Search results

Substance dependence (SD) is a chronic disease that requires specialty drug and alcohol treatment, primary care (PC), and management of related problems. Although patients with SD may be linked with specialty care and PC, their health care often remains episodic and fragmented, rather than longitudinal, comprehensive, integrated, and coordinated. As a result, adults with SD often enter addiction treatment later and require acute medical care, rather than entering the system earlier when interventions of lower intensity but longer duration might prevent catastrophes. Chronic disease management (CDM) is a collaborative, longitudinal approach to treatment of certain chronic medical illnesses proven to be more effective than routine care. CDM addresses individual patient and health systems barriers to receipt of needed treatment. However, the effectiveness of CDM for SD has not been tested. The objective of this Addiction Health Evaluation and Disease management (AHEAD) study, was to test the effectiveness of CDM for SD in PC.

Subject identification and recruitment occurred primarily at a local detoxification center, as well as by self and physician referral from the Boston Medical Center primary and ambulatory care clinics, emergency department, urgent care center, inpatient settings, and the community. The study enrolled 320 adults with drug dependence and 320 adults with alcohol dependence who were not in SD treatment, and randomized them to a SD CDM program (the AHEAD Clinic) integrated into a real-world PC clinic or to referral to standard PC. All subjects were assessed regarding SD diagnosis, substance use and problems, readiness to change, health-related quality of life, and medical and drug treatment utilization. Subjects were evaluated 3, 6, and 12 months later, and health services utilization data were collected for 2 years from a statewide database. Additionally, in order to better understand and explain the implementation and fidelity of the AHEAD Clinic, the primary care providers (PCPs) of AHEAD Clinic patients were surveyed. Each PCP was presented with a letter from the Principal Investigator explaining the purpose of the survey, the reason why s/he was being asked to complete the survey, compensation for completing the survey, and details about confidentiality and anonymity. The survey itself consisted of questions asking providers about their satisfaction and their attitudes towards caring for patients with alcohol and drug problems, their knowledge of services that the AHEAD Clinic provides, and their experience working with the AHEAD Clinic.

Primary outcomes were illicit drug use, alcohol use, substance-related problems, emergency department visits, and hospitalizations. The proposal's hypothesis was that compared with standard care, a health services delivery intervention (CDM for SD integrated in PC) would decrease alcohol and illicit drug use and related problems, and improve health care utilization patterns. Improved outcomes using the AHEAD approach would support the adoption of a health services delivery strategy, CDM, to better care for patients with SD.

• Dataset 1: 844 variables; 563 cases
• Dataset 2: 607 variables; 500 cases
• Dataset 3: 607 variables; 487 cases
• Dataset 4: 713 variables; 532 cases
• Dataset 5: 80 variables; 549 cases
• Dataset 6: 59 variables; 1,435 cases
• Dataset 7: 25 variables; 87 cases
• Dataset 8: 25 variables; 87 cases
• Dataset 9: 41 variables; 73 cases
• Dataset 10: 9 variables; 11,018 cases
• Dataset 11: 5 variables; 511 cases

Adoption of Innovations in Private Alcohol and Drug Treatment Centers is a multi-wave longitudinal study conducted between 2009 and 2013. The study goal was to measure the adoption and implementation of evidence-based treatment practices in treatment centers that received more than 50 percent of their total operational funding from sources that were not guaranteed from year to year. This definition is based on the concept of entrepreneurship, namely the necessity for the treatment organization to respond to changing conditions in the external political and economic environment in order to obtain half or more of its funding. The innovations considered are of three types usually specific to organizations treating substance use disorders:

• medication-assisted treatments
• psychosocial treatments
• managerial practices

This data set consists of one of the multiple "waves" of data collection. The data was collected at four points in time. The baseline data, collected from June 2009 through October 2011 from 327 treatment centers, were obtained through face-to-face onsite interviews ranging from 1 to 4 hours in duration. These interviews were conducted with administrators of the respective treatment centers. In 70 of the 327 treatment centers, an administrator of the overall center and the administrator of clinical operations separately completed administrative and clinical interviews. In the remaining 257 centers, all of the administrative and clinical data were collected from the administrator of the overall center since there was no specialized administrator of clinical operations. The baseline data available here merge the data collected through these two different procedures so that the variables measured are identical for all centers regardless of the procedure.

The collected data include detailed information on Medication Assisted Treatment (MAT) and other treatment strategies used by the center to treat opioid use disorder (OUD) and alcohol use disorder (AUD). In cases where medications were not used by a center questions were asked for reasons why available medications were not used in treatment. Other sections of the interviews covered data on the organizations, their management, and other clinical practices implemented for OUD, AUD, and substance use disorder (SUD).

Three follow-up interviews were conducted via telephone at six month intervals following the previous interview. These follow-up interviews were much shorter compared to the baseline interview. The interviews centered on key changes in the center's operation and on the adoption of key innovations. But a focus of the follow-up interviews still focused on medications provided for treatment.

The Community Vulnerability and Responses to Drug-User-Related HIV/AIDS, 1990-2013 [96 Metropolitan Statistical Areas, United States] study (CVAR) was a research study of why large United States Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs) vary over time in their vulnerability to HIV/AIDS among drug users and in MSA responses to HIV/AIDS. This collection contains estimates of HIV prevalence among people who injected drugs (PWID) and among sub-populations of PWID. This collection is comprised of ten datasets with differing amounts of variables and provides trend data that describe the following:

• Epidemiologic outcomes including population prevalence of PWIDs and Non-injecting drug users (NIDUs), and particularly their prevalence among youth; and, among PWIDs, HIV prevalence, late-diagnosis HIV cases, and AIDS incidence and mortality.
• Implementation of evidence-based drug-related interventions including drug abuse treatment, syringe exchange, HIV counseling and testing.
• Implementation of non-evidence-based drug-related interventions including incarceration and arrests of drug users.

The collection contains data on the MSA sub-populations including Black, Hispanic, White and "other" race categories. In addition, some statistics are presented in age range categories such as ages 15-29, 30-64 and 15-64.

The Criminal Justice Drug Abuse Treatment Studies 2 (CJ-DATS 2) was launched in 2008 with a focus on conducting implementation research in criminal justice settings. NIDA's ultimate goal for CJ-DATS 2 was to identify implementation strategies that maximize the likelihood of sustained delivery of evidence-based practices to improve offender drug abuse and HIV outcomes, and to decrease their risk of incarceration.

The Organizational Process Improvement Intervention (OPII) study (aka Assessment study) focused on implementing assessment and treatment planning processes. Screening and assessment were used to identify substance abuse-related problems and to develop programming to address the problems so identified.

The OPII study engaged corrections and treatment agencies to improve the quality of interagency communication through the effective use of assessment and case planning processes and treatment referrals. Both inter-agency and intra-agency change processes were targeted. A multi-phase implementation protocol was used, wherein agencies engaged in team development, needs assessment, planning, implementation, and sustainability in distinct steps. Early- and delayed-start sites allowed the research team to control for effects of environmental changes within states. The protocol targeted critical communications channels between otherwise often highly segregated correctional and treatment agencies.

Evaluation of the OPII used a multi-site cluster randomized design with multiple measures over the course of the intervention. Clusters consisted of a criminal justice agency and one or more community treatment providers that received referrals from that criminal justice agency. Each of the 9 centers had two clusters (one had three), and each cluster was randomized to an Early-Start or a Delayed-Start condition with multiple measures over the course of the intervention. After randomization, the Early-Start sites began the OPII, while the Delayed-Start sites conducted business as usual, without any additional intervention. After approximately 12 months, or when the Early-Start change team completed the Implementation phase, the Delayed-Start change team began to carry out the protocol.

Throughout the study period different subsets of individuals working at correctional facilities and treatment programs at the study sites were asked to complete surveys. During the Baseline period of the study survey data were collected from correctional staff, correctional directors, treatment staff, treatment directors, correctional executives and treatment executives. These data can be found in (DS1-DS12). The executive respondents provided information at the organizational level for the programs they oversaw (DS5, DS6). Next, Needs Assessments were completed by the change teams and their facilitators (DS13-DS14). The change teams and facilitators also responded to surveys on Process Improvement Planning (DS15-DS19). During the Implementation stage, surveys were administered to select substance abuse treatment programs, change team facilitators, change team members and the immediate supervisors of the change team members (DS20-DS27). Selected correctional and treatment staff members (in the Early-Start sites only) were asked to complete Follow-up surveys at the end of the OPII process (DS28-DS33). Staff members who completed surveys also provided demographic data (DS36-DS41). DS42 is a restricted use version of DS41. Change team members kept track of the time they spent on OPII activities (DS35). Change team success was evaluated by a subset of raters (DS34).

Surveys were administered at 21 study sites and there was a total of over 2,700 survey respondents.

In 2002, the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) funded the Criminal Justice Drug Abuse Treatment Studies (CJ-DATS) cooperative agreement. The Institute of Behavioral Research at Texas Christian University (TCU) was one of nine National Research Centers selected to study current drug treatment practices and outcomes in correctional settings and to examine strategies for improving treatment services for drug-involved offenders.

The specific aims of the PIC study were to:

1. Cross sectionally test and adapt the TCU CJ-CEST, BOP, and NDRI CAI assessments for use in multiple correctional settings;
2. To examine agency and program records of client progress relevant to treatment process; and to
3. Revise the assessments as necessary for use in longitudinal assessment protocols and CJ Management Information Systems (MIS).

During the first data collection period, Wave 1, a total of 3,266 inmates were surveyed from research centers based out of Texas Christian University, the University of Delaware, the University of Kentucky, University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA), and the National Development and Research Institute (NDRI). After psychometrics were run and the forms revised slightly, a second administration took place but this time only at two centers (TCU and Delaware). During Wave 2 a total of 1,421 clients participated in the survey.

The Epidemiologic Catchment Area (ECA) program of research was initiated in response to the 1977 report of the President's Commission on Mental Health. The purpose was to collect data on the prevalence and incidence of mental disorders and on the use of and need for services by the mentally ill. Independent research teams at five universities (Yale University, Johns Hopkins University, Washington University, Duke University, and University of California at Los Angeles), in collaboration with the National Institute for Mental Health, conducted the studies with a core of common questions and sample characteristics. The sites were areas that had previously been designated as Community Mental Health Center catchment areas: New Haven, Connecticut, Baltimore, Maryland, St. Louis, Missouri, Durham, North Carolina, and Los Angeles, California. Each site sampled over 3,000 community residents and 500 residents of institutions, yielding 20,861 respondents overall. The longitudinal ECA design incorporated two waves of personal interviews administered one year apart and a brief telephone interview in between (for the household sample). The diagnostic interview used in the ECA was the NIMH Diagnostic Interview Schedule (DIS), Version III (with the exception of the Yale Wave I survey, which used Version II). Diagnoses were categorized according to the DIAGNOSTIC AND STATISTICAL MANUAL OF MENTAL DISORDERS, 3rd Edition (DSM-III). Diagnoses derived from the DIS include manic episode, dysthymia, bipolar disorder, single episode major depression, recurrent major depression, atypical bipolar disorder, alcohol abuse or dependence, drug abuse or dependence, schizophrenia, schizophreniform, obsessive compulsive disorder, phobia, somatization, panic, antisocial personality, and anorexia nervosa. The DIS uses the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE), which measures cognitive functioning, as an indirect measure of the DSM-III Organic Mental Disorders. In the ECA survey, this diagnosis is called cognitive impairment.

This collection features data from 17,327 participants across 2,005 variables. Data from the Los Angeles, California, Catchment (UCLA) are not included. Baseline data (Wave 1) and Wave 2 data were linked to the National Death Index through 2007, which includes primary and contributing causes of death, International Classification of Disease (ICD) codes, and nature of injury variables.

These data were collected to evaluate the effectiveness of CASAWORKS for Families (CWF), a multiservice intervention designed to move substance abusing women on welfare to sobriety and self-sufficiency by addressing their substance abuse, domestic violence, employment, and basic needs. Conducted at 11 sites across the country, the evaluation was designed as a repeated measures, pre-during-post field evaluation with no pre-specified control or comparison groups. The results of this evaluation were primarily intended to guide a proposed second-stage experimental study of the effectiveness of an enhanced and refined CWF model.

When the potential participant presented herself at the CWF site, a research technician administered a specially modified version of the Addiction Severity Index (ASI), referred to as the Welfare to Work ASI (WTW-ASI). This version retained the ASI 5th edition as the core instrument but added questions in an addendum. The baseline WTW-ASI measured the severity of problems in nine areas: employment, medical status, alcohol use, drug use, legal status, family and social relationships, children and child care, basic needs, and psychiatric symptoms. In addition, the four-item Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale (CES-D), the Parenting Dimensions Inventory (PDI), and the Posttraumatic Stress Diagnostic Scale (PDS) were used to assess depression, parenting style, and posttraumatic stress disorder, respectively. The PDI, CES-D, and a follow-up version of WTW-ASI were also administered 6 and 12 months after intake.

Two instruments were used at baseline and at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months postbaseline to record the services provided by CWF: Welfare to Work version of the Treatment Services Review (TSR-WTW) and Case Management Review (CMR). The former mostly collected data on the number of treatment services received, such as doctor visits, therapy sessions, and days of inpatient treatment in the prior 30 days, while the latter collected data on the activities of the case management sessions and topics covered with the case managers. Activities recorded by the CMR included working on self-sufficiency plans, arrangement of follow-up services, skills development, crisis response, and advocating for the client. Topics covered included employment, substance abuse, mental health, domestic violence, parenting and child care, basic needs, life skills, and social support.

In order to compare the characteristics of the CWF clients with the general population of women who received Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), the study also collected WTW-ASI data from women in the general TANF population in the CWF locales regardless of their substance-use status.

The study is comprised of interviews from 227 Hispanic males aged 45 or older living in the area of Houston, Texas to address the gaps in knowledge on the social factors and health consequences of injection heroin use among aging Mexican American males. Specifically, the study investigated how the life course transitions of incarceration and drug treatment and drug abuse and family trajectories affect both the heroin career status and health consequences of these aging Mexican American men.

The study used a cross-sectional, field-intensive outreach methodology augmented with respondent-driven sampling. Recruitment was focused in two Houston neighborhoods that are predominantly Mexican American areas with high rates of crime, poverty, and psychosocial challenges. Trained Outreach Specialists familiar with these communities identified community gatekeepers and gained their trust through continued presence in the community and ongoing dialogue about the study. These gatekeepers then helped identify individuals meeting the inclusion criteria: Mexican American men aged 45 years or older with a history of injection drug use for at least 3 years. The men were then classified into one of three groups: current injectors (current group), former injectors not in treatment (former group), or former injectors currently enrolled in methadone maintenance treatment programs (MMTP group).

The second part is a second survey asking questions about social networks the respondent participates in. Questions ask the respondent to answer on one individual in their network and answer questions about that person and their interaction with them. Questions include basic demographics, history injecting drugs and sexual contact with the person.

Marijuana is the most commonly used illicit drug in the US, but treatment for marijuana dependence is not fully effective. The most effective treatments to date have employed motivational enhancement (MET) plus cognitive-behavioral coping skills treatment (CB) and contingency management (CM) for abstinence. This study was intended to deliver a treatment to enhance coping and self-efficacy to improve marijuana outcomes in the long term. Researchers are explored the idea that more tailored teaching of coping skills may result in improved outcomes for marijuana-dependence than those seen thus far. The Individualized Assessment and Treatment Program (IATP) for marijuana dependent patients employed experience sampling (ES) to determine the strengths and weaknesses of each patient in drug-use situations so that treatment could be tailored accordingly.

Participants were 198 men and women meeting criteria for marijuana dependence and randomly assigned to 9 sessions of treatment in one of 4 treatment conditions: Standardized MET plus CB (SMET-CB); SMET+ CM (SMET-CB-CM); IATP; or IATP + CM (IATP-CM). Patients in all treatments engaged in ES via cell-phone for two weeks prior to treatment, for a weekly period during treatment, for another week after treatment has ended, and for two weekly periods at months 8 and 14. In the IATP conditions, the information gathered from the pretreatment and during-treatment ES periods provided data for a functional analysis of patients' drug use and urges to use. Therapists used the information to address specific cognitions, affects, and behaviors that were adaptive and maladaptive, and tailored a specific coping skills program with the patient. During-treatment experience sampling allowed monitoring of the treatment goals and procedures, making the treatment adaptive. In the SMET-CB conditions the experience sampling data were not used in therapy, but still provides in-vivo measures of drug use and coping skills.

It was hypothesized that IATP conditions would yield significantly better coping skills acquisition than SMET-CB conditions, both at posttreatment and at extended follow-ups, and that change in coping skills would predict better outcomes for the IATP conditions. It was further predicted that the addition of CM to both IATP and SMET-CB would enhance short-term and long-term outcomes. The results would have implications for improved tailoring of treatment to patients' strength and deficits, and for the validity of the training of coping skills for cannabis relapse prevention. The data collected will shed light on the ways in which patients in treatment use coping skills in real-time contexts. Finally, the use of repeated ES periods will allow researchers to determine how treatment impacts thoughts, feelings and behaviors, and how these in turn affect outcome in the long and short term.

The Iowa Adoption Studies were conducted between 1975 and 2008. The group of studies consist of 5 independent waves of data collection each of which examined genetic (biological) and environmental influences on psychopathology. The adoption paradigm allowed separation of genetic and environmental influences on behavior, as well as joint influences due to gene x environment interaction. Adoptees were interviewed about lifetime psychopathology including substance abuse and dependence, antisocial personality, and mood disorders. A follow-up study was conducted from 2000-2004 that recruited all previous participants and natural offspring of the adoptive parents when available. Standardized psychiatric assessments were administered along with measures of personality disorders and traits, retrospective reports on childhood experiences with adoptive parents, and current symptomatology. An extensive neurocognitive assessment was conducted on a subset of participants who had standardized school achievement scores. The goal of this last wave of assessment was to evaluate the influence of substance use on mid-life cognition and health.

The respondents were assessed using a number of different surveys over the study period. The following describes the notable variables as well as descriptions of the surveys included in the dataset.

The first variables in the dataset identify sibling pairs and provides data on whether the respondents' biological parents suffered from mental health or substance abuse issues. Next birth records are provided that give basic information about the health of the person when he or she was born. This information is followed by the survey results of "The Schedule for Nonadaptive and Adaptive Personality" (SNAP) as well as variables that reflect the diagnosis of personality disorders and nonadaptive personality traits based on the SNAP survey responses.

The next section includes responses from "The Iowa Personality Disorder Screen," a quick personality disorder screen developed in 1999 intended for use in clinical and research settings.

Next, responses to Pearson Assessments "Brief symptoms inventory" are included as well as the scores calculated based on these survey responses. The results of this survey assess the mental state of the patient including scales on Somatization, Obsessive-Compulsive, Interpersonal Sensitivity, Depression, Anxiety, Hostility, Phobic Anxiety, Paranoid Ideation and Psychoticism.

The respondents also completed the "Buss-Durkee Hostility Questionnaire" and were assessed on measure regarding the following hostility traits: negativism, resentment, indirect hostility, assault, suspicion, irritability and verbal hostility.

Reponses to the "The Social Provisions Scale" survey are also included. The purpose of this survey is to assess the relationship the respondents have to other people. The 6 social provisions assessed include: guidance, reliable alliance, reassurance of worth, attachment, social integration, and opportunity for nurturance.

"The Parental Bonding Instrument" instrument was utilized to assess the respondents' relationships to their mothers and fathers.

A series of cognitive tests were administered to respondents. ICPSR is unable to provide the survey instruments used in the cognitive test due to copy write issues. These tests include:

Controlled Oral Word Association Test (COWAT)

North American Adult Reading Test (NAART)

Rey Figure and Rey Complex Figure Test and Recognition Trial (RCFT)

Shipley Institute of Living Scale (SILS)

Stroop Color and Word Test (SCWT)

Tower of Hanoi (TofH)

Comprehensive Trailmaking Test (CTMT)

Weschler Adult Intelligence Test (WAIS)

Weschler Memory Test (WMS)

The dataset also includes respondents' results of the Comprehensive Performance Test (CPT) and the Iowa Gambling Task (IGT)

Scores from the "Iowa Test of Basic Skills," a test of academic achievement that evaluates students knowledge in subjects including, mathematics, reading comprehension, and science, are included in the dataset. Respondents are evaluated in grades 4, 8 and 11.

The final section of the dataset includes two waves of the "Semi Structured Assessment for the Genetics of Alcoholism," a survey intended to assess the physical, psychological, and social manifestations of alcohol abuse. These survey responses make up the bulk of the dataset and include variables on a variety of topics including: demographics, medical history, substance use, eating disorders, depression, dysthymia, mania, ASP, suicide, PTSD, generalized anxiety disorder, OCD, social phobia, agoraphobia, panic disorder, home environment, gambling, and ADHD. Substances use investigated includes alcohol, tobacco, marijuana, sedatives, stimulants, cocaine, opiates, solvents, hallucinogens, and other drugs.

This dataset includes 934 cases and 9,370 variables.

The National Drug Abuse Treatment System Survey (NDATSS) is a longitudinal program of research into organizational structures, operating characteristics, and treatment practices of outpatient drug treatment programs in the United States. This is done through interviews with program directors and clinical supervisors. In some publications, this research is referred to as the Outpatient Drug Abuse Treatment Studies (ODATS). Data in this collection include Wave V, Wave VI, Wave VII, Wave VIII, and Wave IX.

NDATSS includes four prior waves of data collection from substance abuse treatment programs surveyed in 1984, 1988, 1990, and 1995. Waves II through IV can be found at ICPSR here.

Wave I is not planned for public release because it had a significantly different sample design than the other waves.

The National Survey of Substance Abuse Treatment Services (N-SSATS) is designed to collect information from all facilities in the United States, both public and private, that provide substance abuse treatment. N-SSATS provides the mechanism for quantifying the dynamic character and composition of the United States substance abuse treatment delivery system. The objectives of N-SSATS are to collect multipurpose data that can be used to assist the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) and state and local governments in assessing the nature and extent of services provided and in forecasting treatment resource requirements, update SAMHSA's Inventory of Substance Abuse Treatment Services (I-SATS), analyze general treatment services trends, and generate the National Directory of Drug and Alcohol Abuse Treatment Programs and its online equivalent, the Substance Abuse Treatment Facility Locator.

Data are collected on topics including facility operation, services offered (assessment, substance abuse therapy and counseling, testing, transitional, and ancillary), primary focus (substance abuse, mental health, both, general health, other), hotline operation, Opioid Treatment Programs and medication dispensed, languages in which treatment is provided, type of treatment provided, number of clients (total and under age 18), number of beds, types of payment accepted, sliding fee scale, special programs offered, facility accreditation and licensure/certification, and managed care agreements.