Adoption of practice guidelines and assessment tools in substance abuse treatment

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The gap between research and practice limits utilization of relevant, progressive and empirically validated strategies in substance abuse treatment.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Participants included substance abuse treatment programs from the Northeastern United States. Structural equation models were constructed with agency level data to explore two outcome variables: adoption of practice guidelines and assessment tools at two points in time; models also included organizational, staffing and service variables.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>In 1997, managed care involvement and provision of primary care services had the strongest association with increased use of assessment tools, which, along with provision of counseling services, were associated with a greater use of practice guidelines. In 2001, managed care involvement, counseling services and being a stand-alone drug treatment agency were associated with a greater use of assessment tools, which was in turn related to an increase in the use of practice guidelines.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>This study provides managers, clinicians and policy-makers with a framework for understanding factors related to the adoption of new technologies in substance abuse treatment.</p

Implementation of MET/CBT 5 for adolescents

Implementation of effective substance abuse treatment programs in community settings is a high priority. The selection of a proven cost-effective model is a first step; however, difficulty arises when the model is imported into a community setting. The Center on Substance Abuse Treatment selected a brief substance abuse treatment program for adolescents, the MET/CBT-5 program, determined to be the most cost-effective protocol in the Cannabis Youth Treatment trial, for implementation in two cohorts of Effective Adolescent Treatment grantees. A qualitative investigation of the protocol implementation with nine sites in the second cohort chronicled adaptations made by grantees and prospects for sustainability. The study found that agencies introduced adaptations without seeming to be aware of potential effects on validity. In most sites, sessions were lengthened or added to accommodate individual client needs, address barriers to client participation, and provide consistency with current norms of treatment. Implications for fidelity of future implementation projects are addressed

Implementation of Evidence-Based Practices for Treatment of Alcohol and Drug Disorders: The Role of the State Authority

The current climate of increasing performance expectations and diminishing resources, along with innovations in evidence-based practices (EBPs), creates new dilemmas for substance abuse treatment providers, policymakers, funders, and the service delivery system. This paper describes findings from baseline interviews with representatives from 49 state substance abuse authorities (SSAs). Interviews assessed efforts aimed at facilitating EBP adoption in each state and the District of Columbia. Results suggested that SSAs are concentrating more effort on EBP implementation strategies such as education, training, and infrastructure development, and less effort on financial mechanisms, regulations, and accreditation. The majority of SSAs use EBPs as a criterion in their contracts with providers, and just over half reported that EBP use is tied to state funding. To date, Oregon remains the only state with legislation that mandates treatment expenditures for EBPs; North Carolina follows suit with legislation that requires EBP promotion within current resources

Patient perceptions of treatment with medication treatment for opioid use disorder (MOUD) in the Vermont hub-and-spoke system

In 2013, Vermont leaders implemented the "hub-and-spoke" (H &amp; S) system to increase access to medication treatment for opioid use disorder (MOUD). "Hubs" are licensed specialty opioid treatment programs (OTPs) with the authority to dispense buprenorphine/naloxone and methadone. "Spokes" are primary care practices that provide office-based opioid treatment, primarily with buprenorphine/naloxone. This report describes the qualitative component of an evaluation of the H&amp;S system, conducted in 2016. The qualitative data collection assessed patient perspectives about the positive and negative aspects of treatment in the H &amp; S system. The data collected included 80 responses to five open-ended questions and 24 in-depth interviews. Five open-ended questions were completed with hub (n = 40) and spoke (n = 40) participants. In-depth qualitative interviews were conducted with different hub (n =12) and spoke (n =12) participants. Findings from both data collection approaches suggest positive perceptions about treatment overall by patients treated in both settings. Participants treated in spokes reported a positive treatment environment, minimal stigma, and few obstacles to treatment and a strong positive relationship with their prescriber. Hub patients valued the MOUD and expressed gratitude for having access to MOUD, but reported the treatment environment was somewhat challenging, with long lines and drug talk in the clinic, high staff turnover and "cookie cutter" treatment. There appear to be some differences in patient perceptions of MOUD treatment between patients treated in primary care settings and specialized OTP settings

Correlates of Motivational Interviewing Use Among Substance Use Treatment Programs Serving American Indians/Alaska Natives

Motivational interviewing (MI) offers a treatment modality that can help meet the treatment needs of American Indians/Alaska Natives (AI/ANs) with substance use disorders. This report presents results from a national survey of 192 AI/AN substance abuse treatment programs with regard to their use of MI and factors related to its implementation, including program characteristics, workforce issues, clinician perceptions of MI, and how clinicians learned about MI. Sixty-six percent of programs reported having implemented the use of MI in their programs. In the final logistic regression model, the odds of implementing MI were significantly higher when programs were tribally owned (OR = 2.946; CI95 1.014, 8.564), where more than 50% of staff were Certified Alcohol and Drug Counselors (CADCs) (OR = 5.469; CI951.330, 22.487), and in programs in which the survey respondent perceived that MI fit well with their staff\u27s expertise and training (OR = 3.321; CI95 1.287, 8.569)