Child care in outpatient substance abuse treatment facilities for women: findings from the 2008 National Survey of substance Abuse Treatment Services.

Mathematica Policy Research, 600 Maryland Ave, Suite 550, Washington, DC 20024, USA.
The Journal of Behavioral Health Services & Research (Impact Factor: 1.37). 02/2011; 38(4):478-87. DOI: 10.1007/s11414-011-9235-1
Source: PubMed


Mothers with substance use disorders who lack access to child care are often unable to enter or remain in substance abuse treatment. This study examined the availability of child care in outpatient substance abuse treatment facilities and whether or not certain facility characteristics were associated with the availability of child care. Using data from the 2008 National Survey of Substance Abuse Treatment Services, 6.5% of outpatient substance abuse treatment facilities that served women provided child care. The results of multivariate logistic regression found that child care was more common among facilities that were located in metropolitan areas, were operated by non-profit or government agencies, received public funding, or provided free services or other ancillary services including case management, domestic violence counseling, and transportation assistance. Facilities that served only women had more than three times higher odds of providing child care compared with mixed-gender facilities. Further research is needed to identify strategies for expanding child care in outpatient substance abuse treatment facilities.

16 Reads
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Alcohol and drug abuse and dependence are common disorders in our society, and the vast majority of those who recover do so without formal treatment. Although this phenomenon appears to be more common among women than men there has been no gender-sensitive research. This qualitative study explored the barriers to formal treatment seeking among women who self-managed change in their alcohol and other drug dependence. The principal barriers identified included social stigma and labelling; lack of awareness of the range of treatment options, concerns about childcare, the perceived economic and time costs of residential treatment, concerns about the confrontational models used by some treatment services, and stereotypical views of clients of treatment services. A number of recommendations were made regarding program reach and content.
    Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment 04/1997; 14(2):183-90. DOI:10.1016/S0740-5472(96)00108-0 · 3.14 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Tailoring substance abuse treatment to women often leads to better outcomes. Previous evidence, however, suggests limited availability of such options. This investigation sought to depict recent changes in outpatient substance abuse treatment (OSAT) tailoring to women and to identify unit and contextual factors associated with these practices. Data were from 2 waves of a national OSAT unit survey (N = 618 in 1995, N = 566 in 2005). Comparisons of weighted means between waves indicate which practices changed over time. Multiple logistic regressions with generalized estimating equations test associations between unit and contextual attributes and tailoring to women. Tailoring to women was measured as availability of prenatal care, child care, single sex therapy, and same sex therapists, and the percentage of staff trained to meet female clients' needs. Two measures of tailoring to women declined significantly between 1995 and 2005: availability of single sex therapy (from 66% to 44% of units) and percent of staff trained to work with women (from 42% to 32% of units). No aspect of tailoring to women became more common. Proportion of female clients, total number of clients, methadone status, and private and government managed care were associated with higher odds of tailoring to women. For-profit facilities, which became more prevalent during the study period, had lower odds than other units of tailoring treatment to women. Some key aspects of OSAT tailoring to women decreased significantly in the last decade. Managed care contracts may offer 1 mechanism for counteracting these trends.
    Medical Care 09/2007; 45(8):775-80. DOI:10.1097/MLR.0b013e31806518c0 · 3.23 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This paper reviews the literature examining characteristics associated with treatment outcome in women with substance use disorders. A search of the English language literature from 1975 to 2005 using Medline and PsycInfo databases found 280 relevant articles. Ninety percent of the studies investigating gender differences in substance abuse treatment outcomes were published since 1990, and of those, over 40% were published since the year 2000. Only 11.8% of these studies were randomized clinical trials. A convergence of evidence suggests that women with substance use disorders are less likely, over the lifetime, to enter treatment compared to their male counterparts. Once in treatment, however, gender is not a significant predictor of treatment retention, completion, or outcome. Gender-specific predictors of outcome do exist, however, and individual characteristics and treatment approaches can differentially affect outcomes by gender. While women-only treatment is not necessarily more effective than mixed-gender treatment, some greater effectiveness has been demonstrated by treatments that address problems more common to substance-abusing women or that are designed for specific subgroups of this population. There is a need to develop and test effective treatments for specific subgroups such as older women with substance use disorders, as well as those with co-occurring substance use and psychiatric disorders such as eating disorders. Future research on effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of gender-specific versus standard treatments, as well as identification of the characteristics of women and men who can benefit from mixed-gender versus single-gender treatments, would advance the field.
    Drug and Alcohol Dependence 02/2007; 86(1):1-21. DOI:10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2006.05.012 · 3.42 Impact Factor
Show more