Randomized multi-site trial of the Job Seekers' Workshop in patients with substance use disorders

BACKGROUND

Unemployment is associated with negative outcomes both during and after drug abuse treatment. Interventions designed to increase rates of employment may also improve drug abuse treatment outcomes. The purpose of this multi-site clinical trial was to evaluate the Job Seekers' Workshop (JSW), a three session, manualized program designed to train patients in the skills needed to find and secure a job.

METHOD

Study participants were recruited through the NIDA Clinical Trials Network (CTN) from six psychosocial counseling (n=327) and five methadone maintenance (n=301) drug treatment programs. Participants were randomly assigned to either standard care (program-specific services plus brochure with local employment resources) (SC) or standard care plus JSW. Three 4-h small group JSW sessions were offered weekly by trained JSW facilitators with ongoing fidelity monitoring.

RESULTS

JSW and SC participants had similar 12- and 24-week results for the primary outcome measure (i.e., obtaining a new taxed job or enrollment in a training program). Specifically, one-fifth of participants at 12weeks (20.1-24.3%) and nearly one-third at 24 weeks (31.4-31.9%) had positive outcomes, with "obtaining a new taxed job" accounting for the majority of cases.

CONCLUSION

JSW group participants did not have higher rates of employment/training than SC controls. Rates of job acquisition were modest for both groups, suggesting more intensive interventions may be needed. Alternate targets (e.g., enhancing patient motivation, training in job-specific skills) warrant further study as well.

Drug court treatment for methamphetamine dependence: Treatment response and posttreatment outcomes

Relatively little is known about the impact of drug court treatment programs for methamphetamine (MA) dependence. This article examines treatment performance among a subsample of 287 MA-dependent adults who participated in the Methamphetamine Treatment Project from 1999 to 2001. To gain a preliminary indication of MA users' response to drug court intervention, we compared a group of 57 MA-dependent participants treated in outpatient treatment within the context of a drug court to a group of comparable MA-dependent individuals treated in outpatient treatment but not supervised by a drug court (n = 230). Analyses reveal that drug court participation was associated with better rates of engagement, retention, completion, and abstinence, compared to outpatient treatment without drug court supervision. Six- and 12-month outcome analyses indicated that participants who were enrolled in drug court intervention used MA significantly less frequently. These findings suggest that drug court supervision coupled with treatment may improve the outcomes of MA-dependent offenders beyond that seen from treatment alone.

Evidence-based treatment: Why, what, where, when, and how?

Research and clinical perspectives are blended in this commentary on the rapidly emerging requirement for evidence-based treatment (EBT) in substance abuse programs. Although, historically, it has not been a standard of care in behavioral health, there are sound scientific, ethical, and compassionate reasons to learn and deliver an EBT as it becomes available. This article explores a series of issues, including the following: (1) Why should EBTs be used in substance abuse treatment? (2) What kinds of treatment are EBTs, and how are they determined? (3) Where can EBTs be implemented--at what levels of service delivery? (4) When should EBTs be used? and (5) How do clinicians learn EBTs? Potential pitfalls in implementing EBTs are also considered.

When treatment meets research: clinical perspectives from the CSAT Methamphetamine Treatment Project

Integrating research-based treatments into clinical settings has become a priority in the substance abuse treatment field. This article examines the introduction of research, via manualized treatment (i.e., the Matrix Model), into community treatment settings that participated in the Center for Substance Abuse Treatment Methamphetamine Treatment Project, a multi-site randomized controlled trial (RCT) that provided free treatment to 1016 methamphetamine-dependent individuals. With both empirical (qualitative) and anecdotal data from those involved clinically in the project, the article utilizes the framework of practitioner concerns set forth by Addis, Wade, and Hatgis (1999) to assess the issues realized during the implementation of this manualized treatment. Despite fairly smooth implementation of the model, the authors conclude that introducing manualized treatment in the context of an RCT may not be the best way to bring research-based treatment into the practice world.

A multi-site comparison of psychosocial approaches for the treatment of methamphetamine dependence

AIMS

The Center for Substance Abuse Treatment (CSAT) Methamphetamine Treatment Project (MTP) is the largest randomized clinical trial of treatments for methamphetamine (MA) dependence to date. The objective of the study was to compare the Matrix Model, a manualized treatment method, with treatment-as-usual (TAU) in eight community out-patient settings in the Western United States.

DESIGN

Over an 18-month period between 1999 and 2001, 978 treatment-seeking, MA-dependent people were randomly assigned to receive either TAU at each site or a manualized 16-week treatment (Matrix Model).

SETTING

The study was conducted as an eight-site out-patient trial, with six sites located in California and one each in Montana and Hawaii.

FINDINGS

In the overall sample, and in the majority of sites, those who were assigned to Matrix treatment attended more clinical sessions, stayed in treatment longer, provided more MA-free urine samples during the treatment period and had longer periods of MA abstinence than those assigned to receive TAU. Measures of drug use and functioning collected at treatment discharge and 6 months post-admission indicate significant improvement by participants in all sites and conditions when compared to baseline levels, but the superiority of the Matrix approach did not persist at these two timepoints.

CONCLUSIONS

Study results demonstrate a significant initial step in documenting the efficacy of the Matrix approach. Although the superiority of the Matrix approach over TAU was not maintained at the post-treatment timepoints, the in-treatment benefit is an important demonstration of empirical support for this psychosocial treatment approach.

Development of Service Intensity Criteria and Program Categories for Individuals with Co-Occurring Disorders

Many patients present a clinical situation in which psychiatric symptomatology and substance related symptomatology are inextricably intertwined. A paradox exists for these patients, in that both the addictions and mental health systems of care, and the level of care assessment methodologies associated with each system, are designed for one type of disorder only, or only one disorder at a time. As a result, these individuals are perceived as "system misfits." Our inability to assess these patients accurately and place them appropriately contributes to poor outcomes and high costs. These costs consist of expensive utilization of scarce system resources. There is a growing need for a more integrated methodology for level of care assessment, in which both psychiatric and substance symptomatology can be assessed simultaneously to generate a wider array of programmatic interventions for individuals with co-occurring disorders. This article describes efforts to build upon the Patient Placement Criteria published by the American Society of Addiction Medicine, Second Edition (ASAM PPC-2) to develop a revised instrument that is much more capable of evaluating the placement needs of individuals who present with combinations of psychiatric and substance symptomatology.