Differences in client and therapist views of the working alliance in drug treatment

Background - There is growing evidence that the therapeutic alliance is one of the most consistent predictors of retention and outcomes in drug treatment. Recent psychotherapy research has indicated that there is a lack of agreement between client, therapist and observer ratings of the therapeutic alliance; however, the clinical implications of this lack of consensus have not been explored. Aims - The aims of the study are to (1) explore the extent to which, in drug treatment, clients and counsellors agree in their perceptions of their alliance, and (2) investigate whether the degree of disagreement between clients and counsellors is related to retention in treatment. Methods - The study recruited 187 clients starting residential rehabilitation treatment for drug misuse in three UK services. Client and counsellor ratings of the therapeutic alliance (using the WAI-S) were obtained during weeks 1-12. Retention was in this study defined as remaining in treatment for at least 12 weeks. Results - Client and counsellor ratings of the alliance were only weakly related (correlations ranging from r = 0.07 to 0.42) and tended to become more dissimilar over the first 12 weeks in treatment. However, whether or not clients and counsellors agreed on the quality of their relationship did not influence whether clients were retained in treatment. Conclusions - The low consensus between client and counsellor views of the alliance found in this and other studies highlights the need for drug counsellors to attend closely to their clients' perceptions of the alliance and to seek regular feedback from clients regarding their feelings about their therapeutic relationship

Modeling the potential impact of changing access rates to specialist treatment for alcohol dependence for local authorities in England: The Specialist Treatment for Alcohol Model (STreAM)

OBJECTIVE: We modeled the impact of changing Specialist Treatment Access Rates to different treatment pathways on the future prevalence of alcohol dependence, treatment outcomes, service capacity, costs, and mortality. METHOD: Local Authority numbers and the prevalence of people "potentially in need of assessment for and treatment in specialist services for alcohol dependence" (PINASTFAD) are estimated by mild, moderate, severe, and complex needs. Administrative data were used to estimate the Specialist Treatment Access Rate per PINASTFAD person and classify 22 different treatment pathways. Other model inputs include natural remission, relapse after treatment, service costs, and mortality rates. "What-if" analyses assess changes to Specialist Treatment Access Rates and treatment pathways. Model outputs include the numbers and prevalence of people who are PINASTFAD, numbers treated by 22 pathways, outcomes (successful completion with abstinence, successfully moderated nonproblematic drinking, re-treatment within 6 months, dropout, transfer, custody), mortality rates, capacity requirements (numbers in contact with community services or staying in residential or inpatient places), total treatment costs, and general health care savings. Five scenarios illustrate functionality: (a) no change, (b) achieve access rates at the 70th percentile nationally, (c) increase access by 25%, (d) increase access to Scotland rate, and (e) reduce access by 25%. RESULTS: At baseline, 14,581 people are PINASTFAD (2.43% of adults) and the Specialist Treatment Access Rate is 10.84%. The 5-year impact of scenarios on PINASTFAD numbers (vs. no change) are (B) reduced by 191 (-1.3%), (C) reduced by 477 (-3.3%), (D) reduced by almost 2,800 (-19.2%), and (E) increased by 533 (+3.6%). The relative impact is similar for other outputs. CONCLUSIONS: Decision makers can estimate the potential impact of changing Specialist Treatment Access Rates for alcohol dependence

Substance use outcomes following treatment : findings from the Australian Patient Pathways Study

Background and Aims: Our understanding of patient pathways through specialist Alcohol and Other Drug (AOD) treatment and broader health/welfare systems in Australia remains limited. This study examined how treatment outcomes are influenced by continuity in specialist AOD treatment, engagement with non-AOD community services, and mutual aid, as well as exploring differences between clients who present with a primary alcohol problem compared to those presenting with a primary drug issue. Method: In a prospective, multi-site treatment outcome study, 796 clients from 21 AOD services in Victoria and Western Australia completed a baseline interview between January 2012 and January 2013. 555 (70%) completed follow-up assessment of subsequent service use and AOD use outcomes 12-months later. Results: Just over half of the participants (52.0%) showed reliable reductions in use of, or abstinence from, their primary drug of concern. This was highest among clients who reported meth/amphetamine (66%) as their primary drug of concern and lowest among those who reported alcohol (47%), with 31% achieving abstinence from all drugs of concern. Continuity of specialist AOD care was associated with higher rates of abstinence than fragmented AOD care. Different predictors of treatment success emerged for clients with a primary drug problem as compared to those with a primary alcohol problem; mutual aid attendance (OR=2.5) and community service engagement (OR=2.0) for clients with alcohol as PDOC, and completion of the index treatment (OR=2.8) and continuity in AOD care (OR=1.8) for those with primary drug issues. Conclusion: This is the first multi-site Australian study to include treatment outcomes for alcohol and cannabis users, who represent 70% of treatment seekers in AOD services. The results suggest a substantial proportion of clients respond positively to treatment, but that clients with alcohol as their primary drug problem may require different treatment pathways, compared to those with illicit drug issues, to achieve desirable outcomes