Feasibility and validity of low-budget telephonic follow-up interviews in routine outcome monitoring of substance abuse treatment

Addiction

Volumn 104, Issue 7, 2009, Pages 1138-1146

  Oudejans, Suzan C C ^a,b,c   Schippers, Gerardus M ^b,c,d   Merkx, Maarten J M ^b   Schramade, Mark H ^c   Koeter, Maarten W J ^b   Van Den Brink, Wim ^b  

^a AMSTERDAM INSTITUTE FOR ADDICTION RESEARCH   (Netherlands)

^b UNIVERSITY OF AMSTERDAM   (Netherlands)

^c JellinekMentrum   (Netherlands)

^d And Brijder Verslavingszorg ^*  (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Feasibility; Follow up interview; Outcomes monitoring system; Routine outcome monitoring; Selection bias; Substance use disorders; Treatment outcomes

Indexed keywords

ALCOHOL; COCAINE; DIAMORPHINE; NICOTINE;

ADDICTION SEVERITY INDEX; ADULT; ARTICLE; BUDGET; COST; DEMOGRAPHY; DRUG DEPENDENCE TREATMENT; EDUCATION; ELECTRONIC MEDICAL RECORD; EMPLOYMENT; FEASIBILITY STUDY; FEMALE; FOLLOW UP; HUMAN; INTERVIEW; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; NETHERLANDS; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PATHOLOGICAL GAMBLING; RATING SCALE; ROUTINE OUTCOME MONITORING; SOCIAL SUPPORT; SUBSTANCE ABUSE; TELEPHONE; VALIDITY;

FEASIBILITY STUDIES; FEMALE; FOLLOW-UP STUDIES; HUMANS; MALE; NETHERLANDS; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT (HEALTH CARE); REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; SELECTION BIAS; SEVERITY OF ILLNESS INDEX; SOCIOECONOMIC FACTORS; SUBSTANCE ABUSE TREATMENT CENTERS; SUBSTANCE-RELATED DISORDERS; TELEPHONE;

EID: 66749160295     PISSN: 09652140     EISSN: 13600443     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1360-0443.2009.02593.x     Document Type: Article

References (31)

1. Schippers G. M., Schramade M., Walburg J. A. Reforming Dutch substance abuse treatment services. Addict Behav 2002 27 : 995 1007. (Pubitemid 36158760)
2. Project Match Research Group. Matching alcoholism treatments to client heterogenity: Project MATCH post-treatment drinking outcome. J Stud Alcohol 1997 58 : 7 29.
3. Moos R. H., Humphreys K., Ouimette P. C., Finney J. Evaluating and improving VA substance abuse patients' care. Am J Med Qual 1999 14 : 45 54.
4. Gossop M., Marsden J., Stewart D. Treatment outcomes of stimulant misusers: one year follow-up results from the national treatment outcome research study (NTORS). Addict Behav 2000 25 : 509 22.
5. Harrison P. A., Asche S. E. Outcomes monitoring in Minnesota: treatment implications, practical limitations. J Subst Abuse Treat 2001 21 : 173 83.
6. Evans E., Hser Y. I. Pilot-testing a statewide outcome monitoring system: overview of the California Treatment Outcome Project (CALTOP). J Psychoactive Drugs 2004 2 (suppl 109 14.
7. Meijerink Y. Werken aan verbetering. Ziekenhuizen gaan prestaties openbaar maken (1) [Working on improvement. Hospitals make performance public (1)]. Med Contact 2003 58 : 1531 8.
8. Gerstein D. R., Johnson R. A. Nonresponse and selection bias in treatment follow-up studies. Subst Use Misuse 2000 35 : 971 1014.
9. Rosenheck R. A., Seibyl C. L. A longitudinal perspective on monitoring outcomes of an innovative program. Psychiatr Serv 2005 56 : 301 7.
10. Flynn P. M., Simpson D. D., Anglin M. D., Hubbard R. L. Comment on 'nonresponse and selection bias in treatment follow-up studies'. Subst Use Misuse 2001 36 : 1753 7.
11. Rohrer J. E., Vaughan M. S., Cadoret R., Zwick J. Follow-up contact bias in evaluation of substance abuse treatment programs. Adm Policy Ment Health 1999 26 : 207 12.
12. Tiet Q. Q., Byrnes H. F., Barnett P., Finney J. W. A practical system for monitoring the outcomes of substance use disorder patients. J Subst Abuse Treat 2006 30 : 337 47.
13. Grella C. E., Hser Y. I., Joshi V., Anglin M. D. Patient histories, retention, and outcome models for younger and older adults in DATOS. Drug Alcohol Depend 1999 57 : 151 66.
14. Mond J. M., Rodgers B., Hay P. J., Owen C., Beumont P. J. Nonresponse bias in a general population survey of eating-disordered behavior. Int J Eat Disord 2004 36 : 89 98. (Pubitemid 38765922)
15. Scott C. K. A replicable model for achieving over 90% follow-up rates in longitudinal studies of substance abusers. Drug Alcohol Depend 2004 74 : 21 36. (Pubitemid 38457050)
16. Lahaut V. M., Jansen H. A., van de Mheen D., Garretsen H. F. Non-response bias in a sample survey on alcohol consumption. Alcohol Alcohol 2002 37 : 256 60.
17. Marcus B., Schutz A. Who are the people reluctant to participate in research? Personality correlates of four different types of nonresponse as inferred from self- and observer ratings. J Pers 2005 73 : 959 84.
18. Hansten M. L., Downey L., Rosengren D. B., Donovan D. M. Relationship between follow-up rates and treatment outcomes in substance abuse research: more is better but when is 'enough' enough? Addiction 2000 95 : 1403 16.
19. Walton M. A., Ramanathan C. S., Reischl T. M. Tracking substance abusers in longitudinal research: understanding follow-up contact difficulty. Am J Commun Psychol 1998 26 : 233 53.
20. Stinchfield R. D., Niforopulos L., Feder S. H. Follow-up contact bias in adolescent substance abuse treatment outcome research. J Stud Alcohol 1994 55 : 285 9.
21. Digiusto E., Panjari M., Gibson A., Rea F. Follow-up difficulty: correlates and relationship with outcome in heroin dependence treatment in the NEPOD study. Addict Behav 2006 31 : 1201 10.
22. Merkx M. J. M., Schippers G. M., Koeter M. J., Vuijk P. J., Oudejans S. C. C., de Vries C. C. et al. Allocation of substance use disorder patients to appropriate levels of care: feasibility of matching guidelines in routine practice in Dutch treatment centres. Addiction 2007 102 : 466 74.
23. Kokkevi A., Hartgers C. EuropASI: European adaption of a multidimensional assessment instrument for drug and alcohol dependence. Eur Addict Res 1995 1 : 208 10.
24. Health Council of the Netherlands. Guidelines for a Healthy Diet. The Hague : Health Council of the Netherlands 2006.
25. Cohen J. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. Hillsdale, NJ : Erlbaum 1988.
26. Schafer J. L., Graham J. W. Missing data: our view of the state of the art. Psychol Methods 2002 7 : 147 77.
27. Lozano B. E., Stephens R. S., Roffman R. A. Abstinence and moderate use goals in the treatment of marijuana dependence. Addiction 2006 101 : 1589 97.
28. Crits-Christoph P., Siqueland L., Blaine J., Frank A., Luborsky L., Onken L. S. et al. Psychosocial treatments for cocaine dependence: National Institute on Drug Abuse Collaborative Cocaine Treatment Study. Arch Gen Psychiatry 1999 56 : 493 502. (Pubitemid 29304640)
29. Broekman T. G., Schippers G. M., Koeter M. W. J., van den Brink W. Standardized assessment in substance abuse treatment in the Netherlands: the case of the Addiction Severity Index and new developments. J Subst Abuse 2004 9 : 147 55.
30. Schippers G. M., Broekman T. G., Buchholz A. MATE 2.0. Handleiding & Protocol [MATE 2.0. Manual & Protocol]. Nijmegen : Bêta Boeken 2007.
31. Marsden J., Farrell M., Bradbury C., Dale-Perera A., Eastwood B., Roxburgh M. et al. Development of the treatment outcomes profile. Addiction 2008 103 : 1450 60.