Literature DB >> 9735589

Random versus nonrandom assignment in the evaluation of treatment for cocaine abusers.

J R McKay1, A I Alterman, A T McLellan, C R Boardman, F D Mulvaney, C P O'Brien.   

Abstract

Cocaine-abusing patients randomly assigned to day-hospital or inpatient rehabilitation were compared with patients who self-selected these treatment settings to examine differences in substance use and psychosocial outcomes under experimental and nonexperimental designs. There was little evidence of setting or assignment effects or Setting x Assignment interactions over the 12-month follow-up period. However, Assignment x Time interactions were obtained with 2 measures of cocaine use and measures of family-social and psychiatric problem severity. These interactions indicated greater problem severity at intake among the randomized patients coupled with greater improvements by the 3-month follow-up relative to the nonrandomized patients. Findings suggest that randomized studies of treatment for cocaine abuse may produce somewhat larger estimates of improvement than what is observed in more typical treatment situations.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1998        PMID: 9735589     DOI: 10.1037//0022-006x.66.4.697

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Consult Clin Psychol        ISSN: 0022-006X


  11 in total

1.  Can mentoring or skill training reduce recidivism? Observational study with propensity analysis.

Authors:  E A Blechman; A Maurice; B Buecker; C Helberg
Journal:  Prev Sci       Date:  2000-09

Review 2.  Outcomes for patients with the same disease treated inside and outside of randomized trials: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Natasha Fernandes; Dianne Bryant; Lauren Griffith; Mohamed El-Rabbany; Nisha M Fernandes; Crystal Kean; Jacquelyn Marsh; Siddhi Mathur; Rebecca Moyer; Clare J Reade; John J Riva; Lyndsay Somerville; Neera Bhatnagar
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  2014-09-29       Impact factor: 8.262

Review 3.  Systematic review to determine whether participation in a trial influences outcome.

Authors:  Gunn Elisabeth Vist; Kåre Birger Hagen; P J Devereaux; Dianne Bryant; Doris Tove Kristoffersen; Andrew David Oxman
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2005-05-21

4.  Comparison of demographic and clinical characteristics between opioid-dependent individuals admitted to a community-based treatment setting and those enrolled in a research-based treatment setting.

Authors:  C Patrick Carroll; Michael Kidorf; Eric C Strain; Robert K Brooner
Journal:  J Subst Abuse Treat       Date:  2007-04-02

5.  Client-Provider relationship in comprehensive substance abuse treatment: differences in residential and nonresidential settings.

Authors:  Hee-Choon Shin; Jeanne C Marsh; Dingcai Cao; Christina M Andrews
Journal:  J Subst Abuse Treat       Date:  2011-08-25

6.  Effect of patient choice in an adaptive sequential randomization trial of treatment for alcohol and cocaine dependence.

Authors:  James R McKay; Michelle L Drapkin; Deborah H A Van Horn; Kevin G Lynch; David W Oslin; Dominick DePhilippis; Megan Ivey; John S Cacciola
Journal:  J Consult Clin Psychol       Date:  2015-07-27

7.  Reactivity to laboratory stress provocation predicts relapse to cocaine.

Authors:  Sudie E Back; Karen Hartwell; Stacia M DeSantis; Michael Saladin; Aimee L McRae-Clark; Kimber L Price; Megan M Moran-Santa Maria; Nathaniel L Baker; Eve Spratt; Mary Jeanne Kreek; Kathleen T Brady
Journal:  Drug Alcohol Depend       Date:  2009-09-02       Impact factor: 4.492

8.  Does HAART efficacy translate to effectiveness? Evidence for a trial effect.

Authors:  Prema Menezes; William C Miller; David A Wohl; Adaora A Adimora; Peter A Leone; William C Miller; Joseph J Eron
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2011-07-13       Impact factor: 3.240

Review 9.  Outcomes of patients who participate in randomized controlled trials compared to similar patients receiving similar interventions who do not participate.

Authors:  Gunn Elisabeth Vist; Dianne Bryant; Lyndsay Somerville; Trevor Birminghem; Andrew D Oxman
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2008-07-16

Review 10.  Randomised trials comparing different healthcare settings: an exploratory review of the impact of pre-trial preferences on participation, and discussion of other methodological challenges.

Authors:  Mark S Corbett; Judith Watson; Alison Eastwood
Journal:  BMC Health Serv Res       Date:  2016-10-19       Impact factor: 2.655

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.