Printer Friendly

Concept of patient 'readiness' questioned: Research suggests a widely accepted variable for predicting patient engagement might not be as reliable as previously believed.

If you've ever made or overheard the comment "He just wasn't ready" after witnessing an adverse patient outcome in treatment, a read of the latest research might have you rethinking that.

Researchers studying a number of variables for predicting engagement in treatment have found that the predictor in which they had the most faith going into the study--treatment readiness--did not show significant results.

While some individual-level characteristics did appear to be related to patients' level of engagement, the study as a whole suggests that programs and professionals might need to look elsewhere--namely, inward--for the most meaningful predictors of patient success.

"It's important to begin to think about some of these program-level issues," says Lincoln Sloas, PhD, lead author of the study and assistant professor at Florida Atlantic University's School of Criminology and Criminal Justice. "We need to look at how we can tailor programming to the needs of people."


First published online in the Journal of Drug Education last February, the study used data from the Global Appraisal of Individual Needs-Intake (GAIN-I) 2012 data set, a nationally representative sample of adult patients. The data set included patients in a variety of levels of care from residential to outpatient, and included a combination of patients in voluntary and mandated treatment.

Treatment readiness was measured with use of indices that assessed motivation and resistance. To measure motivation, individuals are asked questions such as whether they believe they can get the help they need in a treatment program, and whether they need support from loved ones to deal with their substance use. To measure resistance, individuals are asked questions such as whether they believe being in treatment is too demanding, or whether they have too many other responsibilities that impede their ability to pursue treatment.

The researchers measured readiness and other variables against treatment engagement, defined as remaining in treatment for more than 30 days and attending more than two sessions. These were among their findings, some of which came as a surprise:

* There was a positive relationship between treatment readiness and treatment engagement, but this was not found to be statistically significant.

* Greater frequency of substance use slightly increased the odds of engaging in substance use treatment. "We might have thought the opposite," says Sloas.

* Men were less likely than women to engage in treatment, and whites and blacks were less likely than other races to engage in treatment.

* Married individuals were 23% less likely to engage in treatment than never-married individuals (again, a somewhat surprising finding given the apparent importance of support from loved ones).

* Around 90% of the individuals in the study were able to initiate treatment, but in some cases that could mean they merely showed up for day one of services. "Engagement requires people putting things into effect," Sloas says.

The researchers wrote that the findings suggest that "individual-level risk factors (across a variety of domains) may not be the most robust predictors of engagement." They added, "To better inform efforts to improve treatment engagement, it is important to look beyond individual-level risk factors and consider the interaction between individual- and program-level factors," such as the composition of a program's services and staff.

They said, however, that some of the individual-level findings could indicate a need for more attention to motivational enhancement strategies that specifically target certain subgroups, such as men.

The study paper points out that treatment readiness remains a challenging concept for the field to grasp because there is no uniform standard for how to measure it.

Study authors wrote, "It is critical for researchers and clinicians to continue to study why some individuals engage and others do not and to implement interventions that can be targeted to dynamic risk factors that can be changed to increase the probability of successful treatment outcomes throughout the treatment process."

Gary A. Enos is Editor of Addiction Professional.
COPYRIGHT 2018 Vendome Group LLC
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2018 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Author:Enos, Gary A.
Publication:Addiction Professional
Date:Sep 22, 2018
Previous Article:Five facts about workplace testing trends: Annual survey offers reason for concern about cocaine, methamphetamine and marijuana.
Next Article:Becoming an agent of change: Celebrity agent still mixes with the rich andfamous, but sobriety comes first.

Terms of use | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2021 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters