Drug and alcohol dependence · 2014
Development of the Addiction Dimensions for Assessment and Personalised Treatment (ADAPT).
СтатьяМногоцентровое исследованиеПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Marsden John, Eastwood Brian, Ali Robert, Burkinshaw Pete, Chohan Gagandeep, Copello Alex, Burn Daniel, Kelleher Michael, Mitcheson Luke, Taylor Steve, Wilson Nick, Whiteley Chris, Day Edward
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Convergent research reveals heterogeneity in substance use disorders (SUD). The Addiction Dimensions for Assessment and Personalised Treatment (ADAPT) is designed to help clinicians tailor therapies.
METHODS: Multicentre study in 21 SUD clinics in London, Birmingham (England) and Adelaide (Australia). 132 clinicians rated their caseload on a beta version with 16 ordinal indicators of addiction severity, health and social problem complexity, and recovery strengths constructs. In Birmingham, two in-treatment outcomes were recorded after 15-months: 28-day drug use (Treatment Outcome Profile; n=703) and Global Assessment of Functioning (GAF; DSM-IV Axis V; n=695). Following item-level screening (inter-rater reliability [IRR]; n=388), exploratory structural equation models (ESEM), latent profile analysis (LPA), and mixed-effects regression evaluated construct, concurrent and predictive validity characteristics, respectively.
RESULTS: 2467 patients rated (majority opioid or stimulant dependent, enrolled in opioid medication assisted or psychological treatment). IRR-screening removed two items and ESEM models identified and recalibrated remaining indicators (root mean square error of approximation 0.066 [90% confidence interval 0.055-0.064]). Following minor re-specification and satisfactory measurement invariance evaluation, ADAPT factor scores discriminated patients by sample, addiction therapy and drug use. LPA identified three patient sub-types: Class 1 (moderate severity, moderate complexity, high strengths profile; 46.9%); Class 2 (low severity, low complexity, high strengths; 25.4%) and Class 3 (high severity, high complexity, low strengths; 27.7%). Class 2 had higher GAF (z=4.30). Class 3 predicted follow-up drug use (z=2.02) and lower GAF (z=3.51).
CONCLUSION: The ADAPT is a valid instrument for SUD treatment planning, clinical review and outcome evaluation. Scoring and application are discussed.
METHODS: Multicentre study in 21 SUD clinics in London, Birmingham (England) and Adelaide (Australia). 132 clinicians rated their caseload on a beta version with 16 ordinal indicators of addiction severity, health and social problem complexity, and recovery strengths constructs. In Birmingham, two in-treatment outcomes were recorded after 15-months: 28-day drug use (Treatment Outcome Profile; n=703) and Global Assessment of Functioning (GAF; DSM-IV Axis V; n=695). Following item-level screening (inter-rater reliability [IRR]; n=388), exploratory structural equation models (ESEM), latent profile analysis (LPA), and mixed-effects regression evaluated construct, concurrent and predictive validity characteristics, respectively.
RESULTS: 2467 patients rated (majority opioid or stimulant dependent, enrolled in opioid medication assisted or psychological treatment). IRR-screening removed two items and ESEM models identified and recalibrated remaining indicators (root mean square error of approximation 0.066 [90% confidence interval 0.055-0.064]). Following minor re-specification and satisfactory measurement invariance evaluation, ADAPT factor scores discriminated patients by sample, addiction therapy and drug use. LPA identified three patient sub-types: Class 1 (moderate severity, moderate complexity, high strengths profile; 46.9%); Class 2 (low severity, low complexity, high strengths; 25.4%) and Class 3 (high severity, high complexity, low strengths; 27.7%). Class 2 had higher GAF (z=4.30). Class 3 predicted follow-up drug use (z=2.02) and lower GAF (z=3.51).
CONCLUSION: The ADAPT is a valid instrument for SUD treatment planning, clinical review and outcome evaluation. Scoring and application are discussed.