Article |

Problem-Service 'Matching' in Addiction Treatment:  A Prospective Study in 4 Programs

A. Thomas McLellan, PhD; Grant R. Grissom, PhD; David Zanis, PhD; Mary Randall, MA; Peter Brill, MD; Charles P. O'Brien, MD, PhD
Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1997;54(8):730-735. doi:10.1001/archpsyc.1997.01830200062008.
Text Size: A A A
Published online

Background:  Our initial attempts to "match" substance-abuse patients from an employee assistance program to an optimal setting or program failed. Scientifically, we found no differential predictors of better outcomes by setting or program. From a practical perspective, it was impossible to place patients in the intended programs. This led to a second study, designed to identify specific patient problems and match professional services to those problems within each of the 4 programs.

Methods:  Ninety-four new patients admitted to 4 substance-abuse treatment programs were randomly assigned to standard treatment and treated in the usual manner or were assigned to "matched" services, in which patients received at least 3 professional sessions directed at their important employment, family, or psychiatric problems.

Results:  Matched patients stayed in treatment longer, were more likely to complete treatment, and had better posttreatment outcomes than did the standard patients treated in the same programs.

Conclusions:  For logistical, financial, and clinical reasons, it is improbable that patients will be matched to specific types of programs. However, within any program, it is possible and practical to match appropriate services to patients' specific treatment problems. This strategy was clinically and administratively practical, attractive to patients, and responsible for a 20% to 30% increase in the effectiveness of this substance-abuse treatment system.


Sign In to Access Full Content

Don't have Access?

Register and get free email Table of Contents alerts, saved searches, PowerPoint downloads, CME quizzes, and more

Subscribe for full-text access to content from 1998 forward and a host of useful features

Activate your current subscription (AMA members and current subscribers)

Purchase Online Access to this article for 24 hours





Meets CME requirements for:
Browse CME for all U.S. States
Accreditation Information
The American Medical Association is accredited by the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education to provide continuing medical education for physicians. The AMA designates this journal-based CME activity for a maximum of 1 AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM per course. Physicians should claim only the credit commensurate with the extent of their participation in the activity. Physicians who complete the CME course and score at least 80% correct on the quiz are eligible for AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM.
Note: You must get at least of the answers correct to pass this quiz.
You have not filled in all the answers to complete this quiz
The following questions were not answered:
Sorry, you have unsuccessfully completed this CME quiz with a score of
The following questions were not answered correctly:
Commitment to Change (optional):
Indicate what change(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.
Your quiz results:
The filled radio buttons indicate your responses. The preferred responses are highlighted
For CME Course: A Proposed Model for Initial Assessment and Management of Acute Heart Failure Syndromes
Indicate what changes(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.
Citing articles are presented as examples only. In non-demo SCM6 implementation, integration with CrossRef’s "Cited By" API will populate this tab (http://www.crossref.org/citedby.html).
Submit a Comment


Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Sign In to Access Full Content

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging & repositioning the boxes below.