Deborah W Garnick1, Constance M Horgan1, Andrea Acevedo2, Margaret T Lee1, Lee Panas1, Grant A Ritter1, Kevin Campbell3. 1. The Heller School for Social Policy and Management, Institute for Behavioral Health, Brandeis University, Waltham, Massachusetts. 2. Department of Community Health, Tufts University, Medford, Massachusetts. 3. Research and Data Analysis, Washington State Department of Social and Health Services, Olympia, Washington.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Treatment after discharge from detoxification or residential treatment is associated with improved outcomes. We examined the influence of travel time on continuity into follow-up treatment and whether financial incentives and weekly alerts have a modifying effect. METHODS: For a research intervention during October 2013 to December 2015, detoxification and residential substance use disorder treatment programs in Washington State were randomized into 4 groups: potential financial incentives for meeting performance goals, weekly alerts to providers, both interventions, and control. Travel time was used as both a main effect and interacted with other variables to explore its modifying impact on continuity of care in conjunction with incentives or alerts. Continuity was defined as follow-up care occurring within 14 days of discharge from detoxification or residential treatment programs. Travel time was estimated as driving time from clients' home ZIP Code to treatment agency ZIP Code. FINDINGS: Travel times to the original treatment agency were in some cases significant with longer travel times predicting lower likelihood of continuity. For detoxification clients, those with longer travel times (over 91 minutes from their residence) are more likely to have timely continuity. Conversely, residential clients with travel times of more than 1 hour are less likely to have timely continuity. Interventions such as alerts or incentives for performance had some mitigating effects on these results. Travel times to the closest agency for potential further treatment were not significant. CONCLUSIONS: Among rural clients discharged from detoxification and residential treatment, travel time can be an important factor in predicting timely continuity.
PURPOSE: Treatment after discharge from detoxification or residential treatment is associated with improved outcomes. We examined the influence of travel time on continuity into follow-up treatment and whether financial incentives and weekly alerts have a modifying effect. METHODS: For a research intervention during October 2013 to December 2015, detoxification and residential substance use disorder treatment programs in Washington State were randomized into 4 groups: potential financial incentives for meeting performance goals, weekly alerts to providers, both interventions, and control. Travel time was used as both a main effect and interacted with other variables to explore its modifying impact on continuity of care in conjunction with incentives or alerts. Continuity was defined as follow-up care occurring within 14 days of discharge from detoxification or residential treatment programs. Travel time was estimated as driving time from clients' home ZIP Code to treatment agency ZIP Code. FINDINGS: Travel times to the original treatment agency were in some cases significant with longer travel times predicting lower likelihood of continuity. For detoxification clients, those with longer travel times (over 91 minutes from their residence) are more likely to have timely continuity. Conversely, residential clients with travel times of more than 1 hour are less likely to have timely continuity. Interventions such as alerts or incentives for performance had some mitigating effects on these results. Travel times to the closest agency for potential further treatment were not significant. CONCLUSIONS: Among rural clients discharged from detoxification and residential treatment, travel time can be an important factor in predicting timely continuity.
Authors: Judith W Dexheimer; Thomas R Talbot; David L Sanders; S Trent Rosenbloom; Dominik Aronsky Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2008-02-28 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: James R McKay; Deborah H A Van Horn; Kevin G Lynch; Megan Ivey; Mark S Cary; Michelle Drapkin; Donna Coviello Journal: Addict Behav Date: 2013-12-01 Impact factor: 3.913
Authors: Eric M Schmidt; Shalini Gupta; Thomas Bowe; Laura S Ellerbe; Tyler E Phelps; John W Finney; Keith Humphreys; Jodie Trafton; Megan E Vanneman; Alex H S Harris Journal: J Addict Med Date: 2017 May/Jun Impact factor: 3.702
Authors: Bradley D Stein; Rosalie Liccardo Pacula; Adam J Gordon; Rachel M Burns; Douglas L Leslie; Mark J Sorbero; Sebastian Bauhoff; Todd W Mandell; Andrew W Dick Journal: Milbank Q Date: 2015-09 Impact factor: 4.911
Authors: Sarah A Friedman; Susan M Frayne; Eric Berg; Alison B Hamilton; Donna L Washington; Fay Saechao; Natalya C Maisel; Julia Y Lin; Katherine J Hoggatt; Ciaran S Phibbs Journal: Med Care Date: 2015-04 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: Alex H S Harris; Constance M Weisner; Mady Chalk; Victor Capoccia; Cheng Chen; Cindy Parks Thomas Journal: J Addict Med Date: 2016 May-Jun Impact factor: 3.702
Authors: Margaret T Lee; Constance M Horgan; Deborah W Garnick; Andrea Acevedo; Lee Panas; Grant A Ritter; Robert Dunigan; Hermik Babakhanlou-Chase; Alfred Bidorini; Kevin Campbell; Karin Haberlin; Alice Huber; Dawn Lambert-Wacey; Tracy Leeper; Mark Reynolds Journal: J Subst Abuse Treat Date: 2014-05-02
Authors: Thomas O Cole; Darlene Robinson; Andrea Kelley-Freeman; Devang Gandhi; Aaron D Greenblatt; Eric Weintraub; Annabelle M Belcher Journal: Front Public Health Date: 2021-01-21