4.4 Article

The adoption of medications in substance abuse treatment: Associations with organizational characteristics and technology clusters

期刊

DRUG AND ALCOHOL DEPENDENCE
卷 87, 期 2-3, 页码 164-174

出版社

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2006.08.013

关键词

agonist medications; naltrexone; disulfiram; technology transfer; treatment services

资金

  1. NIDA NIH HHS [R01DA13110, R01 DA013110, R01DA14482, R01 DA014482] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Despite growing interest in closing the research to practice gap, there are few data on the availability of medications in American substance abuse treatment settings. Recent research suggests that organizational characteristics may be associated with medication availability. It is unclear if the availability of medications can be conceptualized in terms of technology clusters, where the availability of a medication is positively associated with the likelihood that other medications are also offered. Using data from 403 privately funded and 363 publicly funded specialty substance abuse treatment centers in the US, this research models the availability of agonist medications, naltrexone, disulfiram, and SSRIs. Bivariate logistic regression models indicated considerable variation in adoption across publicly funded non-profit, government-owned, privately funded non-profit, and for-profit treatment centers. Some of these differences were attenuated by organizational characteristics, such as accreditation, the presence of staff physicians, and the availability of detoxification services. There was some evidence that naltrexone, disulfiram, and SSRIs represent a group of less intensely regulated medications that is distinct from more intensely regulated medications. These types of medications were associated with somewhat different correlates. Future research should continue to investigate the similarities and differences in the predictors of medication availability across national contexts. (c) 2006 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据