Assignment: Article Review and Critique – SOCW 6301 Week 10
SEE ALL OF THE ATTACHED DOCUMENTS FOR THE REQUIREMENTS
By now, you should be aware that the findings from a research study are only part of the story. As a consumer, hoping to inform practice by use of an evidence base, you want to know much more. A sound research study includes all the steps highlighted in previous weeks: reviewing existing literature, focusing a research question, choosing a qualitative or quantitative method for answering the question, designing the study including selection of data collection procedures and/or measures, procedures used, data analysis plan, and findings. In addition, the study commonly discusses how ethical concerns were addressed and acknowledges the limitations of the study.
For this assignment, you review a published research study with two purposes in mind:
· Observing the structure and content of the article
· Comparing the content of the article to the recommended content of sections for a research study.
Submit a 7-10 page critique and review of the article, which includes the title page and the reference list. Follow the guidelines below:
1. Use the quantitative or qualitative research article that you located and that your instructor approved as part of the Week 5 assignment.
2. Provide an APA reference for the article you select.
3. If you selected a quantitative research study, use the “Quantitative Article Review and Critique. If you selected a qualitative study, use the “Qualitative Article Review and Critique.” Respond to all the questions.
Be sure to include the questions in your critique. This will cause your SafeAssign report to show high similarity to other students’ papers. However, do not be concerned about that. Do, however, appropriately paraphrase and cite specific details from the article you review.
· Include at least 6 references and citations.
Substance Use & Misuse, 50:
653
–663, 2015
Copyright C© 2015 Foundations Recovery Network
ISSN: 1082-6084 print / 1532-2491 online
DOI: 10.3109/10826084.2014.997828
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Gender Differences in Treatment Retention Among Individuals with
Co-Occurring Substance Abuse and Mental Health Disorders
Sam Choi1, Susie M. Adams2, Siobhan A. Morse3 and Sam MacMaster1
1School of Social Work, University of Tennessee—Knoxville, Nashville, Tennessee, USA; 2Vanderbilt University,
Nashville, Tennessee, USA; 3Research and Fidelity, Foundations Recovery Network, Brentwood, California, USA
Background: A significant number of individuals with
co-occurring substance abuse and mental health dis-
orders do not engage, stay, and/or complete residen-
tial treatment. Although prior research indicates that
women and men differ in their substance abuse treat-
ment experiences, our knowledge of individuals with
co-occurring substance abuse and mental health disor-
ders as well as those attending private residential treat-
ment is limited. Objectives: The purpose of this study
is to examine gender differences on treatment reten-
tion for individuals with co-occurring substance abuse
and mental health disorders who participate in private
residential treatment. Methods: The participants were
1,317 individuals (539 women and 778 men) with co-
occurring substance abuse and mental health disorders
receiving treatment at three private residential treat-
ment centers. Bivariate analyses, life tables, and Cox
regression (survival analyses) were utilized to exam-
ine gender effects on treatment retention, and iden-
tify factors that predict treatment retention for men
and women. Results: This study found that women
with co-occurring disorders were more likely to stay
longer in treatment when compared to men. The find-
ings indicate the factors influencing length of stay dif-
fer for each gender, and include: type of substance used
prior to admission; Addiction Severity Index Compos-
ite scores; and Readiness to Change/URICA scores.
Age at admission was a factor for men only. Conclu-
sions/Importance: These findings can be incorporated
to develop and initiate program interventions to min-
imize early attrition and increase overall retention in
private residential treatment for individuals with co-
occurring substance use and mental health disorders.
Keywords gender differences, co-occurring disorders, dual
diagnosis, substance abuse and mental health disorder,
retention, predictors, residential treatment
Address correspondence to Siobhan A Morse, Foundations Recovery Network, Research and Fidelity, 5409 Maryland Way, Brentwood, CA 37027
USA; E-mail: siobhan.morse@frnmail.com
Length of stay (LOS) in substance abuse treatment is
a strong predictor of treatment outcomes with longer
lengths of stay in treatment associated with lower post-
treatment substance use rates (DeLeon & Schwartz, 1984;
Greenfield et al. 2003; Simpson, Joe, & Rowan-Szal,
1997). Longer periods of treatment engagement are also
associated with lower readmission rates (Moos & Moos,
1995). Although the significance of remaining in treat-
ment is well established, leaving treatment prior to com-
pletion or against clinical advice remains a treatment con-
cern (Ball, Carroll, Canning-Ball, & Rounsaville, 2006)
and is associated with poor treatment outcomes (Deane,
Wootton, Hsu, & Kelly, 2012).
Treatment retention is a widely used proxy for treat-
ment outcomes such as substance use relapse, recidivism
to crime, and sustained recovery. Factors related to both
treatment program characteristics and individual patient
characteristics have been investigated for their impact on
retention in treatment. Program factors such as therapeu-
tic alliance, the use of motivational interviewing, gender-
specific programming, gender-specific interventions, pay-
ment source, and inclusion of treatment for co-morbid
mental health issues have all been studied for their impact
on retention.
Therapeutic alliance is strongly associated with re-
maining in treatment (Marsh, Angell, Andrews, & Curry,
2012; Simpson, Joe, Rowan-Szal, & Greener, 1997) and
treatment attendance (Mullins, Suarez, Ondersma, &
Page, 2004) but appears to impact outcomes somewhat
less significantly than retention or attendance (Simpson,
Joe, & Rowan-Szal, 1997). Motivation for treatment is
considered a robust predictor of retention (Adamson,
Sellman, & Frampton, 2009). The impact of using mo-
tivational interviewing or enhancement on retention has
mixed findings with positive results for the early stages
of treatment retention (Carroll et al., 2006). However,
Mullins and colleagues (2004) found that the use of
653
654 S. CHOI ET AL.
motivational interviewing did not demonstrate significant
improvement over education counseling. Gender-specific
programming has been found to be a significant factor
in both treatment retention and outcomes for women
(Ashley, Marsden, & Brady, 2003; Greenfield et al.,
2008; Greenfield, Cummings, Kuper, Wigderson, &
Koro-Ljungberg, 2013). Further studies have found that
attention to issues, such as employment, trauma, and
mental health in a gender-specific manner resulted in
positive retention and treatment outcomes (Adams et al.,
2011; Brady & Ashley, 2005; Grella, 2008; Green, Polen,
Dickinson, Lynch, & Bennett, 2002; Greenfield, Back,
Lawson, & Brady, 2010). Payment source has also been
associated with LOS in treatment with private insurance
patients having shorter lengths of stay (Brady & Ashley,
2005). The recognition of the co-occurring nature of
psychiatric disorders and substance use disorder and
the need to simultaneously treat both has resulted in the
development of specialty treatment programs based on
an integrated model (SAMHSA, DASIS Report, 2003),
positively impacting both outcomes and retention.
Personal and substance use characteristics have been
found to be inconsistent predictors of treatment reten-
tion and outcomes (Hiller, Knight, Leukefeld, & Simpson,
2002; Hser, Joshi, Maglione, Chou, & Anglin, 2001; Joe,
Simpson, & Broome, 1998, 1999). Age is the only socio-
demographic characteristic that consistently predicts re-
tention in substance abuse treatment regardless of gen-
der, with older age associated with longer lengths of stay
(Adams et al., 2011; Hall, Prendergast, Wellisch, Pat-
ten, & Cao, 2004: Pelissier, Motivans, & Rounds-Bryant,
2005). Primary drug of choice has been investigated as
a predictor of retention in 90-day residential treatment
with alcohol use associated with longer retention when
compared to other substance use (Deane, et al., 2012).
Drug Abuse Treatment Outcomes Survey data analysis re-
vealed that programs serving patients with greater psycho-
logical severity and higher cocaine and alcohol use had
shorter lengths of stay (Simpson, Joe, & Brown, 1997).
Patients with a higher motivation at intake are also more
likely to remain in treatment than those with lower moti-
vation at intake (Simpson et al., 1997). A history of trauma
(Tull, Gratz, Coffey, Weiss, & McDermott, 2013; Logan,
Walker, Jordan, & Leukefeld, 2006), stress response (Tull
et al., 2013), multiple life stressors (Kelly, Blacksin, &
Mason, 2001; Comfort, Sockloff, Loverro, & Kaltenbach,
2003), and self-efficacy (Cummings, Gallop, & Green-
field, 2010) have also been found to impact retention.
A study of insured outpatient treatment attendees re-
vealed that having fewer and less severe drug problems
improved retention and that there were gender differences
in the factors that impacted retention (Mertens & Weis-
ner, 2000). In women, higher retention was associated
with being married, having a higher income, not being
African American, having lower psychiatric severity, and
being unemployed; and in men, age, employer involve-
ment, and abstinence goals were predictors of higher re-
tention (Mertens & Weisner, 2000). By contrast, a study of
268 patients at a publicly funded outpatient center, patient
substance use did not predict retention; however, being
male, Caucasian and having higher severity in employ-
ment composite score as measured by the ASI were as-
sociated with longer retention and greater attendance in
outpatient treatment (McCaul, Svikis, & Moore, 2001).
Overall, women appear to be less likely to use sub-
stance use treatment services (Wu, Ringwalt, & William,
2003; Kim et al. 2011), and are among those at most risk
for not accessing mental health treatment when needed
(Roll, Kennedy, Tran, & Howell, 2013). Although, in gen-
eral, women use substances for shorter periods of time
prior to entering treatment than men, they appear to enter
treatment with greater severity of issues (Greenfield et al.,
2010; Piazza, Vrbka, & Yeager, 1989; Hernandez-Avila,
Rounsaville, & Kranzler, 2004; Arfken, Klein, di Menza,
& Schuster, 2001). Some research has shown significant
differences in retention by gender (Arfkin et al., 2001;
Kim et al., 2011; Choi, Adams, MacMaster, & Seiters,
2013) and others have stipulated that while gender itself
has not been predictive of retention, issues traditionally
associated with gender, such as child-care, employment
and trauma, are related to variations found in retention by
gender (Mertens & Weisner, 2000; Green et al., 2002; Tull
et al., 2013; Greenfield et al., 2007). Despite having more
severe and complex problems, studies found that incar-
cerated women with substance abuse histories were less
likely to relapse than their male counterparts (Fiorentine,
Anglin, Gil-Rivas, & Taylor, 1997; Gil-Rivas, Fiorentine,
& Anglin, 1996; Grella, Stein, & Greenwell, 2005). This
“gender paradox” in has been explained by the hypothesis
that women engage more readily and actively in counsel-
ing and other treatment services (Fiorentine et al., 1997;
Kim et al., 2011).
In studies focusing on factors impacting the retention
of women in treatment, higher income and education and
lower psychiatric severity are often predictors of higher
retention and completion rates (Mertens & Weisner, 2000;
Kelly et al., 2001). The impact of psychiatric severity
on employability and thus the level of distress and anx-
iety on substance abusing women has been suggested
(Hernandez-Avila et al., 2004) which could lead to shorter
stays in treatment for women. Women also appear to ben-
efit most from single-gendered treatment groups (Cum-
mings et al., 2010; Greenfield et al., 2013; Greenfield
et al., 2008; Green et al., 2002).
In summary, research indicates that there are signif-
icant differences by gender in the factors that influence
treatment retention. Although women have less access to
services overall, once they enter treatment; they do so
with more serious substance dependencies, and with more
health and social problems than do men (Kim et al., 2011;
Wu et al., 2003). Women are also more likely than men
to use, and benefit from, services available in comprehen-
sive programs (Greenfield et al., 2013; Green et al., 2002).
Through prior investigation of this dataset, Choi and col-
leagues (2013) found that in private residential treatment,
age, gender, types of drug used, ASI medical and psy-
chiatric severity scores and URICA readiness to change
scores predicted treatment retention at 30 days of their
GENDER EFFECTS ON TREATMENT RETENTION 655
initial treatment. The prior study used bivariate analysis
to identify independent variables significantly correlated
with 30-day treatment retention, then used logistic regres-
sion to determine predictors of treatment outcomes (Choi
et al., 2013). Based on the prior study (Choi et al., 2013)
and what we know from the available literature on the im-
pact of gender on treatment retention, specifically Merten
and Weisner (2000), this study was designed to further
examine the effect of gender on treatment retention us-
ing survival analyses, and to identify factors that predict
treatment retention in each gender while enrolled specifi-
cally in private, residential treatment for individuals with
co-occurring mental health and substance use disorders.
METHODS
Setting
Data were collected at three private residential facilities
that provide integrated substance abuse and mental health
treatment services in Memphis, Tennessee, Malibu, Cali-
fornia, and Palm Springs, California. Foundations Recov-
ery Network (FRN), a private for-profit substance abuse
treatment provider offering residential and outpatient sub-
stance abuse treatment services, operates all three pro-
grams. Service recipients’ at all three facilities are drawn
from across the United States and Canada. Treatment ser-
vices are based on an integrated model of mental health
and substance abuse services consisting of both individual
and group evidence-based interventions (Foundations Re-
covery Network, 2010). In most cases, the expected LOS
is between 28 and 40 days. Recommended length of time
in treatment is individualized on the basis of clinical as-
sessment and medical necessity; however, other factors
may contribute to the actual LOS.
Participants
All program participants who enter residential services are
offered an opportunity to participate in an ongoing evalua-
tion during the initial phase of treatment. A trained intake
person located at each facility describes the evaluation, re-
views and obtains informed consent, and collects the loca-
tor information for post discharge interviews. The Addic-
tion Severity Index (ASI) (McClellan, 1983; McClellan
et al., 1992) from the initial clinical assessment is used
as the baseline ASI assessment if informed consent is ob-
tained. Masters’ level clinicians complete the initial clini-
cal assessment within the first 4 days following admission
to FRN’s residential programs. Data are collected at three
additional time points: 1, 6, and 12 months post discharge.
A community-based Institutional Review Board reviewed
study protocols to assure the protection of Human
Subjects.
Data for this study are drawn only from the baseline in-
terview and LOS in treatment days. The participants were
1,317 individuals who voluntarily sought residential treat-
ment at one of the three treatment centers. All participants
received an intake assessment by a multidisciplinary team
which provides the basis for an individual treatment plan
to address substance use, psychiatric disorder, and medi-
cal and social service needs. At this time, the evaluation
data was collected for those individuals who were will-
ing to consent to participating in the evaluation process.
Compared to all patients who attended treatment during
the same time period, the population who agreed to par-
ticipate in the research project was not appreciably differ-
ent in terms of demographic characteristics. The average
age for the overall population was 36.6 versus 36.0 for
the study population. The overall population was 60.8%
male and the study population was 59.1%. Caucasians
represented the largest percent by far in both the general
population and the study group. The average LOS was
29.90 for the overall population compared to 32.08 for our
sample. Co-occurring disorders were assessed over the
course of treatment starting with initial screening, assess-
ment, and psychiatric evaluation. A master’s level clini-
cian conducted a complete psychiatric evaluation with one
of the programs psychiatrists within 72 hours after arriv-
ing to the residential treatment facility. Each patient is as-
signed to one of the program’s licensed clinicians who
utilize the information gathered through initial screen-
ing and assessment to develop the initial treatment plan
with the patient during an initial individual session with
the first week of treatment. Ongoing psychiatric and in-
dividual therapy sessions are utilized along with weekly
treatment team meetings to update each patient’s treat-
ment plan, including updates/confirmation of specific co-
occurring substance use and psychiatric disorders. This
process provides input from a multidisciplinary team of
clinicians in order to thoroughly assess co-occurring dis-
orders throughout treatment as symptoms may change or
become clearer during the course of treatment. Retention
was measured in treatment days through a retrospective
review of discharge records, which also included the base-
line interview data.
Instruments
Addiction Severity: The scalable questions that make up
the composite scores of the Addiction Severity Index
(ASI) (McClellan et al., 1992) were utilized to measure
addiction severity. The ASI was developed to measure
problem severity in each of seven potential problem areas
that include: medical, employment, alcohol, drug, legal,
family/social, and psychiatric problems. In order to ensure
that each question within a given problem area is given the
same weight in calculation of the composite score each
item in a subscale is divided by its maximum value and by
the total number of questions in a composite. This scoring
yields a score from 0 to 1 in each composite.
Readiness for Change: The University of Rhode Island
Change Assessment (URICA) (DiClemente & Hughes,
1990) is a measure of readiness to change that has been
studied with a range of different populations. The instru-
ment consists of 32 statements that subjects endorse on
a 5-point scale from strongly agree to strongly disagree.
The URICA yields scores on each of four scales; Precon-
templation, Contemplation, Action, and Maintenance, or
each of the stages of change described by Prochaska, Di-
Clemente, & Norcross (1992). In addition, the scores from
656 S. CHOI ET AL.
these scales are used to create a Readiness to Change com-
posite score. The Readiness to Change score was derived
for this study in the same manner used in Project MATCH
Research Group (1997). The average Contemplation, Ac-
tion, and Maintenance scores were added and the Precon-
templation score was subtracted from the sum. The Readi-
ness to Change score was used as a predictor variable in
subsequent analysis.
Treatment Retention: This study focuses on treatment
retention. Retention status was observed and calculated by
days between a program start date and a discharge date.
Data were collected on all admissions between February
1, 2008 and through July 31, 2010 with final observation
of discharge data on August 31, 2010.
Data Analysis
Initial analyses consisted of basic descriptive statistics
and bivariate analyses to identify and examine any gen-
der difference on any pre-treatment demographic and use-
related factors as well as components of treatment reten-
tion. Next, a life table was developed to investigate the
trajectory of treatment retention by gender. Finally, Cox
regression was employed to investigate the impact of var-
ious predictors of treatment retention by gender. One of
the essential features of Cox regression is that the tech-
nique allows for the unbiased analysis of time to event
data controlling for covariates. The event of interest in the
current study is a discharge from treatment. Like logis-
tic regression, the exponential of the coefficients from the
Cox model gives the relative risk of the odds for the co-
variate. Cox regression also proves superior to ordinary
least squares regression (OLS), in that the Cox regression
algorithm allows for censoring of persons who discontin-
ued or did not experience the event (treatment retention
in the current study) during the study period. In this study,
Cox regression was developed in three steps. Model 1 con-
tains demographic characteristics, types of substance use
disorders, types of mental health disorders, and treatment
location. Model 2 also includes the various scalable ASI
subscale measures. Finally, in Model 3, the score of readi-
ness to change was added in the final model.
RESULTS
Sample Description
Demographic, substance use, and mental health disorder
and treatment characteristics are provided in Table 1. The
mean age in this study sample was 36 years (SD = 12.1)
with 40.9% of the sample being female. The majority of
study participants (90.2%) were Caucasian, 8.1% were
African American, and 1.7% were Latino. Nearly 56%
were employed in last 30 days. Approximately 67% had
alcohol-related disorders (alcohol abuse or dependence),
18.8% had opioid related disorders (opioids abuse or
dependence), and 18.1% had cocaine-related disorders
(cocaine abuse or dependence). In terms of identified
mental health disorders, the majority of study partici-
pants (82.9%) had a diagnosis of an anxiety disorder,
followed by major depression (74.9%), and mood dis-
order (26.6%). The majority of participants (80%) were
diagnosed with more than one mental health disorder. Of
the 1,317 study participants, 43.7% stayed in treatment
for at least 30 days. The average LOS in treatment for the
study sample was 32.08 days (SD = 19.29).
Bivariate Analysis
Bivariate analyses were conducted to determine the
relationship between various independent variables
and gender using chi-square and t tests. The results of
bivariate analyses are displayed in the second and third
column of Table 1. Statistically significant differences
were found in participants’ age, employment in last
30 days, and race/ethnicity. Men in this study were
younger than women. Men also had a higher rate of
employment in the last 30 days (60.0%) compared to
women (46.6%). In terms of race and ethnicity, women
were more predominately Caucasians (94.1%) compared
to men (87.5%). Women stayed in treatment longer than
men by an average of approximately four and a half
days. In addition, women had a higher rate of treatment
retention (47.7%) at 30 days compared to men (40.9%).
Statistically significant gender differences were found
in six of the seven domains of the ASI composite score
measurement. Women had higher mean ASI composite
scores in the areas of medical, employment/support, fam-
ily/social relationships, and psychiatric issues indicating
greater severity in these areas than men. Men had higher
mean ASI scores in areas of drug, and legal measures than
women. ASI composite score for alcohol severity were
slightly higher in men. Men entered treatment with higher
URICA scores in the precontemplative stage. Women
were less likely to be in the precontemplative stage and
therefore more likely to be in a stage reflecting greater
readiness for change; however, overall URICA and other
URICA subscale scores did not reflect significant differ-
ences between men and women. Gender differences were
also found in type of substance use and mental health dis-
order. Men had higher rates of cocaine and cannabis use
disorders as compared to women. Women had higher rates
of major depression, anxiety disorders, mood disorders,
and eating disorders compared to men.
Life Table
The life table was developed to investigate the trajectory
of treatment retention by gender. Figure 1 illustrates the
survival lines indicating time to discharge for both men
and women. Observation of Figure 1 revealed that the sur-
vival lines are similar for the first 20 days of treatment.
These lines split into different trajectories after approxi-
mately 20 days which continues to broaden as time pro-
gresses. The largest gap appears from 30 days forward.
At 30 days, approximately 30% of men remained in treat-
ment compared to 40% of women. Comparison of the sur-
vival lines was performed using the Wilcoxon (Gehan)
statistic (13.415, df = 1. p < .000). The result further high-
lights the statistical significance of the differences in the
trajectories of these lines.
GENDER EFFECTS ON TREATMENT RETENTION 657
TABLE 1. Sample description
Total Sample N = 1,317 Men N = 778 (59.1%) Women N = 539 (40.9%)
Mean (SD) Mean (SD) Mean (SD)
Age∗∗ 36 (12.11) 36.08 (11.94) 38.26 (12.26)
ASI: Medical∗∗∗ .26 (.36) .21 (.33) .34 (.38)
ASI: Employment/Support∗∗ .40 (.27) .38 (.28) .43 (.26)
ASI: Alcohol .38 (.34) .40 (.33) .38 (.35)
ASI: Drug∗ .17 (.16) .18 (.16) .16 (.16)
ASI: Legal∗ .11 (.21) .12 (.21) .10 (.20)
ASI: Family/Social
Relationships∗∗∗
.30 (.26) .28 (.25) .34 (.26)
ASI: Psychiatric∗∗∗ .49 (.20) .45 (.21) .55 (.18)
Readiness for Change 10.77 (1.56) 10.66 (1.61) 10.94 (1.47)
Precontemplation∗∗∗ 1.67 (.52) 1.73 (.54) 1.57 (.46)
Contemplation 4.41 (.44) 4.38 (.46) 4.45 (.41)
Action 4.27 (.47) 4.25 (.45) 4.30 (.49)
Maintenance 3.75 (.64) 3.75 (.63) 3.76 (.64)
Days in Treatment∗∗∗ 32.08 (19.29) 30.17 (16.4) 34.85 (22.5)
N (%) N (%) N (%)
Treatment Retention at 30 days∗∗ 575 (43.7) 318 (40.9) 257 (47.7)
Race/Ethnicity∗∗∗
African American 107 (8.1) 83 (10.7) 24 (4.5)
Caucasian 1,188 (90.2) 681 (87.5) 507 (94.1)
Latino 22 (1.7) 14 (1.8) 8 (1.5)
Employment in last
30 days-Yes∗∗∗
733 (55.7) 467 (60.0) 250 (46.4)
No 584 (44.3) 311 (40.0) 289 (53.6)
Type of Substance Use Disorders
Alcohol 885 (67.2) 515 (66.2) 370 (68.6)
Cocaine∗∗∗ 238 (18.1) 170 (21.9) 68 (12.6)
Cannabis∗ 88 (6.7) 60 (7.7) 28 (5.2)
Opioid 248 (18.8) 147 (18.9) 101 (18.7)
Poly Substance 145 (11.0) 87 (11.2) 58 (10.8)
Others 29 (2.2) 4 (1.3) 6 (2.3)
Type of Mental Health Disorders
Major Depression∗∗∗ 986 (74.9) 540 (69.4) 446 (82.7)
Anxiety Disorder∗∗∗ 1090 (82.8) 617 (79.3) 473 (87.8)
Mood Disorder∗∗ 350 (26.6) 186 (23.9) 164 (30.4)
Bi-Polar Disorder 16 (1.2) 11 (1.4) 5 (0.9)
Eating Disorder∗ 9 (0.7) 2 (0.3) 7 (1.3)
ADHD 10 (0.8) 5 (0.6) 5 (1.9)
Dementia 19 (1.4) 13 (1.7) 6 (1.1)
Missing∗∗∗ 89 (6.8) 70 (9.0) 17 (3.5)
Locations
A 291 (22.1) 176 (22.6) 115 (21.3)
B 64 (4.9) 29 (3.7) 35 (6.5)
C 962 (73.0) 573 (73.7) 389 (72.7)
∗p < .05. ∗∗p < .01. ∗∗∗p < .00.
Cox Regression
Table 2 provides the results of models constructed to as-
sess relative effects on the likelihood of retention for in-
dividuals with co-occurring substance abuse and mental
disorders. The results for men suggest that age, an ADHD
diagnosis, location, and ASI employment subscale com-
posite score were associated with treatment retention. In
interpreting these results, it is important to note that a
hazard ratio greater than 1 indicates a higher likelihood
of treatment retention. Age was significantly and posi-
tively related to retention. The Exp (b) of 1.009 indicates
that for each increase in age by a year, the likelihood of
treatment retention increased by 0.9%. Men diagnosed
with ADHD were 41% more likely to stay in the treat-
ment longer than men diagnosed with mood disorder. The
ASI employment score was significantly and negatively
associated with the likelihood of retention for men. Men
with higher ASI employment scores, reflecting greater
658 S. CHOI ET AL.
FIGURE 1. Life Table—Treatment Retention by Gender.
severity of employment issues, were less likely to stay in
treatment. There were significant differences in male re-
tention rates predicted by treatment location. Readiness to
change was not predictive of treatment retention for men.
The Cox regression model for women suggests that co-
caine use, depression, location, ASI alcohol subscale com-
posite score, and readiness to change were significantly
correlated with treatment retention. Women who were co-
caine dependent were approximately 41% less likely to re-
main in treatment compared to women who were alcohol
dependent. However, having a higher ASI drug subscale
composite score (indicating greater severity) was not pre-
dictive of retention; but greater severity on the ASI alco-
hol subscale composite was predictive of treatment reten-
tion for women. The likelihood of remaining in treatment
improved by 56% for every point increase on the ASI al-
cohol composite subscale. In addition, women diagnosed
with depression were 92% more likely to remain in treat-
ment longer than women diagnosed with a mood disor-
der. Location was also predictive of the decision to remain
in treatment in women. Women who were scored in the
precontemplative or contemplative stages on the URICA
readiness to change scale were significantly less likely to
remain in treatment than those who scored in the action or
maintenance stages of change.
DISCUSSION
The purpose of the current study was to (1) examine gen-
der effects on treatment retention, and (2) identify fac-
tors that predict treatment retention for men and women
in private residential treatment for individuals with co-
occurring substance abuse and mental health disorders.
This study identifies significant differences by gender
in treatment retention for individuals with co-occurring
substance abuse and mental health disorders. The find-
ings indicate that women are more likely to stay in treat-
ment compared to men. Men with co-occurring sub-
stance abuse and mental health disorders in this study
had more difficulty staying in treatment than women. For
example, men stayed an average of 30.17 days in treat-
ment, 4.5 days fewer than women (34.85 days). Similarly,
women were significantly more likely to remain in treat-
ment for 30 days. Typically, more intensive treatment has
been associated with lower retention for women. For ex-
ample, Arfken and colleagues (2001), in their study of
publicly funded residential and intensive outpatient treat-
ment in a major metropolitan area, found that women had
lower retention and completion rates than men. In con-
trast, in a study of substance abuse care provided in pri-
mary care settings women remained in treatment on av-
erage longer than men (Kim et al., 2011). However, both
studies, as well as much of the research evaluating treat-
ment retention have been conducted in publicly funded
programs. This research provides an important evidence
that funding source may be an over-riding factor in patient
decisions to remain in private, residential treatment.
The study also finds that different factors appear to con-
tribute to the likelihood of remaining in treatment for each
gender. Women appear to enter treatment with greater
severity in the areas of medical, employment/support,
family/social relationships, and psychiatric measures ev-
idenced by higher mean ASI composite scores. This re-
flects findings in studies by Greenfield and colleagues
(2010) and others noted in the literature review.
Consistent with the literature, age is associated with
treatment retention in men with older men more likely
to remain in treatment longer (Adams et al., 2011; Hall,
Prendergast, Wellisch, Patten, & Cao, 2004: Pelissier, Mo-
tivans, & Rounds-Bryant, 2005); however, this was not the
case with women. Age was not found to be predictive of
treatment retention in females.
Drug use characteristics impacted treatment retention
differently for males and females. Similar to the Drug
Abuse Treatment Outcomes Survey data analysis results,
cocaine use in women was associated with shorter stays in
treatment (Simpson, Joe, & Brown, 1997) when compared
to alcohol as the control group. In contrast to Simpson, Joe
and Brown (1997), women whose ASI alcohol subscale
composite score indicated greater severity than their coun-
terparts were more likely to stay in treatment. This was
similar to results found by Deane and colleagues (2012)
who found that women who used alcohol were likely to re-
main longer in treatment than those who used other drugs.
Women with depression were also more likely to re-
main in treatment longer than their counterparts with
mood disorders. Men diagnosed with ADHD were signif-
icantly more likely to remain in treatment for longer com-
pared to those diagnosed with a mood disorder. Mertens
& Weisner, 2000 found that lower psychiatric severity was
related to improved retention; however we did not find that
psychiatric severity measured by the ASI psychiatric sub-
scale was influential in retention for either gender.
Similar to findings in the literature (Grella, Stein, &
Greenwell, 2005) women did enter treatment with greater
GENDER EFFECTS ON TREATMENT RETENTION 659
TABLE 2. Cox regression models for treatment retention
Model for Men Model for Women
Variables B SE Exp (B) p-Value 95% CI B SE Exp (B) P-Value 95% CI
Age .009 .005 1.009 .048 (1.000–1.018) −.003 .005 .997 .575 (.986–1.008)
Caucasian1 −.271 .147 .762 .065 (.571–1.017) −.262 .275 .760 .339 (.449–1.318)
Employed in last
30days–yes
−.029 .127 .971 .819 (.756–1.247) −.220 .148 .803 .137 (.600–1.073)
Opiate
Abuse/Dependence2
.195 .142 1.216 .168 (.921–1.605) .107 .143 1.113 .452 (.842–1.472)
Cocaine
Abuse/Dependence2
−.155 .133 .857 .243 (.660–1.111) −.541 .169 .582 .001 (.418–.811)
Cannabis
Abuse/Dependence2
.043 .127 1.044 .735 (.814–1.339) .136 .163 1.146 .403 (.833–1.575)
Poly Substance
Abuse/Dependence2
.020 .148 1.020 .892 (.763–1.365) −.255 .166 .775 .123 (.560–1.072)
Depression3 .025 .144 1.025 .862 (.773–1.360) .656 .207 1.928 .002 (1.285–2.892)
Anxiety Disorder3 −.149 .167 .861 .371 (.621–1.195) −.006 .217 .994 .977 (.649–1.521)
Bipolar3 −.132 .621 .876 .829 (.264–2.907) −.594 1.206 .552 .622 (.052–5.565)
Eating Disorder3 −1.385 1.031 .250 .179 (.033–1.889) −.011 .436 .989 .980 (.421–2.324)
ADHD3 1.528 .594 4.611 .010 (1.438–14.782) .267 .527 1.306 .612 (.465–3.666)
Dimentia3 .282 .332 1.326 .396 (.691–2.544) −.121 .531 .886 .819 (.313–2.508)
Missing Mental
Disorders–Yes
.048 .246 1.049 .847 (.647–1.699) .138 .560 1.148 .805 (.383–3.443)
Location A4 −.313 286 .731 .272 (.418–1.279 −1.182 .286 .307 .000 (.175–.537)
Location B4 .320 .123 1.377 .009 (1.083–1.750) .049 .151 1.051 .744 (.781–1.413)
ASI: Medical −.085 .149 .918 .566 (.686–1.229) −.052 .157 .950 .742 (.698–1.292)
ASI: Employment −.549 .218 .577 .012 (.376–.886) −.244 .288 .784 .397 (.446–1.378)
ASI: Alcohol −.020 .172 .817 .240 (.584–1.144) .446 .191 1.562 .019 (1.075–2.269)
ASI: Drug −.077 .544 .926 .888 (.319–2.689) 1.061 .570 2.890 .062 (.946–8.830)
ASI: Legal −.188 .244 .828 .441 (.513–1.337) −.468 .287 .626 .103 (.356–1.100)
ASI: Family/Support −.011 .208 .989 .958 (.658–1.487) −.236 .233 .790 .311 (.500–1.247)
ASI: Psychiatric −.463 .351 .629 .187 (.316–1.253) −1.612 .570 2.890 .062 (.946–8.830)
Readiness to Change
Precontemplation .181 .121 1.199 .133 (.946–1.519) −.393 .181 .675 .029 (.474–.962)
Contemplation −.153 .170 .858 .366 (.615–1.196) −.549 .241 .577 .023 (.360–.926)
Action .040 .142 1.041 .778 (.788–1.374) .144 .158 1.155 .362 (.847–1.575)
Maintenance .053 .089 1.055 .549 (.886–1.255) −.195 .102 .823 .054 (.674–1.004)
-2 Log Likelihood 4868.477 3326.112
χ 2, df, p-value 58.795,27,000∗∗∗ 82.221, 27, .000∗∗∗
1African American and Latino were the reference group.
2Alcohol abuse/dependences and others were the reference group.
3Mood disorders was the reference group.
4Location C was the reference group.
severity of 4 of the 7 subscale composite scores in the ASI.
However, despite entering treatment with less severity in
ASI employment composite score than females, employ-
ment issues were a factor in predicting retention for males
but not females.
Females in the early stages of readiness were less likely
to remain in treatment; however, readiness for change as
measured by the URICA was not a factor in predicting re-
tention for men. This is in contrast to the results of Adam-
son, Sellman, & Frampton (2009) whom results report that
motivation is of the most robust predictors of retention.
This study also found differences in retention for
men by location. Further investigation is required to
determine the factors causing these differences; however,
an interesting point is raised. Although those three
different facilities have similar therapeutic philosophies
and operation systems, the findings of this study indicate
the needs of recognizing the uniqueness of each program.
According to Simpson, Joe and Brown (1997), each
treatment facility differ in staff skills, resources, service
intensity, environmental setting, and client demands
which may impact their retention and effectiveness. Ac-
cordingly, treatment evaluation studies must recognize the
multi-level factors—client level and program level—on
treatment retention (Simpson et al., 1997; Simpson, Joe,
& Brown, 1997). Organizational program planners may
want to consider a variety of factors that can influence
retention differences across sites, including state and
660 S. CHOI ET AL.
local legislative requirements, payer mix, population dif-
ferences, and other factors across both the organizations
and the patients that could prove to be significant.
These findings show patterns in treatment retention that
are different from prior studies. There may be several
reasons as to why these findings are different. Further
research is needed to investigate the impact of funding
source; e.g., private versus public treatment, on retention
patterns in both genders. The data for this study was drawn
only from private treatment which serves as both a limita-
tion to the findings and a strength of the article due to the
paucity of research drawn from this source.
These results further demonstrate what was found in
the earlier study by Choi and colleagues (2013) using
bivariate analysis and logistic regression to determine
predictors of retention. These researchers found that
gender was a significant predictor of treatment retention
at 30 days in private, residential, dual diagnosis treat-
ment. This study adds to the current body of literature
investigating factors impacting retention in treatment and
differences by gender in dual diagnosis treatment and
identifies several key predictors which may be addressed
through programming interventions. It is also important
to note that historically individuals with co-occurring
substance abuse and mental health disorders have low
retention rates. Prior research indicates that longer lengths
of stay in treatment generally predicts better treatment
outcomes at follow-up (Simpson et al., 1997). Accord-
ingly, this finding highlights the importance of early
engagement efforts for both men and women developing
gender-specific strategies to improve treatment retention
for individuals with co-occurring substance abuse and
mental health disorders.
The current study makes a unique contribution to the
literature for individuals with substance abuse and men-
tal disorders, despite some limitations. First, the results
of this study may be unique to private residential treat-
ment programs. The predictors of treatment retention in
publicly funded residential treatment programs may be
different. In addition, this study assumes that three treat-
ment programs operate identically, although there is some
variability in staff skills, resources, service intensity, envi-
ronmental setting, and client demands which may impact
their effectiveness (Simpson, Joe, & Brown, 1997). This
study was limited to client-level variables and did not ex-
amine the impact of program level variables on treatment
retention. Although the findings and implications are im-
portant, one important limitation may exist in the sample
of research participants. While individuals who partici-
pated in the research component appear to be demograph-
ically similar to all other treatment participants, there was
a slight difference in the overall LOS between individuals
who participated in the research component and those did
not.
In summary, the current study investigated gender-
specific factors that may explain treatment retention vari-
ations for individuals with co-occurring substance abuse
and mental health disorders in private residential treat-
ment settings. The findings suggest the importance of fur-
ther research investigating the factors predicting retention
in privately funded treatment.
Declaration of Interest
Siobhan A. Morse is employed by Foundations Recovery
Network, the operator of the sites supplying the data. She
received compensation in the form of salary as Director
of Research. Samuel A. MacMaster was under contract
with Foundations Recovery Network, the operator of the
sites supplying the data. He received compensation from
Foundations Recovery Network. The authors alone are re-
sponsible for the content and writing of the article.
THE AUTHORS
Siobhan A. Morse, MHSA,
CRC, CAI, MAC is the
Director of Research and
Fidelity at Foundations
Recovery Network. Her current
research interests focus on
providing high-quality care and
outcomes research in private
residential dual diagnosis
treatment.
Samuel MacMaster, Ph.D. is
an Associate Professor at the
University of Tennessee within
the College of Social Work. Dr.
MacMaster’s research interests
center on the intersection of
substance use and HIV/AIDS;
and have focused specifically on
the development of culturally
appropriate interventions to
overcome barriers to service
access for underserved and
incarcerated populations.
Sam Choi, Ph.D is a director at
Tennessee Korean American
Social Service Center and
research fellow at Children and
Family Research Center. Dr.
Choi’s research revolves around
two main areas: the relations
of service delivery to child
welfare and treatment outcomes
for parents with co-occurring
problems and the relations of
service delivery to treatment
outcomes for individuals with
co-occurring substance abuse and mental health problems.
GENDER EFFECTS ON TREATMENT RETENTION 661
Susan M. Adams, PhD, RN, is
Faculty Scholar for Community
Engaged Behavioral Health at
Vanderbilt University School
of Nursing in Nashville, TN.
Dr. Adams’ current research
concerns are efficacy of trauma-
informed interventions and
sustained recovery for women
with co-occurring substance use
and mental health disorders in
community based programs.
GLOSSARY
Co-occurring Disorders [COD] (previously called Dual
Diagnosis): refers to individuals who have one or more
disorders relating to the use of alcohol and/or other sub-
stances of abuse as well as one or more mental health
disorders. The diagnosis of co-occurring disorders is
used when at least one disorder of each type occurs in-
dependent of the other and is not a cluster of symp-
toms resulting from one disorder alone. COD replaces
the term Dual Diagnosis which can be confusing since
it has been used to identify other co-morbid disorders
such as a primary medical disorder and a mental health
disorder.
Cox regression (or proportional hazards regression): is a
method for investigating the effect of several variables
upon the time a specified event takes to happen (such as
in treatment). The method does not assume a specific
“survival model,” although it is not truly nonparametric
because it does make the assumptions that the effects
of the predictor variables on survival are constant over
time and that they are additive in one scale.
Life table: is a statistical calculation of survival analysis
that deals with “time to an event” such as death, relapse,
time in treatment, or other health events. It can answer
the question of the chance of survival after diagnosis or
entry to treatment. It can address the variable of entry
and withdrawal from treatment. The life table generates
a survival curve.
Predictors, sometimes called independent variables, are
factors or variables that can be used to “predict” or
forecast the value of another variable, called the depen-
dent or outcome variable, based on observations and
measurements. Within the addictions field, predictor
variables can include characteristics of an individual or
population (such as age, gender, education, severity of
disorder, involvement in criminal justice system, readi-
ness to change, motivation for treatment, etc.), char-
acteristics of the treatment environment, theoretical
approach to treatment, models of service delivery, char-
acteristics of the therapist/counselor and therapeutic
alliance.
Private residential treatment: is a 24 hour/7 days a week
treatment program for co-occurring substance abuse
and mental health disorders provided in a residential
setting for extended time periods (up to 6–12 months)
beyond an acute detoxification or psychiatric inpatient
hospitalization stay. Residential treatment may be pub-
licly funded (Medicaid/Medicare, state/federal block
grants, or nonprofit agencies without fees) or privately
funded (private insurance or direct out-of-pocket pay-
ment).
Treatment retention: refers to the quantity or amount of
time in treatment. Most commonly treatment reten-
tions refer to the length of stay in treatment measured
by days, months, or specific time period. Historically,
longer treatment retention is a consistent predictor of
better post-treatment outcomes.
REFERENCES
Adams, S. M., Peden, A. R., Hall, L. A., Rayens, M. K., Staten,
R., & Leukefeld, C. G. (2011). Predictors of retention of
women offenders in a community-based residential substance
abuse treatment program. Journal of Addictions Nursing, 23(3),
103–116.
Adamson, S. J., Sellman, J. D., & Frampton, C. M. A. (2009). Pa-
tient predictors of alcohol treatment outcome: A systematic re-
view. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 36(1), 75–86.
Arfken, C., L., Klein, C., di Menza, S., & Schuster, C. (2001). Gen-
der differences in problem severity at assessment and treatment
retention. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 20, 53–57.
Ashley, O. S., Marsden, M. E. and Brady, T. M. (2003). Effec-
tiveness of substance abuse treatment programming for women:
A review. The American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse,
29(1), 19–53.
Ball, S. A., Carroll, K. M., Canning-Ball, M., & Rounsaville, B. J.
(2006). Reasons for dropout from drug abuse treatment: Symp-
toms, personality, and motivation. Addictive Behaviors, 31(2),
320–330. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.addbeh.2005.05.013
Brady, K. T. & Ashley, O. S. (Eds). (2005). Women in substance
abuse treatment: Results from the alcohol and drug services
study (ADSS) (DHHS Publication No. SMA 04-3968, Analytic
Series A-26). Rockville, MD: Substance Abuse and Mental
Health Services Administration, Office of Applied Studies.
Carroll, K. M., Ball, S. A., Nich, C., Martino, S., Frankforter, T. L.,
Farentinos, C., . . . Woody, G. E. (2006). Motivational interview-
ing to improve treatment engagement and outcome in individu-
als seeking treatment for substance abuse: A multisite effective-
ness study. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 81, 301–312.
Choi, S., Adams, S., MacMaster, S. A., & Seiters, J. (2013). Pre-
dictors of residential treatment retention among individuals with
co-occurring substance abuse and mental health disorders. Jour-
nal of Psychoactive Drugs, 45, 122–131.
Comfort, M., Sockloff, A., Loverro, J., & Kaltenbach, K.
(2003). Multiple predictors of substance-abusing women’s treat-
ment and life outcomes. A prospective longitudinal study.
Addictive Behaviors, 28(2), 199–224. doi:http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/S0306-4603(01)00227-1
Cummings, A. M., Gallop, R. J., & Greenfield, S. F. (2010).
Self-efficacy and substance use outcomes for women
in single-gender versus mixed-gender group treatment.
Journal of Groups in Addiction & Recovery, 5(1), 4–16.
doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15560350903543915
Deane, F. P., Wootton, D. J., Hsu, C., & Kelly, P. J. (2012).
Predicting dropout in the first 3 months of 12-step residential
drug and alcohol treatment in an australian sample. Journal of
662 S. CHOI ET AL.
Studies on Alcohol and Drugs, 73(2), 216–225. Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com/docview/993100437?accountid=
14766
DeLeon, G. & Schwartz, S. (1984). Therapeutic communities: What
are the retention rates? American Journal of Drug and alcohol
Abuse, 10, 267–284.
DiClemente, C. C. & Hughes, S. O. (1990). Stages of change pro-
files in outpatient alcoholism treatment. Journal of Substance
Abuse, 2, 217–235.
Foundations Recovery Network. (2010). Baseline intake and 30-day
treatment retention de-identified data between February 1, 2008
through August 31, 2010 following community IRB review.
Available at: http://www.foundationsrecoverynetwork.com/
Fiorentine, R., Anglin, M. D., Gil-Rivas, V., & Taylor, E. (1997).
Drug treatment: Explaining the gender paradox. Substance Use
and Misuse, 32, 653–678.
Gil-Rivas, V., Fiorentine, R., & Anglin, M. D. (1996). Sexual abuse,
physical abuse, and post-traumatic stress syndrome among
women in outpatient drug treatment. Journal of Psychoactive
Drugs, 28, 95–102.
Green, C. A., Polen, M. R., Dickinson, D. M., Lynch, F. L., &
Bennett, M. D. (2002). Gender differences in predictors of ini-
tiation, retention, and completion in an HMO-based substance
abuse treatment program. Journal of Substance Abuse Treat-
ment, 23(4), 285–295. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0740-
5472(02)00278-7
Greenfield, L., Burgdorf, K., Chen, X., Porowski, A., Roberts, T.,
& Herrell, J. (2003). Effectiveness of long-term residential sub-
stance abuse treatment for women: Findings from three na-
tional studies. American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse,
30, 537–550.
Greenfield, S. F., Potter, J. S., Lincoln, M. F., Popuch, R. E.,
Kuper, L., & Gallop, R. J. (2008). High psychiatric symptom
severity is a moderator of substance abuse treatment outcomes
among women in single vs. mixed gender group treatment. The
American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse, 34(5), 594–602.
doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00952990802304980
Greenfield, S. F., Brooks, A. J., Gordon, S. M., Green, C. A., Kropp,
F., McHugh, R. K., Lincoln, M., Hien, D. & Miele, G. M.
(2007). Substance abuse treatment entry, retention and outcomes
in women: A review of the literature. Drug and Alcohol Depen-
dence, 86, 1–21.
Greenfield, S. F., Back, S. E., Lawson, K., & Brady, K.
T. (2010). Substance abuse in women. Psychiatric Clin-
ics of North America, 33(2), 339–355. doi:http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.psc.2010.01.004
Greenfield, S. F., Cummings, A. M., Kuper, L. E., Wigderson, S.
B., & Koro-Ljungberg, M. (2013). A qualitative analysis of
women’s experiences in single-gender versus mixed-gender sub-
stance abuse group therapy. Substance use & Misuse, 48(9),
772–782. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.3109/10826084.2013.787100
‘Grella, C. E. (2008). From generic to gender-responsive
treatment: Changes in social policies, treatment services,
and outcomes of women in substance abuse treatment.
Journal of Psychoactive Drugs, Sarc Suppl 5, 327–343.
doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02791072.2008.10400661
Grella, C. E., Stein, J. A., & Greenwell, L. (2005). Associations
among childhood trauma, adolescent problem behaviors, and
adverse adult outcomes in substance-abusing women offenders.
Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 19, 43–53.
Hall, E. A., Prendergast, M. L., Wellisch, J., Patten, M., & Cao, Y.
(2004). Treating drug-abusing women prisoners: An outcomes
evaluation of the Forever Free program. The Prison Journal,
84(1), 81–105.
Hernandez-Avila, C., Rounsaville, B. J., & Kranzler, H. R.
(2004). Opioid-, cannabis- and alcohol-dependent women
show more rapid progression to substance abuse treat-
ment. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 74(3), 265–272.
doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2004.02.001
Hiller, M. L., Knight, K., Leukefeld, C., & Simpson, D. D. (2002).
Motivation as a predictor of therapeutic engagement in man-
dated residential substance abuse treatment. Criminal Justice
and Behavior, 29, 56–75.
Hser, Y. I., Joshi, V., Maglione, M., Chou, C. P., & Anglin, M. D.
(2001). Effects of program and patient characteristics on reten-
tion of drug treatment patients. Evaluation Program Planning,
24, 331–341.
Joe, G. W., Simpson, D. D., & Broome, K. M. (1998). Effects of
readiness for drug abuse treatment on client retention and as-
sessment of process. Addiction, 93, 177–1190.
Joe, G. W., Simpson, D. D., & Broome, K. M. (1999). Retention and
patient engagement models for different treatment modalities in
DATOS. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 57, 113–125.
Kelly, P. J., Blacksin, B., & Mason, E. (2001). Factors
affecting substance abuse treatment completion for
women. Issues in Mental Health Nursing, 22(3), 287–304.
doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01612840152053110
Kim, T. W., Saitz, R., Cheng, D. M., Winter, M. R., Witas,
J., & Samet, J. H. (2011). Initiation and engagement in
chronic disease management care for substance depen-
dence. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 115(1–2), 80–86,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2010.10.013
Logan, T. K., Walker, R., Jordan, C. E., & Leukefeld, C. G.
(2006). Victimization manifestations and vulnerability factors.
(pp. 17–49) Washington, DC: American Psychological Associ-
ation. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/11364-002
Marsh, J. C, Angell, B., Andrews, C.A., & Curry, A. (2012). Client-
provider relationship and treatment outcome: A systematic re-
view of substance abuse, child welfare, and mental health ser-
vices research. Journal of the Society for Social Work and Re-
search, 3(4):233–267. DOI:DOI:10.5243/jsswr.2012.15
McCaul, M. E., Svikis, D. S., & Moore, R. D. (2001). Predictors
of outpatient treatment retention: Patient versus substance use
characteristics. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 62, 9–17.
McClellan, A. T. (1983). Patient characteristics associated with out-
come. In J. R. Cooper, F. Altman, B. S. Brown & D Czechowicz
(Eds.). Research in the treatment of narcotic addiction. NIDA
treatment research monograph series. Rockville, MD: National
Institute of Drug Abuse.
McClellan, A. T., Kushner, H., Metzger, D., Peters, R., Smith, I.,
Grissom, G., & Argeriou, M. (1992). The fifth edition of the Ad-
diction Severity Index. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment,
9, 199–213.
Mertens, J. R., & Weisner, C. M. (2000). Predictors of sub-
stance abuse treatment retention among women and men in
an HMO. Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research,
24(10), 1525–1533. Doi: 10.1111/j.1530-0277.2000tb04571.x
Mullins, S. M., Suarez, M., Ondersma, S. J., & Page, M. C. (2004).
The impact of motivational interviewing on substance abuse
treatment retention: A randomized control trial of women in-
volved with child welfare. Journal of Substance Abuse Treat-
ment, 27, 51–58.
Moos, R. H., & Moos, B. S. (1995). Stay in residential facili-
ties and mental health care as predictors of readmission for pa-
tients with substance use disorders. Psychiatric Services, 46(1):
66–72.
Pelissier, B., Motivans, M., & Rounds-Bryant, J. L. (2005). Sub-
stance abuse treatment outcomes: A multi-site study of male and
GENDER EFFECTS ON TREATMENT RETENTION 663
female prison programs. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 41,
57–80.
Piazza, N. J., Vrbka, J. L., & Yeager, R. D. (1989). Telescoping of
alcoholism in women alcoholics. International Journal of the
Addictions, 24(1), 19–28. Retrieved November 20, 2013 from
http://search.proquest.com/docview/617696002?accountid=
14766
Prochaska, J. O., DiClemente, C. C., & Norcross, J. C. (1992). In
search of how people change: Applications to addictive behav-
iors. American Psychologist, 47, 1102–1114.
Project MATCH Research Group (1997). Matching alcoholism
treatment to client heterogeneity: Project MATCH post treat-
ment drinking outcomes. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 58(1),
7–29.
Roll, J. M., Kennedy, J., Tran, M., & Howell, D. (2013). Dis-
parities in unmet need for mental health services in the
United States, 1997-2010. Psychiatric Services, 64(1), 80–82.
doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1176/appi.ps.201200071
SAMHSA, Drug and Alcohol Services Information Sys-
tem [DASIS]. 2003. Admissions of persons with co-
occurring disorders: 2000. Retrieved May 31, 2011 from
http://www.oas.samhsa.gov/2k3/dualTX/dualTX /
Simpson, D. D., Joe, G. W., Broome, K. M., Hiller, M. L., Knight,
K., Rowan-Szal, G. A. (1997). Program diversity and treatment
retention rates in the Drug Abuse Treatment Outcome Study
(DATOS). Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 11(4), 279–293.
doi: 10.1037/0893-164X.11.4.279
Simpson, D. D., Joe, G. W., & Brown, B. S. (1997). Treatment re-
tention and follow-up outcomes in the Drug Abuse Treatment
Outcome Study (DATOS). Psychology of Addictive Behaviors,
11(4), 294-307. doi: 10.1037/0893-164X.11.4.294
Simpson, D. D., Joe, G. W., & Rowan-Szal, R. G. (1997). Drug
abuse treatment retention and process effects on follow-up out-
comes. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 47(3), 227–235. doi:
10.1016/S0376-8716(97)00099-9
Simpson, D. D., Joe, G. W., Rowan-Szal, G. A., & Greener, J.
M. (1997). Drug abuse treatment process components that im-
prove retention. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 14(6):
565–72.
Tull, M. T., Gratz, K. L., Coffey, S. F., Weiss, N. H., &
McDermott, M. J. (2013). Examining the interactive effect
of posttraumatic stress disorder, distress tolerance, and gen-
der on residential substance use disorder treatment reten-
tion. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 27(3), 763–773.
doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0029911
Wu, L. T., Ringwalt, C. L., & William C. E. (2003). Use of sub-
stance abuse treatment services by persons with mental health
and substance use problems. Psychiatric Services, 54, 363–369.
Notice of Correction:
The order of authors and their corresponding affiliations has changed since the article’s original online
publication date of January 14, 2015.
Copyright of Substance Use & Misuse is the property of Taylor & Francis Ltd and its content
may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright
holder’s express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for
individual use.
Running head: ARTICLE ANALYSIS 1
ARTICLE ANALYSIS 2
Article Analysis
Student Name
University
Article Analysis
This student has selected an article for which to provide analysis, considers treatment retention among individuals with co-occurring substance abuse disorder (SUD) and mental health conditions with consideration to gender differences. The objective of this study is to examine treatment in private residential treatment facilities which provide treatment for co-occurring SUD and mental health conditions and the retention of individuals in treatment with respect to gender differences.
The research design that is used in this study is quantitative in nature. Quantitative research is one which studies the phenomena in question through the gathering of quantifiable data and performing various statist able computations on it. The methods which are used in the quantitative studies include questionnaires and surveys (Kumar, 2019). The results of such study designs are shown in numerical form. The instruments that are used in the research are the first indicator that this is a quantitative research design. It is quantitative because there is used of various indexes which have numerical responses. The tools that are used include the Addiction Severity Index (ASI), and the University of Rhode Island Change Assessment (URICA) (Choi et al., 2015). Each of these has an associated score. There is also the use of numerical data on the treatment retention which is corrected from the admissions departments in the selected institutions. The analysis of the data also shows its quantitative nature. The data is analyzed using bivariate analysis and Cox regression. All of these show the quantitative nature of the study.
Sampling Method
The sample for this study consisted of 1317 individuals who came to the selected three treatment centers to seek the residential treatment. All these individuals had come to the treatment centers voluntarily. It is also important to note that the data was drawn only from the LOS and the baseline interviews that were taken during the treatment days. The sampling method that was used in this study is a convenience sample as well as a voluntary one (Humphries, 2017). It is a nonprobability sample as everyone in the population did not have an equal chance of being a participant. The participants that were selected are those who accepted to be part of the study and those who were in the three private for-profit treatment centers. The three private residential facilities that were selected are the ones which provide mental health treatment services and substance abuse in the areas of Malibu, Tennessee, Memphis, California, and palm springs. The three centers which were used for sampling are run by the California Foundation Recovery Network (FRN) (Choi et al., 2015). The recipients which are in the three facilities form whom the sample is selected come from both Canada and the United States.
Generalizability
The generalizability of the data which is collected from this study is extremely low. The first reason that this student would say this is that the three facilities which are used in the study are run by one organization. This means that there are internal organizational factors which may contribute to the retention by the patients (Yegidis et al., 2018). The second reason is that this is a for-profit facility and given the costs of such facilities, it is likely that it attracts only the high-end clientele. The conclusions which have been made are only viable when one is considering the private facilities only and in high end neighborhoods. It is wrong for the conclusion to be made of the whole population of those who seek treatment based on the three institutions only. The demographic characteristics of those who were used are also not representative when carefully look at. The average age for such a population is 36.6 which may not be indicative of the population average. At the same time, the sample that was selected consisted mainly of Caucasians further making the data leaning towards one part of the population. In the united states, there are minority groups who are also admitted into such facilities but this data that is collected does not represent their position. It is wrong to make such conclusions when minority groups are not factored into the study (Bullock Little, & Millham, 2017). Because FRN is a for-profit body, it is likely that there is a bias when it comes to income of those undergoing treatment. There are other facilities in the country which have lower costs and in neighborhoods which are more diverse. At the same time, there are non-profit bodies which are there.
Limitations and Recommendation
There are several limitations which are seen in the research making it less reliable. The first one its hat the participation is voluntary and is in three centers which are run by the same institution. There are internal organizational factors that could lead to the retention levels for those in these facilities. The use of the FRN facilities denies the study the opportunity to investigate other facilities and have a result which can be easily applied to the entire population. The credibility is also affected by the fact that the sample is made up of mainly Caucasians (Choi et al., 2015). The use of a Caucasian population means that the results can only be applied to such and not the entire population. One of the things that can be done to improve the sampling plan of the study to address these limitations is the use of a sample from a diverse number of facilities. The facilities should be both for-profit and non-profit. The diversity of the facilities will help in capturing a more representative sample (Humphries, 2017).
References
Yegidis, B. L., Weinbach, R. W., & Myers, L. L. (2018). Research methods for social workers (8th ed.). New York, NY: Pearson.
Choi, S., Adams, S. M., Morse, S. A., & MacMaster, S. (2015). Gender differences in treatment retention among individuals with co-occurring substance abuse and mental health disorders. Substance use & misuse, 50(5), 653-663.
Kumar, R. (2019). Research methodology: A step-by-step guide for beginners. Sage Publications Limited.
Humphries, B. (2017). Re-thinking social research: anti-discriminatory approaches in research methodology. Routledge.
Bullock, R., Little, M., & Millham, S. (2017). The relationships between quantitative and qualitative approaches in social policy research. In Mixing methods: qualitative and quantitative research (pp. 81-99). Routledge.
SOCW 6301 Week 10
Assignment: Article Review and Critique
By now, you should be aware that the findings from a research study are only part of the story. As a consumer, hoping to inform practice by use of an evidence base, you want to know much more. A sound research study includes all the steps highlighted in previous weeks: reviewing existing literature, focusing a research question, choosing a qualitative or quantitative method for answering the question, designing the study including selection of data collection procedures and/or measures, procedures used, data analysis plan, and findings. In addition, the study commonly discusses how ethical concerns were addressed and acknowledges the limitations of the study.
For this assignment, you review a published research study with two purposes in mind:
· Observing the structure and content of the article
· Comparing the content of the article to the recommended content of sections for a research study.
Submit a 7-10 page critique and review of the article, which includes the title page and the reference list. Follow the guidelines below:
1. Use the quantitative or qualitative research article that you located and that your instructor approved as part of the Week 5 assignment.
2. Provide an APA reference for the article you select.
3. If you selected a quantitative research study, use the “Quantitative Article Review and Critique. If you selected a qualitative study, use the “Qualitative Article Review and Critique.” Respond to all the questions.
Be sure to include the questions in your critique. This will cause your SafeAssign report to show high similarity to other students’ papers. However, do not be concerned about that. Do, however, appropriately paraphrase and cite specific details from the article you review.
· Include at least 6 references and citations.
Yegidis, B. L., Weinbach, R. W., & Myers, L. L. (2018). Research methods for social workers (8th ed.). New York, NY: Pearson.
· Chapter 13, “Analyzing Data” (pp. 295–297, “The Data in Perspective”)
Bauer, S., Lambert, M. J., & Nielsen, S. L. (2004). Clinical significance methods: A comparison of statistical techniques. Journal of Personality Assessment, 82(1), 60–70.
Choi, S., Adams, S. M., Morse, S. A., & MacMaster, S. (2015). Gender differences in treatment retention among individuals with co-occurring substance abuse and mental health disorders. Substance use & misuse, 50(5), 653-663.
Kumar, R. (2019). Research methodology: A step-by-step guide for beginners. Sage Publications Limited.
Humphries, B. (2017). Re-thinking social research: anti-discriminatory approaches in research methodology. Routledge.
Bullock, R., Little, M., & Millham, S. (2017). The relationships between quantitative and qualitative approaches in social policy research. In Mixing methods: qualitative and quantitative research (pp. 81-99). Routledge.
© 2016 Laureate Education, Inc. 1 of 3
SOCW 6301: Week 10 Assignment Guidelines
Quantitative Article Review and Critique
In approximately 7-10 pages (including title page and references), address the
following questions.
After reading the entire article, do you think the title adequately describes
the study? Does the title catch your attention? Please explain.
Does the abstract contain the recommended content (see “Abstract,”
pp. 314, in Yegidis et al.)? How difficult do you think it is to
summarize so much information in 150–250 words? Please explain.
Why did the authors conduct this study and write this article? What was the
problem of interest or concern? Be specific. Use quotes and paraphrases
with citations. What audience might be interested in this study?
Do you feel the problem is significant enough to warrant a journal article?
Did you have a “so what” reaction? If so, why do you think it was accepted
for publication? Please justify your position.
To what extent does the literature presented in the introduction help you
understand the problem? How does the literature reviewed put the problem
in context? Be specific.
Does the researcher indicate how this research is different from and/or
similar to earlier ones reported in the literature? Summarize what this
article intends to add to the knowledge base.
Do the authors state their research questions and/or hypotheses? What
are the hypotheses or focused research questions?
What specific quantitative method is used? How does a quantitative
research design correspond with the research questions or hypotheses?
Can you determine whether the design was appropriate?
© 2016 Laureate Education, Inc. 2 of 3
To what extent can the design answer the research questions or
address the stated hypotheses? Elaborate.
What were the variables under study? If relevant, identify the main dependent
and independent variables. If not relevant, why are there no dependent and
independent variables? What instruments or observations were used in the
research? Explain why you do, or do not, think that the methods used to
collect the data are described clearly enough to allow for replication. Be
specific and please elaborate.
Explain whether or not information was provided concerning the reliability and
validity of these instruments or observations. Was this information adequate?
How does the presence or absence of information about reliability and validity
affect your confidence in the quality of the study? What have the authors
done to address or strengthen internal validity? Be specific.
How were the participants recruited or selected for the study? What sampling
strategy was used? Is the sample large enough to address the hypotheses
and research questions? Did the author(s) offer any justification for the
sample size? Are you satisfied with the information reported about the
sample? What questions might you have about the sample that were not
addressed? Please be sure to provide an explanation for all of your answers.
Are the demographics of the participants (e.g., background characteristics
such as age, race, etc.) described in sufficient detail? If so, how is the
presentation of this descriptive data useful in evaluating the research? If not,
please explain how that may affect the evaluation of the research.
Was the sample reflective of the population from which it was drawn? Is
representativeness important in this research? Please explain.
Please explain any ethical concerns you may have about the sample and how
the sample was recruited.
How were the data analyzed? (What statistical techniques were used?)
Be specific.
Explain how easy or difficult it was for you to understand the reporting of
results. What questions do you have after reading the results section? Please
elaborate.
Do you feel the results of this study have meaning for social
work practitioners or managers? Please elaborate.
© 2016 Laureate Education, Inc. 3 of 3
Explain whether or not the authors made sense of their data in the discussion
section. Explain why you think the conclusions are (or are not) reasonable.
Did the authors discuss the limitations of their study? Did they stay within
the limitations of their findings, or did they make more of their findings than
was warranted? Please elaborate.
Did the author(s) suggest issues that future research should consider? If
so, were there any surprises? Please elaborate.
- SOCW 6301: Week 10 Assignment Guidelines Quantitative Article Review and Critique
Title
Abstract
Introduction
Methods
Sample
Results
Discussion