Suchergebnisse

This article examines changes from 2005 to 2011 in the use of an evidence-based clinical innovation, buprenorphine use, among a nationally representative sample of opioid treatment programs and identifies characteristics associated with its adoption. We apply a model of the adoption of clinical innovations that focuses on the work needs and characteristics of staff; organizations' technical and social support for the innovation; local market dynamics and competition; and state policies governing the innovation. Results indicate that buprenorphine use increased 24% for detoxification and 47% for maintenance therapy between 2005 and 2011. Buprenorphine use was positively related to reliance on private insurance and availability of state subsidies to cover its cost and inversely related to the percentage of clients who injected opiates, county size, and local availability of methadone. The results indicate that financial incentives and market factors play important roles in opioid treatment programs' decisions to adopt evidence-based clinical innovations such as buprenorphine use.

This article describes the development of an instrument to screen male and female offenders for co-occurring substance use and mental disorders. This phase developed and pilot tested ( N = 100) the Criminal Justice Drug Abuse Treatment Studies (CJDATS) Co-occurring Disorders Screening Instrument for Mental Disorders (CODSI-MD), a 6-item instrument derived from three standard mental health screeners. The overall accuracy of the CODSI-MD (81%) compared favorably with the three standard instruments. A second 3-item instrument, developed to screen for severe mental disorders (the CODSI-SMD), had an overall accuracy of 82%. The results of this pilot study must be viewed cautiously, pending validation of the findings with a larger sample.

Individuals must feel free to exert personal control over decisions regarding research participation. We present an examination of participants' perceived personal control over, as well as reported pressures and threats from others, influencing their decision to join a study assessing the effectiveness of extended-release naltrexone in preventing opioid dependence relapse. Most participants endorsed a strong sense of control over the decision; few reported pressures or threats. Although few in number, participants' brief narrative descriptions of the pressures and threats are illuminating and provide context for their perceptions of personal control. Based on this work, we propose a useful set of tools to help ascertain participants' sense of personal control in joining research.