Search

Aims Routine outcome monitoring (ROM) is receiving growing attention. However, follow-up interviews are time-consuming and costly. This study examines the feasibility and validity of low-budget telephonic follow-up interviews for ROM in a substance abuse treatment centre (SATC). Design Observational study using data collected for routine outcome monitoring. Setting The study was performed in a SATC in an urban area in the Netherlands. Participants Feasibility and validity were assessed on data of 2325 patients. Measurements Data on pre-treatment socio-demographic and clinical characteristics were collected using electronic patient records (EPRs) and the European version of the Addiction Severity Index (EuropASI). Data on intensity of treatment were also collected through the EPRs. Telephonic follow-up interviews were conducted between 9 and 10 months after intake. Findings A 53% follow-up rate was achieved; 35% of the patients could not be contacted, 3% explicitly refused and in 8% other reasons accounted for non-participation. About 50% of the interviews took place in the intended time-frame. Costs were &U20AC;40 ($57) per completed interview. There were indications of selection bias, because patients with cocaine as their primary problem and patients with polysubstance abuse were under-represented in the follow-up sample; the presence of these disorders is associated with negative treatment outcome. Conclusions Implementing telephonic low-budget follow-up interviews for ROM is feasible, but selection bias threatens internal validity of data, limiting generalization to the total treatment population. Increased efforts to track patients for follow-up may improve generalization. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: The purpose of this study was to assess the predictive validity of guidelines for allocating outpatients with an alcohol-use disorder to different levels of care in routine alcohol outpatient treatment facilities. It was hypothesized that patients matched to the recommended level of care would have (a) better outcomes than patients treated at a less intensive level of care, and (b) outcomes equivalent to patients treated at a more intensive level of care. Patients at two Dutch substance-abuse treatment centers who completed intake and were allocated at either a brief or standard outpatient treatment (n =471) were followed prospectively to determine differential outcomes for those who were and were not treated at the recommended level of car. The former patients were allocated according to an algorithm based on their treatment history, addiction severity, psychiatric impairment and social stability at baseline. 52.9% of the original sample was successfully contacted for follow-up 11months after intake. Outcome was measured in terms of self-reported alcohol use 30days prior to follow up and changes in number of excessive and nonexcessive drinking days between intake and follow up. Only 21% of the patients were matched to the level of care according to the guidelines. Patients allocated to the recommended level of care did not have better outcomes than those treated at a less intensive level of care, but they had outcomes comparable to patients treated at a more intensive level of care. The a priori allocation guidelines were followed for only a minority of the patients, and using them did not improve treatment outcome. Further work is needed to improve the content of the treatment allocation guidelines. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]