Improving linkage with substance abuse treatment using brief case management and motivational interviewing

Center for Interventions, Treatment, and Addictions Research, Wright State University, Boonshoft School of Medicine, 3640 Colonel Glenn Highway, Dayton, OH 45435, USA.
Drug and Alcohol Dependence (Impact Factor: 3.28). 04/2008; 94(1-3):172-82. DOI: 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2007.11.012
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Poor linkage with substance abuse treatment remains a problem, negating the benefits that can accrue to both substance abusers and the larger society. Numerous behavioral interventions have been tested to determine their potential role in improving linkage.
A randomized clinical trial of 678 substance abusers compared the linkage effect of two brief interventions with the referral standard of care (SOC) at a centralized intake unit (CIU). Interventions included five sessions of strengths-based case management (SBCM) or one session of motivational interviewing (MI). A priori hypotheses predicted that both interventions would be better than the standard of care in predicting linkage and that SBCM would be more effective than MI. We analyzed the effect of the two interventions on overall treatment linkage rates and by treatment modality. Logistic regression analysis examined predictors of treatment linkage for the sample and each group.
Two hypotheses were confirmed in that SBCM (n=222) was effective in improving linkage compared to the SOC (n=230), 55.0% vs. 38.7% (p<.01). SBCM improved linkage more than MI (55.0% vs. 44.7%, p<.05). Motivational interviewing (n=226) was not significantly more effective in improving linkage than the standard of care (44.7% vs. 38.7%; p>.05). The three trial groups differed only slightly on the client characteristics that predicted linkage with treatment.
The results of this study confirm a body of literature that supports the effectiveness of case management in improving linkage with treatment. The role of motivational interviewing in improving linkage was not supported. Results are discussed in the context of other case management and motivational interviewing linkage studies.


Available from: Cristina Redko, Jun 14, 2015
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This randomized, controlled study (n = 256) was conducted to compare three interventions designed to promote hepatitis A virus (HAV) and hepatitis B virus (HBV) vaccination completion, among clients undergoing methadone maintenance treatment (MMT) in Los Angeles and Santa Monica. The participants were randomized into three groups: Motivational Interviewing-Single Session (MI-Single), Motivational Interviewing-Group (MI-Group), or Nurse-Led Hepatitis Health Promotion (HHP). All three treatment groups received the 3-series HAV/HBV vaccine. The MI sessions were provided by trained therapists, the Nurse-Led HHP sessions were delivered by a research nurse. The main outcome variable of interest was improvement in HBV and HCV knowledge, measured by a 6-item HBV and a 7-item HCV knowledge and attitude tool that was administered at baseline and at 6-month follow-up. The study results showed that there was a significant increase in HBV- and HCV-related knowledge across all three groups (p < 0.0001). There were no significant differences found with respect to knowledge acquisition among the groups. Irrespective of treatment group, gender (P = 0.008), study site (P < 0.0001) and whether a participant was abused as a child (P = 0.017) were all found to be predictors of HCV knowledge improvement; only recruitment site (P < 0.0001) was found to be a predictor of HBV knowledge. The authors concluded that, although MI-Single, MI-Group and Nurse-Led HHP are all effective in promoting HBV and HCV knowledge acquisition among MMT clients, Nurse-Led HHP may be the method of choice for this population as it may be easier to integrate and with additional investigation may prove to be more cost efficient.
    Journal of Community Health 04/2010; 35(4):423-32. DOI:10.1007/s10900-010-9266-1 · 1.28 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Objectives To test whether strengths-based case management provided during an inmate’s transition from incarceration to the community increases participation in community substance abuse treatment, enhances access to needed social services, and improves drug use, crime, and HIV risk outcomes. Methods In a multi-site trial, inmates (men and women) in four states (n = 812) were randomly assigned (within site) to receive either Transitional Case Management (TCM group), based on strengths-based principles, or standard parole services (SR group). Data were collected at baseline and at 3 and 9 months following release from prison. Analyses compared the two groups with respect to services received and to drug use, crime, and HIV risk behavior outcomes. Results There were no significant differences between parolees in the TCM group and the SR group on outcomes related to participation in drug abuse treatment, receipt of social services, or drug use, crime, and HIV risk behaviors. For specific services (e.g., residential treatment, mental health), although significant differences were found for length of participation or for number of visits, the number of participants in these services was small and the direction of effect was not consistent. Conclusion In contrast to positive findings in earlier studies of strengths-based case management with mental-health and drug-abuse clients, this study found that case management did not improve treatment participation or behavioral outcomes for parolees with drug problems. The discussion includes possible reasons for the findings and suggestions for modifications to the intervention that could be addressed in future research.
    Journal of Experimental Criminology 09/2011; 7(3):225-253. DOI:10.1007/s11292-011-9123-y · 1.17 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Objective: Case management has been widely used as an intervention in the treatment of substance abuse problems. Its effectiveness has been associated with over 450 outcomes, some consistent with case management's traditional functions of linking (treatment tasks) and others typical of treatment outcomes such as substance use (personal functioning). Method: Meta-analyses were conducted on 21 randomized clinical trials in which we compared the efficacy of case management with standard-of-care conditions and active interventions. Characteristics of case management-including targeted outcomes, case management model, location on the treatment continuum, and intervention quality-were treated as moderators, as were 2 study features, length of follow-up, and methodological quality. Results: Results showed that case management was efficacious across all targeted outcomes when compared with standard of care (δ ^ = 0.15, SE = 0.037), although the overall effect was weak. There was a significant difference, F(1, 429) = 25.26, p < .0001, between case management's effect on treatment task outcomes such as linking with and staying in treatment (δ^ 2 = .29, p = .001) and improving individuals' functioning of persons with substance abuse problems in areas such as substance use and HIV risk behaviors (δ^ 1 = 0.06, p = .05). Moderator analyses demonstrated that (a) 4 case management models were more effective than standard of care in improving treatment task outcomes and (b) case management was effective either in or out of treatment. Conclusions: Our results demonstrate that case management is effective across a wide range of treatment task outcomes, but more limited in its effectiveness with personal functioning outcomes. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2014 APA, all rights reserved).
    Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 05/2014; 82(4). DOI:10.1037/a0036750 · 4.85 Impact Factor