RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: In the implementation of placement matching guidelines, feasibility has been concerned in previous research. Objectives of this process evaluation were to investigate whether the patient-centered matching guidelines (PCPM) are consistently applied in referral decision-making from an inpatient qualified withdrawal program to a level of care in aftercare, which factors affect whether patients actually receive matched aftercare according to PCPM, and whether its use is feasible and accepted by clinic staff. METHODS: The study was conducted as process evaluation within an exploratory randomized controlled trial in four German psychiatric clinics offering a 7-to-21 day qualified withdrawal program for patients suffering from alcohol dependence, and with measurements taken during detoxification treatment and six months after the initial assessment. PCPM were used with patients in the intervention group by feeding back to them a recommendation for a level of care in aftercare that had been calculated from Measurements in the Addictions for Triage and Evaluation (MATE) and discussed with the staff on the treatment unit. As measurements, The MATE, the Client Socio-Demographic and Service Receipt Inventory-European Version, a documentation form, the Control Preference Scale, and the Motivation for Treatment Scale were administered. A workshop for the staff at the participating trial sites was conducted after data collection was finished. RESULTS: Among 250 patients participating in the study, 165 were interviewed at follow-up, and 125 had received aftercare. Although consistency in the application of PCPM was moderate to substantial within the qualified withdrawal program (Cohen's kappa ≥ .41), it was fair from discharge to follow-up. In multifactorial multinomial regression, the number of foregoing substance abuse treatments predicted whether patients received more likely undermatched (Odds Ratio=1.27; p=.018) or overmatched (Odds Ratio=0.78; p=.054) treatment. While the implementation process during the study was evaluated critically by the staff, they stated a potential of quality assurance, more transparency and patient-centeredness in the use of PCPM. CONCLUSIONS: While the use of PCPM has the potential to enhance the quality of referral decision making within treatment, it may not be sufficient to determine referral decisions for aftercare. TRIAL REGISTRATION: German Clinical Trials Register DRKS00005035 . Registered 03/06/2013.
Asunto(s)
Alcoholismo , Cuidados Posteriores , Alcoholismo/diagnóstico , Alcoholismo/terapia , Humanos , Motivación , Atención Dirigida al Paciente , Derivación y ConsultaRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Placement matching guidelines are promising means to optimize patient-centered care and to match patients' treatment needs. Despite considerable research regarding placement matching approaches to optimize alcohol abuse treatment, findings are inconclusive. OBJECTIVES: To investigate whether the use of patient-centered placement matching (PCPM) guidelines is more effective in reducing heavy drinking and costs 6 months after discharge from an inpatient alcohol withdrawal treatment compared to usual referral to aftercare. Secondary aims were to investigate whether age, gender, trial site or level of care (LOC) are moderators of efficacy and whether patients who were actually referred to the recommended LOC had better treatment outcomes compared to patients who were treated under- or overmatched. METHODS: Design. Exploratory randomized controlled trial with measurements during withdrawal treatment and 6 months after initial assessment. SETTING: Four German psychiatric clinics offering a 7-21 day inpatient qualified withdrawal program for patients suffering from alcohol dependence. PARTICIPANTS: From 1,927 patients who had a primary diagnosis of alcohol dependence and did not have organized aftercare when entering withdrawal treatment, 299 were invited to participate. Of those, 250 were randomized to the intervention group (IG, n = 123) or the control group (CG, n = 127). INTERVENTION: The PCPM were applied to patients of the IG by feeding back a recommendation to a LOC for aftercare that was calculated from the Measurements in the Addictions for Triage and Evaluation (MATE) and discussed with the staff of the treatment unit. Patients of the CG received a general feedback regarding their MATE interview on request. MEASUREMENTS: The MATE, the Client Socio-Demographic and Service Receipt Inventory--European Version and the MATE-Outcomes were administered. Data were analyzed using generalized linear models. RESULTS: In the intention-to-treat analysis, there were no significant differences between IG and CG regarding days of heavy drinking (incident risk ratio [IRR] 1.09; p = 0.640), direct (IRR 1.06; p = 0.779), indirect (IRR 0.77; p = 0.392) and total costs (IRR 0.89; p = 0.496). Furthermore, none of the investigated moderator variables affected statistically significant drinking or cost-related primary outcomes. Regardless of group allocation, patients who received matched aftercare reported significantly fewer days of heavy drinking than undermatched patients (IRR 2.09; p = 0.004). For patients who were overmatched, direct costs were significantly higher (IRR 1.79; p = 0.024), but with no additional effects on alcohol consumption compared to matched patients. CONCLUSIONS: While the use of PCPM failed to affect the actual referral to aftercare, our findings suggest that treating patients on the recommended LOC may have the potential to reduce days of heavy drinking compared to undertreatment and costs compared to overtreatment.
Asunto(s)
Alcoholismo/rehabilitación , Evaluación de Necesidades , Atención Dirigida al Paciente , Derivación y Consulta , Cuidados Posteriores , Consumo de Bebidas Alcohólicas/psicología , Femenino , Alemania , Investigación sobre Servicios de Salud , Hospitalización/economía , Humanos , Entrevistas como Asunto , Masculino , Persona de Mediana EdadRESUMEN
AIMS: Shared decision making (SDM) is increasingly demanded in medical decision making. SDM acknowledges patients' role preferences in decision making processes. There has been limited research on SDM and role preferences in substance use disorders; results are promising. Aim of this study was to investigate role preferences of patients with alcohol use disorders (AUD), and to identify predictors of these preferences. METHOD: Cross-sectional data collected from June 2013 to May 2014 in four detoxification wards in Germany during a randomised controlled trial (RCT, Registration Code 01GY1114) was analysed. Of the 250 patients with AUD who were included in the RCT, data from 242 patients [65% male; mean ageâ¯=â¯45.2â¯years (sdâ¯=â¯10.3)] were analysed. Participants' role preferences were assessed with the Control Preference Scale. Potential correlates were drawn from instruments used in the RCT; multinomial logistic regression was used. RESULTS: 90% (nâ¯=â¯217) of the AUD patients preferred an active or shared role in decision-making, 10% (nâ¯=â¯25) preferred a passive role. Patients' desire for help was associated with their role preference (ORâ¯=â¯3.087, pâ¯=â¯.05). The model's goodness of fit was Nagelkerke's R2â¯=â¯0.153 [χ2 (24)â¯=â¯25.206, pâ¯=â¯.395]. CONCLUSIONS: Patients' preference for an active role in decision-making underscores the importance of involving patients in their treatment planning. Patients' desire for help seems to be an important determinant of paternalistic decision making. However, further research is needed to determine whether patients' role preferences are related to their behavior during their treatment referral and recovery.