Improving Linkage with Substance Abuse Treatment using Brief Case Management and Motivational Interviewing

Richard C. Rapp; Amy L. Otto; D. Timothy Lane; Cristina Redko; Sue McGatha; Robert G. Carlson

doi:10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2007.11.012

Improving Linkage with Substance Abuse Treatment using Brief Case Management and Motivational Interviewing

Richard C. Rapp, Amy L. Otto, D. Timothy Lane, Cristina Redko, Sue McGatha, Robert G. Carlson

Population and Public Health Sciences

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

Abstract

<p> <h4 id="x-x-absSec_1"> Background </h4> <p id="x-x-"> 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. <h4 id="x-x-absSec_2"> Methods </h4> <p id="x-x-"> 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). <em> A priori </em> 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. <h4 id="x-x-absSec_3"> Results </h4> <p id="x-x-"> Two hypotheses were confirmed in that SBCM ( <em> n </em> = 222) was effective in improving linkage compared to the SOC ( <em> n </em> = 230), 55.0% vs. 38.7% ( <em> p </em> < .01). SBCM improved linkage more than MI (55.0% vs. 44.7%, <em> p </em> < .05). Motivational interviewing ( <em> n </em> = 226) was not significantly more effective in improving linkage than the standard of care (44.7% vs. 38.7%; <em> p </em> > .05). The three trial groups differed only slightly on the client characteristics that predicted linkage with treatment. <h4 id="x-x-absSec_4"> Conclusions </h4> <p id="x-x-"> 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. </p> </p> </p> </p></p>

Original language	American English
Journal	Drug and Alcohol Dependence
Volume	94
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2007.11.012
State	Published - Apr 1 2008

Keywords

Case Management
Motivational Interviewing
Linkage
Substance Abuse Treatment

Disciplines

Community Health
Community Health and Preventive Medicine
Medicine and Health Sciences
Mental and Social Health
Public Health

Access to Document

10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2007.11.012License: CC BY

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2289777/

Cite this

@article{e09caeb277bf49d3b27cc3881838b57c,

title = "Improving Linkage with Substance Abuse Treatment using Brief Case Management and Motivational Interviewing",

abstract = " Background 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. Methods 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. Results 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. Conclusions 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. ",

keywords = "Case Management, Motivational Interviewing, Linkage, Substance Abuse Treatment",

author = "Rapp, {Richard C.} and Otto, {Amy L.} and Lane, {D. Timothy} and Cristina Redko and Sue McGatha and Carlson, {Robert G.}",

year = "2008",

month = apr,

day = "1",

doi = "10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2007.11.012",

language = "American English",

volume = "94",

journal = "Drug and Alcohol Dependence",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Improving Linkage with Substance Abuse Treatment using Brief Case Management and Motivational Interviewing

AU - Rapp, Richard C.

AU - Otto, Amy L.

AU - Lane, D. Timothy

AU - Redko, Cristina

AU - McGatha, Sue

AU - Carlson, Robert G.

PY - 2008/4/1

Y1 - 2008/4/1

N2 - Background 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. Methods 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. Results 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. Conclusions 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.

AB - Background 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. Methods 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. Results 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. Conclusions 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.

KW - Case Management

KW - Motivational Interviewing

KW - Linkage

KW - Substance Abuse Treatment

UR - https://corescholar.libraries.wright.edu/comhth/76

UR - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2289777/

U2 - 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2007.11.012

DO - 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2007.11.012

M3 - Article

C2 - 18242883

VL - 94

JO - Drug and Alcohol Dependence

JF - Drug and Alcohol Dependence

ER -

Improving Linkage with Substance Abuse Treatment using Brief Case Management and Motivational Interviewing

Abstract

Keywords

Disciplines

Access to Document

Other files and links

Cite this