Integrated Substance Abuse Programs
Download
1 / 74

Integrated Substance Abuse Programs - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 104 Views
  • Uploaded on

Integrated Substance Abuse Programs. Bridges have been built: Is anyone using them? Richard A. Rawson, Ph.D, Professor Supported by: National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) Pacific Southwest Technology Transfer Center (SAMHSA) United Nations Office of Drugs and Crime. The Problem in 1996.

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about ' Integrated Substance Abuse Programs' - zena


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript

Integrated Substance Abuse Programs

Bridges have been built: Is anyone using them?Richard A. Rawson, Ph.D, ProfessorSupported by: National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) Pacific Southwest Technology Transfer Center (SAMHSA) United Nations Office of Drugs and Crime


The problem in 1996
The Problem in 1996

  • The US Substance Abuse Research and Treatment Systems each spend billions of dollars per year on the problem of substance abuse treatment.

  • However, the efforts have traditionally been completely disconnected. Despite over 30 years of research findings, most treatment services are based on practices developed during the 1950s and 1960s.


U s agencies involved with substance abuse research and treatment
U.S. Agencies Involved with Substance Abuse Research and Treatment

Research Agencies

NIH

National Institutes of Health

NIDA

National Institute on Drug Abuse

NIAAA

National Institute on Alcohol Abuse & Alcoholism


U s agencies involved with substance abuse research and treatment1
U.S. Agencies Involved with Substance Abuse Research and Treatment

Service Agencies

SAMHSA

Substance Abuse, Mental Health Services Administration

CSAT

Center for Substance Abuse Treatment

CSAP

Center for Substance Abuse Prevention


Traditional culture of u s substance abuse research system
Traditional “Culture” of U.S. Substance Abuse TreatmentRESEARCH System

  • University-based, academic personnel

  • Minimal community involvement

  • Treatment viewed condescendingly

  • Publish data in professional journals

  • Little systematic attempt to transfer knowledge

  • Topics of research omit clinical concerns


Traditional culture of u s substance abuse service delivery system
Traditional “Culture” of U.S. Substance Abuse TreatmentSERVICE Delivery System

  • Recovering/paraprofessional staff

  • Minimal connections with academic tradition

  • Personal ideology determines treatment choices

  • Generally anti-medication

  • Uneven and inadequate treatment funding

  • Little attention to data

  • Science viewed as irrelevant


Bridging the gap a benchmark
“Bridging the Gap”: A Benchmark Treatment

  • Institute of Medicine (1998). S. Lamb, M.R. Greenlick, & D. McCarty, D. (Eds.), Bridging the gap between practice and research: Forging partnerships with community-based drug and alcohol treatment. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.



Nida clinical trials network ctn
NIDA Clinical Trials Network (CTN) NETWORK (CTN)

  • MissionThe mission of the Clinical Trials Network (CTN) is to improve the quality of drug abuse treatment throughout the country using science as the vehicle.The CTN provides an enterprise in which the National Institute on Drug Abuse, treatment researchers, and community-based service providers cooperatively develop, validate, refine, and deliver new treatment options to patients in community-level clinical practice. This unique partnership between community treatment providers and academic research leaders aims to achieve the following objectives:

  • Conducting studies of behavioral, pharmacological, and integrated behavioral and pharmacological treatment interventions of therapeutic effect in rigorous, multi-site clinical trials to determine effectiveness across a broad range of community-based treatment settings and diversified patient populations; and

  • Ensuring the transfer of research results to physicians, clinicians, providers, and patients.


The nida ctn what is it
The NIDA CTN: What is it? NETWORK (CTN)

  • Network Organization

  • The CTN framework consists of seventeen Nodes (Regional Research and Training Centers, linked with five to ten or more Community-based Treatment programs), a Clinical Coordinating Center, and a Data and Statistical Center. 

  • This allows the CTN to provide a broad and powerful infrastructure for rapid, multi-site testing of promising science-based therapies and the subsequent delivery of these treatments to patients in community-based treatment settings across the country.


The pacific node of the ctn
The Pacific Node of the CTN NETWORK (CTN)

  • The Pacific Region Node is a partnership between the Regents of the University of California, Los Angeles and several community treatment programs in the State.

  • The Pacific Node incorporates researchers and clinicians from throughout California. Many of the clinical networks have been involved in the transfer of research into practice for over a decade


Nida ctn how does it work
NIDA CTN: How does it work? NETWORK (CTN)

  • Research concepts are generated at each of the Nodes after discussion between researchers and clinicians.

  • These concepts are proposed to the CTN group and are voted on. Those receiving highest vote go to director of NIDA for approval.


Pacific region protocol involvement
Pacific Region Protocol Involvement NETWORK (CTN)

PROTOCOL0001 Buprenorphine/Naloxone for Opiate Detoxification - INpatient

  • PROTOCOL0002 Buprenorphine/Naloxone for Opiate Detoxification - OUTpatient

  • PROTOCOL0004 Motivational Enhancement Treatment (MET)

  • PROTOCOL0006 Motivational Incentives - Drug Free Clinics

  • PROTOCOL0007 Motivational Incentives - Methadone Clinics

  • PROTOCOL0008 A Baseline for Investigating Diffusion of Innovation


Pacific region protocol involvement1
Pacific Region Protocol Involvement NETWORK (CTN)

  • PROTOCOL0009 Smoking Cessation Treatment With Transdermal Nicotine Replacement Therapy In Substance Abuse Rehabilitation Programs

  • PROTOCOL0012 Characteristics of Screening, Evaluation, and Treatment of HIV/AIDS, Hepatitis C Viral Infection, and Sexually Transmitted Infections in Substance Abuse Treatment Programs

  • PROTOCOL0014 Brief Strategic Family Therapy (BSFT) For Adolescent Drug Abusers


Pacific region protocol involvement2
Pacific Region Protocol Involvement NETWORK (CTN)

  • PROTOCOL0018 Reducing HIV/STD Risk Behaviors: A Research Study for Men in Drug Abuse Treatment

  • PROTOCOL0019 Reducing HIV/STD Risk Behaviors: A Research Study for Women in Drug Abuse Treatment

  • PROTOCOL0027 Starting Treatment with Agonist Replacement Therapies – START

  • PROTOCOL0030 Prescription Opioid Addiction Treatment Study (POATS)


Ctn strengths
CTN: Strengths NETWORK (CTN)

  • Has provided a true forum for researchers and clinicians to interact cooperatively and collaboratively

  • Has generated a significant amount of new published research

  • Research and surrounding publications do appear to be promoting some transfer of research to practice in CTN-affiliated treatment organizations

  • Annual “Blending” Conference and Journal


Ctn limitations opinion
CTN: Limitations (opinion) NETWORK (CTN)

  • Extremely expensive

  • Extremely bureaucratic and committee heavy

  • Productivity not commensurate with budget

  • Bi-directionality of effort is only moderately successful (mostly researcher driven)

  • Impact on the larger US treatment system is unknown


Running the trials is not enough
Running the Trials is not enough NETWORK (CTN)

  • Diffusion of Innovations. 4th Edition

  • Everett M. Rogers - 1995 - New York: Free Press


Research questions
Research Questions NETWORK (CTN)

  • NIDA’s CTN offers an important opportunity to examine if and how inter-organizational relationships promote innovation adoption

    • Focus on buprenorphine and voucher-based motivational incentives

  • Are CTPs in the CTN protocols significantly more likely to adopt bup and/or vouchers?

    • Is “trialability” a predictor of adoption?

  • Does membership in the CTN confer advantages to CTPs that are not involved in these protocols?

    • Is “exposure” a predictor of adoption?


Adoption of buprenorphine
Adoption of Buprenorphine NETWORK (CTN)

CTPs that participated in the buprenorphine trials were significantly more likely to have adopted buprenorphine than CTPs not in the trials and non-CTN centers


Logistic regression model of buprenorphine adoption
Logistic Regression Model of Buprenorphine Adoption NETWORK (CTN)

  • Controlling for other organizational factors:

    • CTPs in the buprenorphine protocols were 5.2 times more likely to use buprenorphine (at the 6-month follow-up) than non-CTN programs (p<.01)

  • Other significant predictors, net of effects of CTN exposure:

    • Center offers detox services (O.R. = 3.59)

    • Center has a physician on staff or contract (O.R. = 3.94)

    • The percentage of primary opiate clients (O.R. = 1.009)


Adoption of voucher based motivational incentives
Adoption of Voucher-Based Motivational Incentives NETWORK (CTN)

These differences in adoption were not statistically significant


Discussion
Discussion NETWORK (CTN)

  • The ability to compare CTN vs. non-CTN centers provides a unique opportunity to examine a variety of factors that influence innovative behavior and the adoption of evidence-based practices at the organizational level.

  • The longitudinal design of these studies will allow for observation of continued trends in adoption of these techniques.

  • Future research is planned to examine the use of MET and motivational interviewing in CTN and non-CTN samples.


From a clinical trial to technology transfer
From a clinical trial to technology transfer NETWORK (CTN)

  • S. Kellogg, M. Burns, P. Coleman, M. Stitzer, J. Wale, M. Jeanne Kreek, M.D.

  • Something of value: The introduction of contingency management interventions into the New York City Health and Hospital Addiction Treatment Service. 

  • Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 2005, Volume 28, Issue 1, Pages 57-65



Mctg the problem
MCTG: The Problem NETWORK (CTN)

  • NIDA has a desire to speed up the development of medications for the treatment of methamphetamine use disorders.

  • Too few research groups available in areas of the US with extensive methamphetamine use.

  • As complexity of medication testing and regulatory system becomes more complex it is difficult for new investigators to initiate research


Mctg the solution
MCTG: The Solution NETWORK (CTN)

  • Establish a training/coordinating center to train, organize and monitor sites.

  • Establish a set of medication testing sites in regions with extensive methamphetamine use and an MD and team that can conduct trials.

  • Decide on a medication(s) and protocol for study

  • Initiate studies


Methamphetamine clinical trials group
Methamphetamine Clinical Trials Group NETWORK (CTN)

  • UCLA is the coordinating center for clinical studies

  • 5 Sites participate on a contractual basis

  • Primary focus-reduction of methamphetamine use

  • All trials use a behavioral platform for all treated subjects


Costa Mesa, CA NETWORK (CTN)

Friends Research Institute

Michael McCann, PI

Des Moines, IA Powell Chemical Dependency Center

Dennis Weis, PI

San Diego, CA

South Bay Treatment Center

Joseph Mawhinney, PI

Kansas City, MO

University of Missouri, Kansas City

Services, Inc.

Jan Campbell, PI

Honolulu, HI

John A. Burns School of

Medicine & Queens Hospital

William Haning, PI

Methamphetamine Clinical Trials Group

(MCTG)

Los Angeles, CA

UCLA Coordinating Center

Richard Rawson, PI

Division of Treatment Research & Development 19 September 2000


Mctg studies
MCTG Studies NETWORK (CTN)

  • Behavioral Platform Study (Completed Oct, 2002). (N=60)

  • Ondansetron Study ( Completed Dec 1, 2003. (N=120

  • Bupropion Study (Completed June 1, 2005) (N=120)

  • Topirimate Study (Underway, projected completion, April 1, 2007 (N=120)

  • Modafinal Study (Projected to begin April 2007)


Mctg accomplishments
MCTG: Accomplishments NETWORK (CTN)

  • Transferred state-of-the-art clinical trials methods to clinical sites with no previous research experience.

  • Successful conducted 3 studies to date with one (bupropion) showing significant promise

  • Sites now are capable of applying for independent research funding


Process Improvement 101 NETWORK (CTN)

Reduce Waiting & No-Shows  Increase Admissions & Continuation


Why process improvement
Why Process Improvement? NETWORK (CTN)

  • Customers are served by processes

  • 85% of customer related problems arecaused by organizational processes

  • To better serve customers, organizationsmust improveprocesses


Niatx four project aims
NIATx Four Project Aims NETWORK (CTN)

Reduce Waiting Times

Reduce No-Shows

Increase Admissions

Increase Continuation Rates


Niatx results
NIATx Results NETWORK (CTN)

Reduce Waiting Times:51% reduction

(37 agencies reporting)

Reduce No-Shows: 41% reduction

(28 agencies reporting)

Increase Admissions: 56% increase

(23 agencies reporting)

Increase Continuation: 39% increase

(39 agencies reporting)


Five Key Principles NETWORK (CTN)

Evidence-based predictors of change

  • Understand & Involve the Customer

  • Focus on Key Problems

  • Select the Right Change Agent

  • Seek Ideas from Outside the Field and Organization

  • Do Rapid-Cycle Testing


Understand and involve the customer
Understand and Involve the Customer NETWORK (CTN)

  • Most important of all the Principles

  • What is it like to be a customer? Staff are customers, too!

  • Walk-through, focus groups…


Focus on key problems
Focus on Key NETWORK (CTN)Problems

  • What is keeping the executive director awake at night?

  • What processes have staff and customers identified as barriers to excellent service?


Detour 1
Detour 1 NETWORK (CTN)

Unclear purpose!

  • Where are you going?

  • How will you know you have arrived?


Aim statement
Aim Statement NETWORK (CTN)

  • Example

    • Improve 30-day continuation rates from 30% to 80% in outpatient services.

  • Need

    • Target

    • Scope of work


Detour 2
Detour 2 NETWORK (CTN)

No feedback!

  • Need a tracking measure.

  • Have a simple measure.



The Problem: NETWORK (CTN)California Prison Population, Drug Offenses, 1980-2000

Source: California Department of Corrections.


Increase in california prison population drug offenses 1970 1999 rate per 100 000 population
Increase in California Prison Population, Drug Offenses, 1970-1999Rate per 100,000 Population

Source: California Department of Corrections.


Solutions? 1970-1999


Proposition 36 substance abuse crime prevention act sacpa
Proposition 36 1970-1999Substance Abuse & Crime Prevention Act (SACPA)

  • 2000 Ballot Measure: Passed by 61% of California voters in 2000

  • Authorized $600,000,000 in new funds for implementation. 2001-2006.

  • Drug offenses: Non-sales, non-manufacturing.

  • Restrictions on offenders with histories of serious or violent crimes

  • Results in community supervision and treatment instead of: Incarceration or

    supervision without treatment


2000 proposition 36 ballot wording
2000 Proposition 36 Ballot Wording: 1970-1999

Proposition 36. Drugs. Probation and Treatment Program. Requires probation and drug treatment, not incarceration, for possession, use, transportation of controlled substances and similar parole violations, except sale or manufacture. Authorizes dismissal of charges after completion of treatment.


Result
Result 1970-1999

6,199,992 / 60.8% Yes votes 3,991,153 / 39.2% No votes

Proposition 36 passed and was enacted as the:

Substance Abuse & Crime Prevention Act

(SACPA)


Pipeline
Pipeline 1970-1999

Arrest or

Parole

Violation

Conviction and Court Order of Probation and Treatment; or Parole Referral

Assessment

Conviction

Dismissed

Treatment

Completion

Treatment

(probation)

Repeated

No

No

No

violation

and

petition,

Ineligible

shows

shows

petition

dropouts

denied

Attrition


Implementation show rates
Implementation 1970-1999Show Rates


Client characteristics
Client Characteristics 1970-1999

  • Half use methamphetamines

  • Half used primary drug more than 10 years

  • Half are in treatment for first time


Treatment summary
Treatment Summary 1970-1999

  • 34% of clients who enter treatment complete it

  • Most clients are sent to outpatient treatment

  • Heroin users rarely get methadone treatment

  • Heroin users are least likely to complete


Re-offending 1970-1999New ArrestsOne Year After Offense, Year 1 (7/01 - 6/02) Population


Any Work in the Past 30 Days 1970-1999

a,b Group differences are statistically significant, p = .04. Pre-post differences (not shown) are all

statistically significant, p <.0001.


Any Drug Use in the Past 30 Days 1970-1999

Group differences are statistically significant. ap<.05, bp<.02.


Outcome summary effect of sacpa as policy
Outcome Summary: 1970-1999Effect of SACPA As Policy

  • SACPA-era offenders have more drug arrests in the initial 12 months

  • Initial re-offending is affected by differences in incarceration rates

  • Violent re-offending is low in all groups



SUMMARY OF FINDINGS 1970-1999

Notes: Figure provides a summary of cost offsets. The zero-line can be interpreted as cost neutral. Any bar above the line represents a cost increase and any bar below the line represents a cost saving.


COSTS UNDER SACPA 1970-1999

  • Savings primarily from prison, jail reductions.

  • Cost increases primarily from increased treatment, new crimes.

  • Costs are $2,861 per offender lower than what we would expect in the absence of SACPA.

  • Benefit-to-cost ratio of about 2.5:1.

  • For treatment completers, the cost savings reflect a benefit-to-cost ratio of about 4:1


KEY COST ANALYSIS FINDINGS 1970-1999

  • Substantially reduced incarceration costs.

  • Greater cost savings for some offenders than for others

  • Can be improved


California Prison Population, 1970-1999Drug Offenses, 1980-2000

Source: California Department of Corrections.


California Prison Population, 1970-1999Drug Offenses, 1980-2004

Source: California Department of Corrections.


Conclusion
Conclusion 1970-1999

  • 70% of referrals have entered treatment

  • Methamphetamine is the most common drug

  • Half are in treatment for the first time

  • 34% of clients have completed treatment

  • Initial re-offending is lowest for completers

  • Employment is highest for completers

  • Abstinence is highest for completers, but overall drug use outcomes are uneven


Prop 26 sacpa is it good policy
Prop 26 (SACPA): Is it good policy? 1970-1999

  • Approximately 200,000 individuals will have received treatment over program

  • Final report currently in process

    • Fiscal impact appears quite positive

  • No group has come out to revoke SACPA

  • Disagreements concern exact provisions

  • Failure to pass revised SACPA provisions could result in funding responsibility being passed on to counties.



Recognizing and Addressing the Need to Expand Training and Treatment Capacity to Address Substance Abuse Problems

  • There is a need for trained professionals to deliver effective rehabilitation and harm reduction interventions for substance abuse and dependence around the world

  • The paucity of properly trained professional is a barrier to the development and delivery of effective treatment services, especially regarding underserved and inappropriately served populations of drug abusers, including women and children

  • There is a worldwide shortage of qualified training experts and educational settings in which drug abuse treatment training is provided, particularly in developing regions

  • A goal of this training effort is to train clinicians and educate academics who will train additional professionals to address the problems of drug abuse in an empirically rational method


Capacity building plan
Capacity Building Plan Treatment Capacity to Address Substance Abuse Problems

In short, the goal of the capacity building plan is to increase the number of personnel who can disseminate and promote the use of effective, scientifically-supported and practical drug abuse treatment practices around the world.


Treatnet members
Treatnet Members Treatment Capacity to Address Substance Abuse Problems

  • RS Ketergantungan Obat The Drug Dependence Hospital, Indonesia

  • Iranian National Prison Organisation /Iranian National Centre for Addiction Studies INCAS, Iran

  • National Research and Clinical Centre on Medical and Social Problems of Drug, Kazakhstan

  • Drug Rehabilitation Unit, Mathari Hospital, Kenya

  • Centros de Integración Juvenil A.C., Mexico

  • Neuropsychiatric Hospital Aro, Nigeria


Treatnet members1
Treatnet Members Treatment Capacity to Address Substance Abuse Problems

  • Shanghai Drug Abuse Treatment Centre, China

  • Carisma Centre for Attention and Integral Mental Health, Colombia

  • General Secretariat of Mental Health, Egypt

  • TT Ranganathan Clinical Research Foundation, India

  • Regional Research Centre of Narcology and Psychopharmacology affiliated to St. Petersburg Pavlov State Medical University, Russia

  • Psychosocial Attention Centre for Alcohol and other Drugs, Brazil


Treatnet members2
Treatnet Members Treatment Capacity to Address Substance Abuse Problems

  • Turning Point Alcohol and Drug Centre Inc., Australia

  • Centre for Addiction and Mental Health CAMH, Canada

  • Mudra, Germany

  • Asociación Proyecto Hombre, Spain

  • Maria Ungdom, Sweden

  • Cranstoun Drug Services, United Kingdom

  • Fayette Companies, U.S.A.

  • Stanley Street Treatment & Resources (SSTAR) Inc., U.S.A.


Capacity building plan for unodc treatnet program what are we trying to do
Capacity Building Plan for UNODC Treatnet Program: What are we trying to do?

The purpose of the capacity building component for the UNODC Treatnet Program is to develop a set of training materials and a training plan for trainers from 20 Resource Centres established by UNODC. To accomplish this task, we will:

1. Conduct a training needs assessment.

2. Determine priority training/skill development topics.

3. Create a set of training modules to address #2.

4. Conduct a set of training, supervision and mentoring activities with two trainers from each of the resource centres.

5. Collect information to contribute to the project evaluation.


Need assessment a brief summary
Need Assessment: A Brief Summary we trying to do?

The following topics received the most interest.

  • Motivational Interviewing

  • Relapse Prevention (CBT)

  • Assessment

  • Program management

  • Outreach strategies

  • Youth

  • Building Service Networks

  • Family

  • Co-occurring

  • Drugs and the brain

  • Brief interventions

  • Outpatient treatments

  • Harm minimization

  • Basic knowledge of drugs

  • Research and evaluation methods


Summary
Summary we trying to do?

  • The issue of research practice integration has been a priority in the US for almost a decade.

  • Major initiatives have been established to cross the research-practice gap.

  • Clinicians are more aware of research value and findings

  • Quality research can be done in clinical service delivery settings

  • It continues to be a challenging, expensive, time consuming process


Thank you

THANK YOU we trying to do?

[email protected]

WWW.UCLAISAP.ORG


ad