Citation

Lee MT, Acevedo A, Garnick DW, Horgan CM, Panas L, Ritter GA, Campbell KM. Psychiatr. Serv. 2018; 69(7): 804-811.

Affiliation

With the exception of Dr. Campbell, the authors are with the Institute for Behavioral Health, Heller School for Social Policy and Management, Brandeis University, Waltham, Massachusetts. Dr. Acevedo is also with the Department of Community Health, Tufts University, Medford, Massachusetts. Dr. Campbell is with the Division of Behavioral Health and Recovery, Washington State Behavioral Health Administration, Olympia.

Copyright

(Copyright © 2018, American Psychiatric Association)

DOI

10.1176/appi.ps.201700465

PMID

29695226

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: This study examined whether having co-occurring substance use and mental disorders influenced treatment engagement or continuity of care and whether offering financial incentives, client-specific electronic reminders, or a combination to treatment agencies improved treatment engagement and continuity of care among clients with co-occurring disorders.

METHODS: The study used a randomized cluster design to assign agencies (N=196) providing publicly funded substance use disorder treatment in Washington State to a research arm: incentives only, reminders only, incentives and reminders, and a control condition. Data were analyzed for 76,044 outpatient, 32,797 residential, and 39,006 detoxification admissions from Washington's treatment data system. Multilevel logistic regressions were conducted, with clients nested within agencies, to examine the effect of the interventions on treatment engagement and continuity of care.

RESULTS: Compared with clients with a substance use disorder only, clients with co-occurring disorders were less likely to engage in outpatient treatment or have continuity of care after discharge from residential treatment, but they were more likely to have continuity of care after discharge from detoxification. The interventions did not influence treatment engagement or continuity of care, except the reminders had a positive impact on continuity of care after residential treatment among clients with co-occurring disorders.

CONCLUSIONS: In general, the interventions did not result in improved treatment engagement or continuity of care. The limited number of significant results supporting the influence of incentives and alerts on treatment engagement and continuity of care add to the mixed findings reported by previous research. Multiple interventions may be needed for performance improvement.

Language: en

Keywords

Co-occurring substance use and mental health disorders; continuity of care; electronic reminders; financial incentives; treatment engagement