Survey
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Criminal Justice Referral and Incentives in Outpatient Substance Abuse Treatment Anthony 1 DeFulio , 2 Nuzzo , Paul & Maxine 1 Stitzer 1 – Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine; 2 – University of Kentucky College of Medicine BACKGROUND Stimulant users who sought treatment in community psychosocial outpatient treatment programs (N = 415) participated in a 12- week randomized controlled trial (CTN-0006; n = 415) of a prize-based abstinence incentive intervention About 30% had been referred to treatment from the criminal justice system Primary study outcomes documenting improved retention in the full sample abstinence incentive group were published previously (Petry et al., 2005) AIMS To examine the influence of criminal justice referral status on treatment outcome To examine the interaction between criminal justice status and response to the abstinence incentive intervention METHODS Four study subgroups were identified for comparison: • Incentives with criminal justice referral (Incentives-CJ; N = 68), • Incentives without criminal justice referral (Incentives-No CJ; N = 141), • Usual Care with criminal justice referral (UC-CJ; N = 70), • Usual Care without criminal justice referral (UC-No CJ; N = 136). Criminal justice referral was defined as a positive response to the question “Did you come to this treatment program because a judge or probation/parole officer told you to go to treatment?” Data was analyzed for main effects of criminal justice referral status, main effects of the incentive intervention and the criminal justice X incentives interaction. Variables examined included retention (Cox survival) and mean weeks retained (two-factor ANOVA), proportion of stimulant negative urine samples submitted over time (GEE) and longest number of consecutive stimulant negative urine samples (two factor ANOVA) Tukey’s post-hoc tests were conducted between incentive and no incentive conditions within each criminal justice referral subgroup irrespective of whether the interaction term was significant. Figure 1. Percent of participants retained in the study. Figure 2. Stimulant urinalysis results. Figure Notes: Figure 1 shows retention as a function of urine samples collected twice weekly during the 12-week intervention. For figure 2, missing samples were treated as positive. RESULTS Those referred from criminal justice had better outcomes than non CJ-referred on retention and drug use measures. Percent retained at end of 12 weeks was 50% for CJ-referred vs 38% for non CJ-referred. Number of negative urines submitted was 11.3 vs 9.5 (p = .021). A significant interaction of criminal justice referral and incentives was seen only on treatment retention (survival analysis χ2=13.39, p<.001, HR=.80). Significant effects of the abstinence incentive, when apparent, were confined to the non CJ-referred group (Table 1; Figure 2). For example, number of negative urines submitted was 11.2 vs 7.8 for incentive and usual care, respectively in non CJ-referred (p =.001). Comparable outcomes in CJ-referred were 12.5 vs 10.3 (NS). SUMMARY Criminal justice referral was associated with better Table 1. Retention, participation and stimulant use outcomes. substance abuse treatment outcomes compared to nonVariable Condition Effects Statistical Results CJ referred. CJ Incent CJ UC NCJ Incent NCJ UC Main Effect Main Effect CJ Interaction (N = 68) (N = 70) (N =141) (N = 136) Incentives Referral Impact of abstinence incentives was larger and more Retention and Participation % retained to consistent in the non-CJ subgroup 56 44 45 31 P=0.003 P=0.025 P=0.001 week 12 Best outcomes were seen in those exposed to both Mean weeks 18.2 16.1 16.6 14.1 P=0.005 P=0.045 P=0.007 retained positive (abstinence incentive) and negative (avoidance Mean # Urines 13.7 11.4 12.6 9.1 P<0.001 P=0.032 P=0.419 Submitted of CJ sanctions) interventions a b a,b a a a b a,b Stimulant Drug Use Stim Negative Urines (Mean #) 12.5a 10.3 11.3b 7.8a,b P=0.001 P=0.021 P=0.455 Longest Consec Neg Samples 11.1a 8.4 10.3b 6.7a,b P<0.001 P=0.127 P=0.541 GEE Analysis Stim Neg (%) miss /miss 87 86 77 76 P=0.509 P=0.004 P=0.670 Stim neg (%) miss/pos 52a 43 47b 32a,b P=0.001 P=0.017 P=0.394 Table Notes: For Table 1, Shared superscripts indicate a significant between group difference in Tukey’s Post Hoc test (P<0.01 in all cases). For Table 2, participants within each condition are categorized according to the total number of stimulant negative urines submitted in 12 weeks. Table 2. Distribution of stimulant use outcomes. # Neg UA’s CJ Incent N = 68 CJ UC N= 70 NCJ Incent N = 141 NCJ UC N = 136 0-4 22 30 32 45 5-19 52 57 41 47 20-24 27 13 27 8 CONCLUSION Abstinence incentives should be offered as a first priority to substance users entering treatment without criminal justice referral but should be considered for use with all stimulant users independent of criminal justice status. REFERENCE Petry NM, Peirce JM, Stitzer ML, et al. Effect of prizebased incentives on outcomes in stimulant abusers in outpatient psychosocial treatment programs: a national drug abuse treatment clinical trials network study. Archives of General Psychiatry. 2005;62(10):1148-56. SUPPORTED BY: U10DA13034 from the National Institute on Drug Abuse Clinical Trials Network. The authors declare no conflict of interest.