Case management in aftercare of involuntarily committed patients with substance abuse. A randomized trial.

OBJECTIVE: Case management has since the 1970s been widely used to co-ordinate services for mental health patients. The methodology has expanded to support patients in many different types of conditions. This study is one of very few randomized trials on case management in a European setting. It examined the impact of case management on substance abuse and use of service after discharge from court-ordered institutional care. METHODS: Court-ordered patients with substance abuse ( n = 36) were randomly assigned to either strengths based case management or treatment-as-usual during 6 months in aftercare. Data was collected at intake, at conclusion of intervention and at 6 month's follow-up with a follow-up rate of 94%. RESULTS: Case management interventions were well received by the patients with no drop-out during intervention. Patients with the support of a case manager seemed to sustain abstinence in a higher degree compared with treatment-as-usual but no differences were detected in regard to use of care. A subgroup analysis showed that patients with a continuous drug abuse did have access to care from both social welfare and hospital care systems. CONCLUSIONS: Case management may be useful in order to retain abstinence in aftercare following court-ordered treatment. The social welfare and hospital care systems seem to provide care irrespective of case manager intervention. The study design, interventions and assessments instruments were well received by patients but needs to be replicated with a larger population. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: The 100% retention in the case management support group indicates that patients were satisfied with this type of intervention and the methodology seems to be useful in order to retain abstinence.

Commitment to coercive care in relation to substance abuse reports to the social services. A 2-year follow-up.

BACKGROUND: In Sweden, a person with substance abuse can be reported to the social services for an investigation about commitment to coercive care. After a change in legislation, municipalities varied greatly in the ratio of commitments/reports compared with the period before the legislation was amended. AIMS: The primary aims of this study were first, to investigate whether subjects from municipalities with a high ratio of commitments/reports have a better outcome compared with subjects from municipalities with a low ratio and second, if a high ratio has an impact on mortality. METHODS: The study involved two municipalities with high ratio of commitments/reports with 56 cases reported for substance abuse including 31 committed cases (55%). It also included two municipalities with a low ratio, 50 reported cases including six committed cases (12%). Two social service inspectors at the country administrative board assessed the cases in terms of severity of addiction according to legal criteria (κ(s)=0.66), indicating good inter-rater agreement. A global index based on information about substance abuse, employment and housing was used as outcome measure at the 2-year follow-up. RESULTS: Global outcome did not differ between cases from high- and low-ratio municipalities. Seven subjects had deceased because of causes related to substance abuse. None of the deceased had been committed to coercive care. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: In conclusion, the different ratios of commitments/reports did not influence global outcome. Commitment may reduce substance-related deaths.