The purpose of this study was to assess the predictive validity of guidelines for allocating outpatients with an alcohol-use disorder to different levels of care in routine alcohol outpatient treatment facilities.
It was hypothesized that patients matched to the recommended level of care would have (a) better outcomes than patients treated at a less intensive level of care, and (b) outcomes equivalent to patients treated at a more intensive level of care.
Patients at two Dutch substance-abuse treatment centers who completed intake and were allocated at either a brief or standard outpatient treatment (n = 471) were followed prospectively to determine differential outcomes for those who were and were not treated at the recommended level of car. The former patients were allocated according to an algorithm based on their treatment history, addiction severity, psychiatric impairment and social stability at baseline. 52.9% of the original sample was successfully contacted for follow-up 11 months after intake.
Outcome was measured in terms of self-reported alcohol use 30 days prior to follow up and changes in number of excessive and nonexcessive drinking days between intake and follow up.
Only 21% of the patients were matched to the level of care according to the guidelines.
Patients allocated to the recommended level of care did not have better outcomes than those treated at a less intensive level of care, but they had outcomes comparable to patients treated at a more intensive level of care.
The a priori allocation guidelines were followed for only a minority of the patients, and using them did not improve treatment outcome.
Further work is needed to improve the content of the treatment allocation guidelines.
Request Reprint E-Mail: m.j.merkx@amc.uva.nl
