Enhanced Continuing Care Provided in Parallel to Intensive Outpatient Treatment Does Not Improve Outcomes for Patients With Cocaine Dependence
ABSTRACT Objective: This study tested whether the addition of an enhanced continuing care (ECC) intervention that combined in-person and telephone sessions and began in the first week of treatment improved outcomes for cocaine-dependent patients entering an intensive outpatient program (IOP). Method: Participants (N = 152) were randomized to IOP treatment as usual (TAU) or IOP plus 12 months of ECC. ECC included cognitive-behavioral therapy elements to increase coping skills, as well as monetary incentives for attendance. It was provided by counselors situated at a separate clinical research facility who did not provide IOP. The primary outcomes measured were (a) cocaine urine toxicology and (b) good clinical outcome, as indicated by abstinence from all drugs and from heavy alcohol use. Secondary outcomes were frequency of abstinent days, cocaine use days, and heavy drinking days. Follow-ups were conducted at 3, 6, 9, and 12 months after baseline. Results: Patients in ECC completed a mean of 18 sessions. Contrary to the hypotheses, patients in TAU had better scores on both the cocaine urine toxicology and the good clinical outcome measures than those in ECC, as indicated by significant Group × Time interactions (cocaine urine toxicology, p = .0025; abstinence composite, p = .017). These results were not moderated by substance use before or early in treatment or by IOP attendance. Results with the secondary outcomes also did not favor ECC over TAU. Conclusions: Continuing care that is not well integrated with the primary treatment program may interfere in some way with the therapeutic process, particularly when it is implemented shortly after intake. (J. Stud. Alcohol Drugs, 74, 642-651, 2013).
- SourceAvailable from: Michael L Dennis[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Scientific advances in the past 15 years have clearly highlighted the need for recovery management approaches to help individuals sustain recovery from chronic substance use disorders. This article reviews some of the recent findings related to recovery management: (1) continuing care, (2) recovery management checkups, (3) 12-step or mutual aid, and (4) technology-based interventions. The core assumption underlying these approaches is that earlier detection and re-intervention will improve long-term outcomes by minimizing the harmful consequences of the condition and maximizing or promoting opportunities for maintaining healthy levels of functioning in related life domains. Economic analysis is important because it can take a year or longer for such interventions to offset their costs. The article also examines the potential of smartphones and other recent technological developments to facilitate more cost-effective recovery management options.Current Psychiatry Reports 04/2014; 16(4):442. DOI:10.1007/s11920-014-0442-3 · 3.05 Impact Factor
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: The present quasi-experiment examined the direct and indirect effects of recovery support telephone calls following adolescent substance use disorder treatment. Six-month outcome data from 202 adolescents who had received recovery support calls from primarily pre-professional (i.e., college-level social service students) volunteers was compared to 6-month outcome data from a matched comparison sample of adolescents (n = 404). Results suggested adolescents in the recovery support sample had significantly greater reductions in their recovery environment risk relative to the comparison sample (β = -.17). Path analysis also suggested that the reduction in recovery environment risk produced by recovery support calls had indirect impacts (via recovery environment risk) on reductions in social risk (β = .22), substance use (β = .23), and substance-related problems (β = .16). Finally, moderation analyses suggested the effects of recovery support calls did not differ by gender, but were significantly greater for adolescents with lower levels of treatment readiness. In addition to providing rare empirical support for the effectiveness of recovery support services, an important contribution of this study is that it provides evidence that recovery support services do not necessarily have to be "peer-based," at least in terms of the recovery support service provider having the experiential credentials of being "in recovery." If replicated, this latter finding may have particularly important implications for helping increase the recovery support workforce.