Evaluation and program planning · 2025
A mixed methods evaluation of an alcohol and other drug psychoeducation program for clients with complex support needs.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Deans Emily, Yuen Wing See, Economidis George, Shakeshaft Anthony, Farnbach Sara
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Clients with co-occurring and complex needs represent an important segment of the alcohol and other drug (AOD) treatment population. Retaining and engaging individuals in AOD treatment is challenging, and this pursuit is further impeded when clients present with complex support needs. This study sought to establish the feasibility and acceptability of a newly developed psychoeducation program for this clientele, attending a non-residential treatment service in New South Wales.
METHODS: The study employed a mixed methods approach. The team analysed aggregated non identifiable routinely collected data, including alcohol and other drug use, psychological distress and quality of life metrics pre and post intervention. Qualitative semi-structured interviews were also conducted with consenting clients and clinicians to complement quantitative data.
RESULTS: Twenty-five eligible clients consented to have their data used for this study and nine consented to participate in an interview. Results show a significant decrease in psychological distress among clients at exit compared to baseline, however no significant change in quality-of-life scores or substance use was quantitatively observed. Some clients self-reported a reduction in substance use and most appreciated the flexibility of the one-on-one service offering.
CONCLUSIONS: Our findings show that the psychoeducational program delivered to clients with complex support needs at Rendu House is feasible and acceptable to both clients and clinicians, and that the use of routinely collected data to measure treatment outcomes is viable within this setting. Our findings also demonstrate the value of qualitative inquiry in situating narratives of recovery among clients with complex needs where improvements may be incremental.
METHODS: The study employed a mixed methods approach. The team analysed aggregated non identifiable routinely collected data, including alcohol and other drug use, psychological distress and quality of life metrics pre and post intervention. Qualitative semi-structured interviews were also conducted with consenting clients and clinicians to complement quantitative data.
RESULTS: Twenty-five eligible clients consented to have their data used for this study and nine consented to participate in an interview. Results show a significant decrease in psychological distress among clients at exit compared to baseline, however no significant change in quality-of-life scores or substance use was quantitatively observed. Some clients self-reported a reduction in substance use and most appreciated the flexibility of the one-on-one service offering.
CONCLUSIONS: Our findings show that the psychoeducational program delivered to clients with complex support needs at Rendu House is feasible and acceptable to both clients and clinicians, and that the use of routinely collected data to measure treatment outcomes is viable within this setting. Our findings also demonstrate the value of qualitative inquiry in situating narratives of recovery among clients with complex needs where improvements may be incremental.