric C Strain3, Rosa M Crum4, Ramin Mojtabai5. 1. Department of Mental Health, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, 624 N. Broadway, Baltimore, MD 21205, USA; Department of Epidemiology, Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health, 722 W 168th Street, New York, NY 10032, USA. Electronic address: pm2838@cumc.columbia.edu. 2. Department of Mental Health, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, 624 N. Broadway, Baltimore, MD 21205, USA. Electronic address: cfurrho1@jhu.edu. 3. Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, 733 N. Broadway, Baltimore, MD 21205, USA. Electronic address: estrain1@jhmi.edu. 4. Department of Epidemiology, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, 615 N. Wolfe St., Baltimore, MD 21205, USA; Department of Mental Health, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, 624 N. Broadway, Baltimore, MD 21205, USA. Electronic address: rcrum1@jhu.edu. 5. Department of Mental Health, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, 624 N. Broadway, Baltimore, MD 21205, USA; Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, 733 N. Broadway, Baltimore, MD 21205, USA. Electronic address: rmojtab1@jhu.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The Affordable Care Act calls for increased integration and coordination of behavioral health services, as people with co-occurring disorders (CODs), meeting criteria for both substance use and psychiatric disorders, are overrepresented in treatment samples. Nationwide estimates of mental health (MH) service co-location in substance use disorder (SUD) treatment facilities are needed. We empirically derived a multiple-indicator categorization of services for CODs in SUD treatment facilities. METHODS: We used latent class analysis to categorize 14,037 SUD treatment facilities in the United States and territories included in the 2012 National Survey of Substance Abuse Treatment Services. Latent class indicators included MH screening and diagnosis, MH support services, psychiatric medications, groups for CODs, and psychosocial approaches. Multinomial logistic regression compared facility-identified primary focus (i.e., SUD, MH, mix of SUD-MH, and general/other) and other facility characteristics across classes. RESULTS: A four-class solution was chosen with the following classes: Comprehensive MH/COD Services (25%), MH without COD Services (25%), MH Screening Services (21%), and Limited MH Services (29%). The former two classes with co-located MH services were less likely to report a SUD-primary focus than the latter classes reporting only MH screening or Limited MH Services. Only the Comprehensive MH/COD Services class also had a high probability of providing special groups for CODs. CONCLUSIONS: Approximately half of SUD treatment facilities were in classes with co-located mental health services, but only a quarter provided comprehensive COD services. Future studies should assess differences in patient experiences and treatment outcomes across facilities with and without COD services.
BACKGROUND: The Affordable Care Act calls for increased integration and coordination of behavioral health services, as people with co-occurring disorders (CODs), meeting criteria for both substance use and psychiatric disorders, are overrepresented in treatment samples. Nationwide estimates of mental health (MH) service co-location in substance use disorder (SUD) treatment facilities are needed. We empirically derived a multiple-indicator categorization of services for CODs in SUD treatment facilities. METHODS: We used latent class analysis to categorize 14,037 SUD treatment facilities in the United States and territories included in the 2012 National Survey of Substance Abuse Treatment Services. Latent class indicators included MH screening and diagnosis, MH support services, psychiatric medications, groups for CODs, and psychosocial approaches. Multinomial logistic regression compared facility-identified primary focus (i.e., SUD, MH, mix of SUD-MH, and general/other) and other facility characteristics across classes. RESULTS: A four-class solution was chosen with the following classes: Comprehensive MH/COD Services (25%), MH without COD Services (25%), MH Screening Services (21%), and Limited MH Services (29%). The former two classes with co-located MH services were less likely to report a SUD-primary focus than the latter classes reporting only MH screening or Limited MH Services. Only the Comprehensive MH/COD Services class also had a high probability of providing special groups for CODs. CONCLUSIONS: Approximately half of SUD treatment facilities were in classes with co-located mental health services, but only a quarter provided comprehensive COD services. Future studies should assess differences in patient experiences and treatment outcomes across facilities with and without COD services.
Authors: Lori J Ducharme; Heather L Mello; Paul M Roman; Hannah K Knudsen; J Aaron Johnson Journal: J Behav Health Serv Res Date: 2007-03-28 Impact factor: 1.475
Authors: James H Ford; Arveen Kaur; Deepika Rao; Aaron Gilson; Daniel M Bolt; Helene Chokron Garneau; Lisa Saldana; Mark P McGovern Journal: Implement Res Pract Date: 2021-09-17
Authors: Noa Krawczyk; Kenneth A Feder; Brendan Saloner; Rosa M Crum; Marc Kealhofer; Ramin Mojtabai Journal: Drug Alcohol Depend Date: 2017-04-19 Impact factor: 4.492
Authors: David H Morris; Alan K Davis; Kirstin J Lauritsen; C Martin Rieth; Mark M Silvestri; Jamie J Winters; Stephen T Chermack Journal: J Subst Abuse Treat Date: 2018-08-19
Authors: Catherine Tomko; Kristin E Schneider; Saba Rouhani; Glenna J Urquhart; Ju Nyeong Park; Miles Morris; Susan G Sherman Journal: Addict Behav Date: 2021-12-20 Impact factor: 4.591
Authors: Kristen A Morin; Joseph K Eibl; Joseph M Caswell; Graham Gauthier; Brian Rush; Christopher Mushquash; Nancy E Lightfoot; David C Marsh Journal: Subst Abuse Treat Prev Policy Date: 2019-06-26
Authors: Megan E Cowie; Hyoun S Kim; David C Hodgins; Daniel S McGrath; Marco D T Scanavino; Hermano Tavares Journal: J Behav Addict Date: 2019-08-16 Impact factor: 6.756
Authors: Jenny Woodman; Louise Mc Grath-Lone; Amanda Clery; Helen Weatherly; Dina Jankovic; Jane V Appleton; Jennifer Kirman; Jane Barlow; Sally Kendall; Samantha Bennett; Ruth Gilbert; Katie Harron Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2022-09-29 Impact factor: 3.006