10.2190/CK88-84XD-PRGE-0B1P CK8884XDPRGE0B1P 111 A NATURALISTIC COMPARISON OF OUTCOMES AT SOCIAL AND CLINICAL MODEL SUBSTANCE ABUSE TREATMENT PROGRAMS 111 133 20040416 20040416 20040416 20040416 CK8884XDPRGE0B1P.pdf http://baywood.metapress.com/link.asp?target=contribution&id=CK8884XDPRGE0B1P 2 LEE ANN KASKUTAS LYNDSAY AMMON CONSTANCE WEISNER Alcohol Research Group University of California, San Francisco and, Northern California Division of Research, Kaiser Permanente Since the 1970s, much of the public treatment system in California has been based on a social model orientation to recovery for alcoholics, but there has been minimal research on program outcomes. This article reports on follow-up interviews conducted with a representative sample of 722 people who had entered treatment about a year earlier in public and private programs, including publicly-funded social model detoxification and residential programs, and clinical model programs in hospitals and HMO clinics. Social model clients came to treatment with more severe legal and employment problems, whereas those seeking treatment at clinical programs reported more severe family problems. At follow-up, clients at both types of programs reported attending a similar number of Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) meetings, but social model clients reported going to more Narcotics Anonymous (NA) meetings and being involved in more AA activities. Social model clients were less likely than clinical model clients to report problems with alcohol or drugs at follow-up, but the odds of reporting other problems (e.g., medical, psychological, legal, family/social) were similar. The program effect for better alcohol outcomes at the social model programs was partially explained by their clients' higher levels of 12-step program involvement during follow-up, which strongly predicted an absence of alcohol problems. Social networks supportive of abstinence also were predictive of reporting no alcohol problems at follow-up. In contrast, subsequent detoxification treatment events between baseline and follow-up were associated with a higher odds of reporting alcohol, drug, psychiatric and family/social problems at follow-up. These findings are consistent with the growing body of literature reporting higher rates of abstinence among those who are able to construct more positive social networks, and who attend and become involved in 12-step programs during and following treatment. It is important that these results be replicated, as they suggest that social model programs are successful in engaging their clients in AA activities and in NA meeting attendance, and could represent for some an effective alternative to clinical model treatment programs. Borkman, T. (1990). A comparison of social model and clinical model services. In S. Shaw & T. Borkman (Eds.), Social model recovery: An environmental approach (pp. 45-52). Burbank, CA: Bridge Focus, Inc. Borkman, T. (1998a). Resident self-governance in social model recovery programs. Contemporary Drug Problems, 25, 741-771. Borkman, T. J. (1998b). Is recovery planning any different from treatment planning? Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 15, 37-42. Borkman, T. J., Kaskutas, L. A., & Barrows, D. C. (1996). The social model program: A literature review and history. Center for Substance Abuse Treatment, Department of Health and Human Services. Borkman, T. J., Kaskutas, L. A., Room, J., & Barrows, D. (1998). An historical and developmental analysis of social model programs. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 15, 7-18. Borkman, T. J., Kaskutas, L. A., Room, J., Bryan, K., & Barrows, D. (1997). Executive summary of the social model program: A literature review and analysis. Center for Substance Abuse Treatment, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Edmunds, M., Frank, R., Hogan, M., McCarty, D., Robinson-Beale, R., & Weisner, C. (Eds.) (1997). Managing managed care: Quality improvement in behavioral health. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Finney, J. (1997, November 7). Lessons to be learned from meta-analysis of outcome studies, in Center Directors' Meeting of the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, "Innovations in alcohol treatment and prevention: Contributions from health services research," Berkeley, CA. Gerstein, D. R., Johnson, R. A., Foote, M., Suter, N., Jack, K., Merker, G., Turner, S., Bailey, R., Malloy, K. M., Williams, E., Harwood, H. J., & Fountain, D. (1994a). Evaluating recovery services: The California Drug and Alcohol Treatment Assessment (CALDATA): Methodology report. State of California Department of Alcohol and Drug Programs. Room, J., Kaskutas, L. A., & Piroth, K. (1998). A brief overview of the social model approach. Contemporary Drug Problems, 25, 649-664. Room, J. A. (1998c). Work and identity in substance abuse recovery. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 15, 65-74. San Diego County Department of Health Services (1981). The San Diego County Client Outcome Study, Part III: Six month outcome data on selected characteristics of problem drinkers. San Diego County Department of Health Services (1982). The San Diego County Client Outcome Study, Part IV: Twelve month outcome data on selected characteristics of problem drinkers. San Diego County Department of Health Services (1983). 18-Month participant outcome study: Final report. San Diego, CA: San Diego County Department of Health Services. Schmidt, L., Piroth, K., & Weisner, C. (1998). Substance abuse and mental health treatment systems: The changing organization of service delivery and its implications. Report prepared for the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration under the auspices of the National Archive and Analytic Center for Alcohol, Drug Abuse and Mental Health Data, National Opinion Research Center (NORC), Alcohol Research Group. Schmidt, L., & Weisner, C. (1993). Developments in alcoholism treatment: A ten year review. In M. Galanter (Ed.), Recent developments in alcoholism (Vol. 11, pp. 369-396). New York: Plenum. Tonigan, J. S. (1999, February 1-2). Measuring and studying spirituality in twelve step involvement. Paper presented to the Conference on Studying Spirituality and Alcohol. Tonigan, J. S., Connors, G., & Miller, W. R. (1996). The Alcoholics Anonymous Involvement Scale (AAI): Reliability and norms. Psychology of Addictive Behavior, 10, 75-80. University of California San Diego Extension (1993). Recommendations for evaluation of social model recovery programs: Report of an expert panel. University of California, San Diego. Weisner, C., Mertens, J., Parthasarathy, S., & Moore, C. (2001). Integrating primary medical care with addiction treatment: A randomized control trial. Journal of the American Medical Association, 296, 1715-1723. Weisner, C., & Schmidt, L. (1995). The Community Epidemiology Laboratory: Studying alcohol problems in community and agency-based populations. Addiction, 90, 329-342. McLellan, A. T., Hagan, T. A., Levine, M., Gould, F., Meyers, K., Bencivengo, M., & Durell, J. (1998). Supplemental social services improve outcomes in public addiction treatment. Addiction, 93, 1489-1499. McLellan, T. A., Kushner, H., Metzger, D., Peters, R., Smith, I., Grissom, G., Pettinati, H., & Argeriou, M. (1992). The fifth edition of the Addiction Severity Index. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 9, 199-213. Project MATCH Research Group (1995). Twelve step facilitation therapy manual: A clinical research guide for therapists treating individuals with alcohol abuse and dependence. National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism. McLellan, A. T., Alterman, A. I., Metzger, D. S., Grissom, G. R., Woody, G. E., Luborsky, L., & O'Brien, C. P. (1994). Similarity of outcome predictors across opiate, cocaine and alcohol treatments: Role of treatment services. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 62, 1141-1158. McLellan, A. T., Belding, M., McKay, J. R., Zanis, D., & Alterman, A. I. (1997). Can the outcomes research literature inform the search for quality indicators in substance abuse treatment? In M. Edmunds, R. Frank, M. Hogan, D. McCarty, R. Robinson-Beale, & C. Weisner (Eds.), Managing managed care: Quality improvement in behavioral health (pp. 271-311). Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Project MATCH Research Group (1998). Matching alcoholism treatments to client heterogeneity: Project MATCH three-year drinking outcomes. Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research, 22, 1300-1311. Borkman, T. (1983). A social-experiential model in programs for alcoholism recovery: A research report on a new treatment design. National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Humphreys, K., & Noke, J. M. (1997). The influence of post treatment mutual help group participation on the friendship networks of substance abuse patients. American Journal of Community Psychology, 25, 1-16. Gerstein, D. R., Johnson, R. A., Harwood, H. J., Fountain, D., Suter, N., & Malloy, K. (1994b). Evaluating recovery services: The California Drug and Alcohol Treatment Assessment (CALDATA): General report. Sacramento: State of California Department of Alcohol and Drug Problems. Greenfield, T. K., & Weisner, C. (1995). Drinking problems and self-reported criminal behavior, arrests and convictions: 1990 U.S. alcohol and 1989 county surveys. Addiction, 90, 361-373. Guydish, J., Werdegar, D., Tajima, B., & Price, M. (1997). Clients entering drug abuse day treatment: 18 month outcomes. American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse, 23, 99-114. Humphreys, K., Kaskutas, L. A., & Weisner, C. (1998). The Alcoholics Anonymous Affiliation Scale: Development, reliability, and norms for diverse treated and untreated populations. Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research, 22, 974-978. Project MATCH Research Group (1993). Project MATCH: Rationale and methods for a multisite clinical trial matching patients to alcoholism treatment. Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research, 17, 1130-1145. Humphreys, K., Huebsch, P. D., Finney, J. W., & Moos, R. H. (1999). A comparative evaluation of substance abuse treatment. V. Substance abuse treatment can enhance the effectiveness of self-help groups. Alcoholism: Clinical & Experimental Research, 23, 558-563. Room, J. (1998a). "No big shots or little shots here": Staffing principles and roles at medical and social model substance use treatment facilities. Contemporary Drug Problems, 25, 773-806. Room, J. (1998b). Substance abuse recovery: The social model approach (special issue). Contemporary Drug Problems, 25, 643-647. Asher, M., Friedman, N., Lysionek, C., & Peters, C. (1995). Evaluation of the implementation of Pennsylvania's Act 152 (1988): The quantitative findings (including reprint of the Quantitative Perspective. Villanova, PA: Human Organization Science Institute, Villanova University. Barrows, D. (1998). The community orientation of social model and medical model recovery programs. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 15, 55-64. Morgenstern, J., Labouvie, E., McCrady, B. S., Kahler, C. W., & Frey, R. M. (1997). Affiliation with Alcoholics Anonymous following treatment: A study of its therapeutic effects and mechanisms of action. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 65, 768-777. Institute of Medicine (1990). Broadening the base of treatment for alcohol problems. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Kaskutas, L. A. (1998). Introduction: The social model approach to substance abuse recovery. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 15, 5-6. Kaskutas, L. A., Bond, J., & Humphreys, K. (2002). Social networks as mediators of the effect of Alcoholics Anonymous. Addiction, 97, 891-900. Kaskutas, L. A., Borkman, T., Wittman, F., Room, J., Karp, R., Bryan, K., Barrows, D., Wilson, M., Kohn, A., Marsh, D., & Campt, D. (1996). Report of a process evaluation of social model residential programs. Center for Substance Abuse Treatment. Kaskutas, L. A., Greenfield, T. K., Borkman, T. J., & Room, J. A. (1998a). Measuring treatment philosophy: A scale for substance abuse recovery programs. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 15, 27-36. Kaskutas, L. A., Marsh, D., & Kohn, A. (1998b). Didactic and experiential education in substance abuse programs. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 15, 43-54. Kaskutas, L., Russell, G., & Dinis, M. (1997). Technical report on the alcohol treatment utilization study in public and private sectors. Berkeley, CA: Alcohol Research Group. Kaskutas, L. A., Keller, J. W., & Witbroot, J. (1999). Measuring social model in California: How much has changed? Contemporary Drug Problems, 26, 607-631. Keller, J. W. (1998, September 24). Measuring social model in California. Bakersfield: California Association of Alcohol and Drug Abuse Counselors (CAADAC) annual conference. Keller, J. W., & Kaskutas, L. A. (1998). Measuring social model in California: How much has changed under managed care? Center for Substance Abuse Treatment, Department of Health and Human Services. Longabaugh, R., Wirtz, P. W., Zweben, A., & Stout, R. L. (1998). Network support for drinking, Alcoholics Anonymous and long-term matching efforts. Addiction, 93, 1313-1333. McElrath, D. (1997). The Minnesota model. Journal of Psychoactive Drugs, 29, 141-144. McKay, J. R., Alterman, A. I., McLellan, A. T., & Snider, E. C. (1994). Treatment goals, continuity of care, and outcome in a day hospital substance abuse rehabilitation program. American Journal of Psychiatry, 151, 254-259.